christianity and modern thought. boston: american unitarian association. . entered according to act of congress, in the year , by the american unitarian association, in the office of the librarian of congress at washington. cambridge: press of john wilson and son. introduction. the following discourses were delivered in boston, at hollis-street church, on successive sunday evenings, and repeated at king's chapel on monday afternoons, during the winter of - , in response to an invitation of the executive committee of the american unitarian association, whose purpose was thus declared in the letter of invitation:-- "it is not proposed that the course shall be a merely popular one, to awaken the indifferent and interest them in familiar religious truths; but rather to meet the need of thoughtful people perplexed amid materialistic and sceptical tendencies of the time. nor is it desired simply to retrace in controversial method the beaten paths of sectarian or theological debate; but rather, in the interest of a free and enlightened christianity, to present freshly the positive affirmations of faith." the several discourses were prepared independently, without conference or concerted plan; and for their statements and opinions the responsibility rests solely with their respective authors. contents. page introduction v break between modern thought and ancient faith and worship by henry w. bellows. a true theology the basis of human progress by james freeman clarke. the rise and decline of the romish church by athanase coquerel, fils. selfhood and sacrifice by orville dewey. the relation of jesus to the present age by charles carroll everett. the mythical element in the new testament by frederic henry hedge. the place of mind in nature and intuition in man by james martineau. the relations of ethics and theology by andrew p. peabody. christianity: what it is not, and what it is by g. vance smith. the aim and hope of jesus by oliver stearns. the break between modern thought and ancient faith and worship. by henry w. bellows. there is evidently a growing disrelish, in an important portion of the people of our time, for professional religion, technical piety, and theological faith. these were always unpopular with youth, and people in the flush of life and spirits; but this was because they called attention to grave and serious things; and youth, as a rule, does not like even the shadow of truth and duty to fall too early or too steadily upon it. restraint, care, thoughtfulness, it resists as long as it can; and none who recall their own eager love of pleasure and gayety, in the spring-time of life, can find much difficulty in understanding or excusing it. of course, too, careless, self-indulgent, sensual, and frivolous people have always disliked the gravity, and the faith and customs, of people professing religion, and exhibiting special seriousness. they were a reproach and a painful reminder to them, and must be partially stripped of their reproving sanctity, by ridicule, charges of hypocrisy, and hints of contempt. but, all the while this was going on, the youth and frivolity of previous generations expected the time to come when they must surrender their carelessness, and be converted; and even the worldly and scoffing shook in their secret hearts at the very doctrines and the very piety they caricatured. the old relations of master and pupil describe almost exactly the feeling which youth and levity held toward instituted faith and piety, a generation or two since. the schoolboy, indeed, still thinks himself at liberty to call his master nick-names, to play tricks upon him, and to treat with great levity, among his fellow-pupils, all the teaching and all the rules of the school. but he nevertheless sincerely respects his teacher; believes in him and in his teachings, and expects to derive an indispensable benefit from them, in preparing himself for his coming career. so it was with the religion and piety of our fathers. the people profoundly respected the creed, the elders in piety, and the eminent saints in profession and practice, although the young had their jibes and jests, their resistance to church-going, their laugh at sanctimony; and the majority of people then, as now, were not fond of the restraints of piety, or the exercises of devotion. but the alienation to which i wish to draw your attention now is something quite different from the natural opposition of the young to serious thoughts; or the gay, to grave matters; or those absorbed in the present, to what belongs to the future; or of those charmed with the use of their lower or more superficial faculties and feelings, to the suggestions and demands of their deeper and nobler nature. that the body should not readily and without a struggle submit to the mind; that thoughtlessness should not easily be turned into thoughtfulness; that youth should not readily consent to wear the moral costume of maturity, or the feelings and habits of riper years; that the active, fresh, curious creature, who has just got this world with its gay colors in his eye, should not be much attracted by spiritual visions, and should find his earthly loves and companions more fascinating than the communion of saints or the sacred intercourse of prayer,--all this, to say the least of it, is very explicable, and belongs to all generations, and hardly discourages the experienced mind, more than the faults and follies of the nursery the wise mother who has successfully carried many older children through them all. it is quite another kind of antipathy and disrelish which marks our time. it is not confined to youth, nor traceable to levity and thoughtlessness. the church and its creed on one side, the world and its practical faith on the other, seem now no longer to stand in the relation of revered teachers and dull or reluctant pupils; of seriousness, avoided by levity; of authoritative truth, questioned by bold error; of established and instituted faith, provoking the criticisms of impatience, caprice, ignorance, or folly. an antagonism has arisen between them as of oil and water,--a separation which is neither due to period of life, nor stage of intelligence, nor even to worth of character; which does not separate youth from maturity, the thoughtless from the thinking, the bad from the good, but divides the creeds, observances, and professions of christians, from a large body of people who insist that after a certain fashion they are christians too, and yet will have little or nothing to do with professions of faith, or pious pretensions, or religious ways of feeling, talking, or acting. clearly, it would not do any longer to say that the worth and virtue and influence of society, in this country, could be estimated by the number of communicants in the churches, by the degree of credit still given to any of the long-believed theological dogmas, deemed in the last generation the sheet-anchors of the state. we all know hundreds of people, who could sign no creed, and give no theological account of their faith, whom we do not count as necessarily less worthy in the sight of god or man than many who have no difficulty in saying the whole athanasian creed. nay, there are some millions of people in this country, not the least intelligent or useful citizens in all cases, who never enter a church-door. a generation or two back, you would safely have pronounced all these absentees to be worldly, careless people, infidels, atheists, scoffers. do you expect to find them so now? some, of course, but not the majority. indeed, you would find a great many of these people supporting churches, to which their families go, and not themselves; or to which others go, for whom they are glad to provide the opportunity. they would tell you, if they could discriminate their own thoughts, something like this: "public worship and church organizations, and creeds and catechisms, and sermons and ceremonies, and public prayers and praises, are doubtless very good things, and very useful up to a certain stage of intelligence, and for a certain kind of character. but we have discovered that the real truth and the real virtue of what people have been misnaming religion is a much larger, freer, and more interesting thing than churches, creeds, ministers, and saints seem to think it. here is this present life, full of occupations and earnest struggles and great instructions. here is this planet, not a thousandth part known, and yet intensely provoking to intelligent curiosity; and science is now every day taking a fresh and an ever bolder look into it; and we want our sundays to follow these things up. that is our idea of worship. then, again, the greatest philosophers are now writing out their freest, finest thoughts about our nature; and, if we go to church, we are likely to find some fanatical and narrow-minded minister warning us against reading or heeding what these great men say; and it is a thousand times fresher and grander and more credible than what he says himself! why, the very newspapers, the earnest and well-edited ones, contain more instruction, more warning, more to interest the thoughtful mind, than the best sermons; and why should a thinking man, who needs to keep up with the times, and means to have his own thoughts free, go where duty or custom makes it common to frown upon inquiry, doubt, and speculation,--to shut out knowledge and testimony, and stamp a man with a special type of thinking or professing?" for there are, you observe,--in justice to these thoughts,--these two instructors to choose between in our generation. here is the church, with its ecclesiastical usages and its pious exhortations; its sunday school for the children; its devotional meeting in the week, and its sunday teaching and worship,--all acknowledged as good for those that like them, and are willing to accept what people thought or believed was true a hundred or five hundred years ago; and here is the modern press, with the wonderful profusion of earnest and able books, cheap and attractive, and treating boldly all subjects of immediate and of permanent interest; and here are the reviews, quarterly and monthly, that now compress into themselves and popularize all that these books contain, and furnish critical notices of them; and then, again, here are the newspapers, wonderful in variety and ability, that hint at, suggest, and bring home all the new and fresh thoughts of the time. and the marvel is, that most of these books, reviews, papers, are in the interest of, and seem inspired by, something larger, freer, fresher, truer, than what the churches and the creeds are urging. thus church religion and general culture do not play any longer into each other's hands. if you believe what the men of science, the philosophers, the poets and critics, believe, you cannot believe, except in a very general way, in what the creeds and churches commonly profess. accordingly, the professors in college, the physicians, the teachers, the scientists, the reformers, the politicians, the newspaper men, the reviewers, the authors, are seldom professing christians, or even church-goers; and if they do go to church from motives of interest or example, they are free enough to confess in private that they do not much believe what they hear. assuming that this is a tolerably correct account--although doubtless exaggerated for pictorial effect--of the existing state of things among the reading and thinking class of this country, what is the real significance of it? is it as new as it seems? is it as threatening to the cause of religious faith as it seems? reduced to its most general terms, is it any thing more or other than this? the faith and worship of this generation, and the experience and culture of a portion of this generation, have temporarily fallen out; and, as in all similar quarrels, there is, for the time, helpless misunderstanding, mutual jealousy and misrepresentation. the faith and piety of the time pronounce the culture, the science, the progressive philanthropy, the politics, the higher education and advanced literature, to be godless and christless; and the culture of the age retaliates, perhaps, with still greater sincerity, in pronouncing the faith and worship of the time to be superstitious, antiquated, sentimental, and specially fitted only to people willing to be led by priests and hireling ministers. now, if this were a quarrel between experience and inexperience, between good and bad, between truth and falsehood, it would be easy to take sides. but faith and knowledge have both equal rights in humanity. people who are sincerely in love with knowledge and science and philosophy are not thereby made enemies of god or man; certainly are not to be discouraged and abused for their devotion to practical and scientific truth, their search for facts, their interest in the works of the creator, even if they are not possessed of what the church properly calls faith and piety. and, on the other hand, however shocked established faith and piety may naturally be by the handling which religion and its creeds and worship receive from modern inquisitors, ought the deeper believers to be seriously alarmed for the safety of its root or its healing leaves, on account of the shaking which the tree of life is now receiving? however slow science and culture may often show themselves to be in recognizing the fact, can any reasonable and impartial mind, acquainted with history or human nature, believe that faith itself is an inconstant or perishable factor in our nature? prayer a childish impulse, which clear-seeing manhood must put away? the conscience, not the representative of a holiness enthroned over the moral universe, but an artificial organ, which social convenience has developed, much like the overgrown liver in the strasburg goose? in short, who that considers the part that faith and worship have played in the history of the race, can doubt their essential and permanent place in human fortunes? the question of _some_ religion, of _some_ worship, for the people, does not seem debatable. the only alternative among nations has been a religion in which mystery, awe, and fear prevailed, clothing themselves in dread and bloody sacrifices, or else a religion in which more knowledge, more reason, more love, embodied themselves in a simpler and gentler ritual. the nations have had only a choice--not always a wholly voluntary one--between terrific superstitions and more or less reasonable religions. christianity has prevailed in civilized nations, since constantine, by accommodating its theological dogmas and external ritual to the needs of successive eras; beginning with coarser and more heathenish symbols, and running itself clearer and more clear, as the mind and taste and experience of the race have developed "sweetness and light." but does this make christianity only a human growth, and so predict a coming decay, which many seem to think has already begun? on the contrary, the decisive fact about christianity is, that, while its intellectual history is changing, its early records are in form fixed and permanent, and that its real progress has been uniformly a return towards its original simplicity. other faiths develop. it is we who develop under christianity, and are slowly changed unto the original likeness of christ. christ's statements, christ's character, christ's words, do not become antiquated. we are not called upon to explain away, as superstitions of the time, any of the _certain_ words he said, or thoughts he had, or commandments he left. true, there are critical embarrassments about the record, and room enough to question how it was made up; and we cannot always trust the reporters of that age, or our own. but when we get, as we certainly do get in hundreds of cases, at christ's own words; or when we really see--as by a hundred vistas, through all the _débris_ and rubbish of the age, we may see--the true person and bearing and spirit of jesus, we behold, we recognize, we know, a being who, transferred to this age, and placed in the centre of the choicest circle of saints and sages whom culture and science and wisdom could collect, would bear just the same exalted relation of superiority to them that he did to the fishermen and publicans and kings and high-priests and noble women and learned rabbis of his own day. we should not hesitate, any more than they did, to call him master and lord; to say, "to whom else shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." those, then, who fear that true culture, that science or philosophy boldly pushed, that learning and logic impartially applied,--whether in studying god's method in creation, or his method in revelation,--can injure permanently faith and piety, or endanger christianity, as a whole, must either think the religious wants of man very shallow or very artificial, or the providence of god very easily baffled, and the harmony of his word and works very badly matched. if there be in nature or in man, in earth or in our dust, in chemistry, astronomy, anthropology; in geology, the language of dead eras; or in language, the geology of buried races, any thing that disproves the existence and providence of a living god, the holiness and goodness and trustworthiness of his character; the moral and religious nature of man, his accountableness, his immortality; the divine beauty and sinless superiority of jesus christ, and the essential truth of his religion,--by all means let us know it! why should we allow ourselves to be beguiled by fables and false hopes and make-believes? but the faith of religious experience, the confidence of those who know and love and have become spiritually intimate with the gospel of jesus christ, is usually such that they would sooner mistrust their senses than their souls. they have found a moral and spiritual guidance, a food and medicine in their christian faith, which enables them calmly to say to criticism, to science, to culture, "we do not hold our faith, or practise our worship, by your leave, or at your mercy." faith leans first on the spiritual nature of man, and not on demonstrable science. it would not be faith, if it were only a sharper sight. it is insight, not sight. it springs from its own root, not primarily from the intellect. as we love our wives and children with something besides the judgment, or the logical faculty, so we love god with the heart, and not with the understanding. we stand erect, with open eyes, when we are seeking truth; we fall on our knees with closed eyelids, when we are seeking god! religion is not the rule of three, but the golden rule; it is not the major and minor premises and copula of logic, but the sacred instinct of the soul, which jesus christ has satisfied, and guided, and owned, and directed, in an inestimable way. but when faith and worship have taken this true and independent tone, let them not join the foolish bigots, who think that because faith rests on other foundations than science, therefore it owes nothing to science and culture, and can wholly separate its fortunes and future from them. true, _faith_ and _culture_, religion and science, in spite of their general and permanent agreement and connection, when they cannot get on honestly together, had better for the time separate; for they embarrass each other, and it is in their insulation that they sometimes ripen and prepare in separate crucible elements that are ultimately to blend in a finer compound than either ever knew before. thus faith, driving science and culture out of her cell, and closing the doors on fact and observation, wrapt in devotion, has sometimes caught visions of god through her purely spiritual atmosphere, which sages in their laboratories have never seen. the great religious inspirations have not come from scholars, but from seers; from men of soul, not men of sense. "how knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" said his contemporaries of christ. well, he knew no letters, but he had what letters never teach,--divine wisdom! he knew god, that end of knowledge; he knew man, that last of philosophy. faith therefore often recruits itself in a temporary divorce from science, just as romanism profitably drives her priests into periodical retreats for prayer and exclusive meditations on god and christ. it is beautiful to study even those humble and uninstructed christian sects, whose simple and implicit faith is protected, yes, and exalted, by their providential indifference to science or unacquaintance with speculative difficulties. it is not their ignorance that kindles their devotion, but it is faith's vitality, which in certain exceptional natures and times beams and glows most purely, fed only on its own sacred substance. when you have reached the inner kernel of a true moravian, or even a true catholic heart, and found a solid core of faith, unsupported by any other evidence than that which the scripture described in the words, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," you have gone far towards fathoming the holiest secret in our nature, the well of living water. and, on the other hand, how much better, both for faith and science, that science should, at a time like this, go without religious ends into physical or metaphysical pursuits, investigate, inquire, test, question, in absolute independence of theological or spiritual results. it is only when thus free and bold and uncommitted that her testimony is worth any thing. think of newton, meditating and exploring the solar system, in the simple love of truth, without let or hindrance from ecclesiastical intermeddlers, and compare him with galileo, lifting his telescope under the malediction of the priesthood of rome. no: let science be as free as light, as brave as sunbeams, as honest as photography! encourage her to chronicle her conclusions with fearless and unreproached fidelity. she will doubtless make many things which have been long associated with religion look foolish and incredible. but it is only so religion can shed some husks, and get rid of some embarrassments. it is, in short, only just such assaults and criticisms from science and experience that ever induces religion to strain out the flies from her honey; to dissociate what is accidental in faith from what is essential and permanent. and, when science and culture have gathered in the full harvest of this wonderful season of discovery and speculation, we may expect to find faith stripped of many garments, now worshipped, which ignorance and fear put upon her for protection and defence; but really strengthened in substance, by the free movements allowed her lungs, and the dropping of the useless load upon her back. then, too, science and philosophy will again resume their places at the feet of the master-principle in our nature, until again driven away, by new disagreements, to return again by the discovery of a finer harmony. self-culture will never supersede worship, more than golden lamps burning fragrant oils will ever supersede the sun; more than digging and hoeing and planting will supersede sunshine and rain from heaven. self-culture? yes: by all means, and in any amount, but not as an end. when people look to ornamental gardening for the crops that are to feed the famine-smitten world, and not to the pastures and prairies, as they lie in the light of the common sun, they will look to self-culture for the characters, the hearts, the souls that glorify god and lift and bless the world. "thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself." that is the irrepealable law of growth. "seek first the kingdom of god and his righteousness, and all other things shall be added unto you." worship, faith, duty, devotion to god, christ, humanity, to justice, freedom, truth,--these, and not self-culture, have lifted the race and the world. learn, acquire, cultivate, improve, develop yourselves, by art, music, reading, languages, study, science, experience, but do it all in seeking to know and love and serve god and man. seek to know christ, and you will learn more, indirectly, than though you sought all knowledge without this thirst. seek to know god, and you shall find all science and culture healthful, sacred, harmonious, satisfying, and devout. the break between modern thought and ancient creeds and worship, thus considered, though serious, and worth the utmost pains to heal, by all arts that do not conceal or salve over, without curing the wound, is not permanently discouraging to earnest and well-considered christian faith. nor are all the signs of the times one way. for--after all that has been said about the restless and dissatisfied condition of the critical and conscious thought of the time, and the scepticism of the learned, or the speculative class, or of the new thinkers born of the physical progress of the age, and the decay of worship in the literary and artistic, the editorial and poetical circles--it remains to be said, that, leaving this important and valuable body of people aside,--not badly employed, and not without personal warrant for their doubts and withdrawal from positive institutions,--there remains a mighty majority, on whom the christian religion and historical faith and the external church have a vigorous and unyielding hold; whose practical instincts and grand common-sense and hereditary experience anchor them safely in positive faith, while the scepticism raves without and blows itself clear, and passes over. christianity first addressed itself to common people, not to avoid criticism, but to secure the attention of the moral affections and the spiritual powers, instead of the meaner understanding. it has lived on the heart and conscience and needs and yearnings of the masses, from and to whom practical wisdom and fixed institutions and simple faith always come and always return. common sense is not the sense that is common, but the sense that is _in_ common. and popular faith is not the faith of private ignorance massed, but of that wisdom which alone enables ignorant people to find a basis for feelings and actions that all feel to be beyond and above their private ignorance or self-will. the common people were the first to hear christ gladly: they will be the last to hear any who deny him. it is easy to exaggerate the decline of modern faith, and to misread the tendencies of the time on which we have been dwelling. thus, paradox though it seem, it were just as true to say that more people are deliberately interested in christian faith and worship to-day than at any previous era in the history of our religion, as to asseverate that more people doubt and regret it than ever before. both statements are true; and they are reconciled only by the fact that it is only in this century that the claims of faith and worship have been popularly debated, or that the people were expected or allowed to have any independent opinion about them. the general soil of our humanity is for the first time surveyed and sown; and it is found that, with more _wheat_ than ever, there are also more _tares_. with more intelligent and convinced worshippers, there are more wilful or logical neglecters of worship; with more genuine believers, more sceptics; with more religious activity, more worldliness. without an army in the field, there will be no deserters; without a common currency of genuine coin, no counterfeits; without a formidable body of affirmers, few deniers. the positive institutions of christianity decline in one form, to spring into new life in other and better forms. doubtless, fourfold more money is expended to-day upon temples of worship than in what have been falsely called the ages of faith,--rather the ages of acquiescence. religion does not decline as a costly interest of humanity with the progress of doubt, freedom, intelligence, science, and economic development. it is a permanent and eternal want of man, and is always present, either as a vast, overshadowing superstition, or as a more or less intelligent faith. nowhere has it a stronger hold on society than in free america, which false prophets, with their faces to the past, muttered was about to become its grave. this busy, delving, utilitarian country, without a past, denied the influence of ruins and the memory of mythic founders, a land without mystery or poetry,--how could so tender and venerable a sentiment as reverence live in its garish day? how so sweet a nymph as piety kneel in its muddy marts of trade, or chant her prayers in its monotonous wilderness, ringing with the woodman's axe or the screeching saw? but now delegates of all the great religious bodies in the old world are visiting america, for religious instruction and inspiration. nowhere, it is confessed, is there to be found a people so generally interested in religion, ready to make so great sacrifices for it, or so deeply convinced that its principles and inspirations are at the root of all national prosperity. nowhere do churches and chapels spring up with such rapidity, and in such numbers; nowhere is the ministry as well supported, or its ministers as influential members of society; nowhere do plain men of business and intelligence, i do not say of science and philosophy, participate so freely in religious worship. and since all political compulsion has been taken off from the support of religion, and it has been made purely voluntary, its interests have received even more care. there is little doubt that the decline of religious establishments, the decay of priestly authority, the complete withdrawal of governmental patronage, the discrediting of the principle of irrational fear, the dispersion of false dogmas, the clearing up of superstition, the growth of toleration and charity, instead of weakening true faith or lessening public worship, will greatly increase and strengthen both. for it is not man's ignorance, weakness, and fears, that lead him most certainly to christian worship and faith. there is a worship and a faith of blindness and dread; but they have no tendency to develop a moral and spiritual sense of the character of god, or the character becoming man, or to survive the spread of general intelligence and mental courage. if thought, if courage of mind, if inquiry and investigation, if experience and learning and comprehensive grasp, if light and sound reason, and acquaintance with human nature, tended to abolish a living god from the heart and faith of man, to disprove the essential truths of christianity, or to make life and the human soul less sacred, aspiring, and religious, the world would be on its rapid way to atheism. but i maintain that science itself, philosophy and free inquiry, however divorced from religious institutions and dogmas, were never so humble, reverential, and christian as since they partly emancipated themselves from theological or ecclesiastical censure and suspicion. for ages science knelt to religion as she went to her crucible or laboratory, like the sexton passing the altar in a catholic cathedral, and with as little thought or feeling as he, simply to avert censure, while she pursued inquiries she knew would banish the superstition she pretended to honor. faith and knowledge were at opposite poles; religious truth and scientific truth, finally and permanently amenable to different standards. how dishonoring to religion was this distrust of light and knowledge! how faithless in god, this faith in him which could not bear investigation! how compromising to christianity, the sort of trust which refuses as blasphemous the application of all the tests and proofs which are required in the certification of every other important conviction! religious faith rests on the spiritual nature; but its basis is not less real for being undemonstrable, like the axioms of mathematics. that is not real faith which dares not investigate the grounds of its own being. it is irreverent to god, to affirm that he does not allow us to try his ways; to demand proofs of his existence and righteous government; to ask for the credentials of his alleged messengers; to doubt until we are rationally convinced. if the artificial feeling that faith is opposed to reason; religious truth to universal truth; that belief in unseen things is less rational or less capable of verification than the radical beliefs of the senses,--if these prejudices were sound, or not the reverse of true, the world would be on its inevitable way to universal infidelity and godless materialism. but is that the tendency of things? is it that religion is growing _less_ mystic? or only science more so? have not real and affecting mysteries been very much transferred for the time from theology to philosophy, from the priest to the professor? i doubt very much whether men of science are not more truly on their knees than men of superstition, in our days. never did such candor, such confessions of baffled insight, such a sense of inscrutable wisdom and power, such a feeling of awe and dependence, seem to prevail in science as now, when so many theologians are raising the eyebrow, and seeking to alarm the world at what they call the atheism of the most truth-loving, earnest, and noble men. i would sooner have the scepticism--reverent and honest and fearless--of these solemn and awed inquisitors in the inner shrines of nature, than the faith of self-bandaged priests, who are thinking to light the way to heaven with candles on the mid-day altar, or to keep faith in god alive only by processions in vestments of purple and gold. nor has christianity any thing permanently to fear from the disposition which now so largely prevails, to separate it from its accidents, its accretions, and its misrepresentations. the days have not long gone by when men were counted as entitled to little respect, if they did not wear side-swords and bag-wigs. you recollect how our benjamin franklin surprised, shocked, and then delighted all europe, by appearing at the court of france in plain citizen's clothes? religion, too, has had her court-dress, and her sounding court-titles, and official robes, and circuitous ceremonies. the world has felt horror-stricken whenever any brave and more believing spirit has ventured to ask the meaning of one of these theological tags and titles. but how much less wholesome is living water, if drunk out of a leaf, or the palm of one's hand, than if presented on a salver, in a curiously jewelled flagon, by a priest in livery? how much has theological ingenuity of statement and systematic divinity, which it takes the study of a life to understand, added to the power of the simplicity of christ as he unfolds himself in the sermon on the mount? yet, if any one has dared to be as simple as christ himself was in his own faith, he has been said to deny the lord that bought him. it has been called infidelity, to think christ meant only just what he said, and was understood to say, in his simple parables. you must believe something not less incredible and abstruse than the church trinity; something not less contrary to natural justice and common sense than the church vicarious atonement; something not less cruel and vindictive than the eternal misery of all who through ignorance, birth, or accident, or even perversity and pride, do not hear of, or do not accept, the blood of christ as their only hope of god's mercy and forgiveness, or you are no christian. now i hold these dogmas themselves to be unchristian in origin and influence, although held by many excellent christian men. i believe that they are the main obstacles with many honest, brave, and enlightened men in our day, to their interest in public worship; and that millions repudiate the church, and christianity, which is a different thing, simply because they suppose her to be responsible for these barnacles upon the sacred ship. it would be just as reasonable to hold the hudson river responsible for the filth the sewers of the city empty into it; or to hold the sun answerable for the changes in its beams, caused by the colored glass in church-windows. christianity, the christianity of christ, is simple, rational, intelligible, independent of, yet in perfect harmony,--if it be often an unknown harmony,--with philosophy, ethics, science; true, because from god, the god of nature as well as grace; true, because the transcript of self-evident and self-proving principles; true, because guaranteed by our nature; true, because of universal application, unimpeached by time or experience. it affirms the being and authority of a righteous, holy, and all-loving god, whom man can serve and love and worship because he is made in his image; can know, by studying himself; and to whom man is directly related by reason, conscience, and affections. it affirms divine science and worship to consist in obedience to god's laws, written on man's heart, and for ever urged by god's spirit. it affirms the present and persistent penalty, the inevitable consequences, of all moral and spiritual wrong-doing and disobedience; the present and future blessedness of well-doing and holiness. it sets forth jesus christ as the son of god and son of man,--appellations that, deeply considered, really mean the same thing,--the direct messenger, representative, and plenipotentiary of god,--his perfect moral image. it insists upon men's putting themselves to school to christ, honoring, loving, and following him; forming themselves into classes,--another name for churches,--and by prayer, meditation, and study of his life, informing their minds and hearts, and shaping their wills in his likeness, which is the ideal of humanity. its clear object is to dignify and ennoble man, by presenting god as his father; to show him what his nature is capable of, by exhibiting christ in the loveliness, sanctity, and power of his awful yet winning beauty; to make him ashamed of his own sins, and afraid of sin, by arousing moral sensibility in his heart; safely to fence in his path by beautiful and sacred customs,--the tender, simple rites of baptism and communion; the duty of daily prayer, the use of the scriptures, and respect for the lord's day. here is a christianity without dogmatic entanglement; plain, direct, earnest, simple, defensible, intelligible to a child, yet deep enough to exhaust a life's study. for it is the simplicities of religion that are the permanent and glorious mysteries that never tire. they draw our childhood's wonder, our manly reverence, and age's unquenched curiosity and awe. do we ever tire of the stars, or the horizon, or the blue sky, or the dawn, or the sunset, or running water, or natural gems? do we ever tire of the thought of a holy, all-wise, all-good spirit of spirits, our god and our father, or of hearing of the reverence and trust, the obedience and the love, due to him? do we ever tire of jesus christ, considered as the sinless image, within human limitations, of god's love and truth and mercy and purity? do we ever tire of hearing the wondrous story of his obedient, disinterested, and exalted life and sacrifice? or of the call to follow his graces and copy his perfections into our own hearts and lives? are we ever weary of hearing of the blessed hope of immortality, with the comfortable expectation of throwing off the burden of our flesh, and winging our way in spiritual freedom nearer to god and the light of our master's face? who can exhaust, who can add to, the real force and attraction and fulness of those truths and promises? truly received, they grow with every day's contemplation and use; they fill the soul with an increasing awe and joy; they prove only less common-place as they are more nearly approached, more copious as they are more drawn upon, and more sacred as they are more familiar. it is the common, simple, universal truths that are the great, inexhaustible, powerful, and never-wearying truths. but doubtless it requires courage, personal conviction, and self-watchfulness, to maintain personal piety or religious institutions under free and enlightened conditions, when they are just beginning. when sacramental mysteries are exploded, when the official sanctity of the ministry is disowned, when the technical and dogmatic conditions of acceptance with god are abandoned, when every man's right of private judgment is confessed, when common sense is invited into the inner court of faith, when every man is confessed to be a king and a priest in that temple of god which he finds in his own body and soul, when real, genuine goodness is owned as the equivalent of religion, then it is evident that the support of religious institutions, of public worship, of the church and the ordinances, must appeal to something besides the ignorance, the fears, the superstitions, the traditions of the christian world. they must fall back on the practical convictions men entertain of their intrinsic importance. they must commend themselves to the sober, plain, and rational judgment of men of courage, reflection, and observation. they fall into the same category with a government based not on the divine right of kings, or the usages of past generations, the artificial distinctions of ranks and classes, owing fealty each to that which is socially above itself, but resting on the consent of the governed, and deriving its authority and its support from the sense of its usefulness and necessity. we have not yet achieved fully, in this country, the passage of the people over from the old world status of _subjects_ to the new world status of _citizens_. we are in the midst of the glorious struggle for a state, a national government, which rests securely on the love and service of hearts that have created it, and maintain and defend it on purely rational and intelligible grounds. it is so new, so advanced, so sublime an undertaking, that we often falter and faint, as if man were not good enough, nor reasonable enough, to be entitled to such a government. we often doubt if we can bear the dilution which the public virtue and good sense in our native community suffers from the flood of ignorance and political superstition coming with emigrants from other and coarser states of society and civil organizations. we are not half alive to the glory and grandeur of the experiment of free political institutions, and do not press with the zeal we ought the general education, the political training, the moral discipline, which can alone save the state, when it has no foundation but the good-will, the respect, and the practical valuation of the people. but is the state or the nation ever so truly divine as when it is owned as the voice of god, calling all the people to maintain equal justice, to recognize universal interests, to embody christian ethics in public law? and despite our local mortifications and occasional misgivings, what nation is now so strong and firm, what government so confident and so promising, as our own? what but freedom, fidelity to rational principles and ideal justice, give it this strength? what is it, on the other hand, but traditions that represent the ignorance and accidents and injustice of former ages,--what is it but authority usurped and then consecrated, social superstitions hardened into political creeds,--that is now proving the weakness and peril of european nationalities, and imperial or monarchical governments? knowledge, science, literature, progress, truth, liberty, become sooner or later the enemies of all governments, and all social institutions, not founded in abstract justice and equal rights. yet how fearful the transition! who can contemplate the downfall of the french empire, and then look at the architects of the new republic, working in the crude material of a priest-ridden or unschooled populace, without dismay? yet the process is inevitable. democratic ideas are abroad: they are in the air. they corrode all the base metal they touch; and thrones and titles, and legalized classes, and exceptional prerogatives, are predestined to a rapid disintegration. how blessed the nation that has transferred its political homage from traditions to principles; from men or families, to rights and duties; from a compromise with ancient inequality and wrong, to an affirmation of universal justice and right! yet never had a people so grave and so constant and so serious duties as we have. and there is nothing in our principles or government that _must_ save our country, in spite of the failure of political virtue, intelligence, and devotion, in our private citizens. god has buried many republics, because the people were unworthy of them. their failure was no disproof of the principle involved, but only an evidence that the people fell wholly below their privileges and ideas. america may add another to this list of failures, but can do nothing to discredit the truth and glory and final triumph of the democratic idea. i do not believe we shall fail; on the contrary, i have an increasing faith in the sense and virtue and ability of the people of this country. but the success of american political institutions depends very much on the success of the christian and religious institutions that match them, and are alone adapted to them. we cannot long guarantee religious institutions, in a country of free schools, public lyceums, unlicensed newspapers, unimpeded inquiry, and absolute religious equality, if they do not rest on grounds of reason and experience and sober truth. mere authority, mere ecclesiasticism, mere sacred usages, mere mystery, or mere dogmatism, will not long protect the creeds and formularies of the church. they are undergoing a species of dry-rot, like to that which the rafters of my own church lately suffered from the confinement and unventilated bondage in iron boxes in which their ends had been placed for greater security. they wanted air and light, and more confidence in their inherent soundness; and, if they had been permitted it, they would have lasted a hundred years. it is precisely so with the christian religion, boxed up in creeds. it grows musty, worm-eaten, and finally loses its life and hold. a certain timid and constitutionally religious portion of the community will cherish any creed or usage which is time-honored; and the less robust and decisive minds of the time will rally about what is established and venerable, however out of date, incredible, or irrational. but it is what is going on in the independent and free mind of the common people, that should have our most serious regard. what is the faith of the fairly educated young men and women who are now springing up in america? certainly, it is not, in the more gifted or the most thoughtful part of it, in sympathy with any form of sacramental or dogmatic christianity. it is not trinitarian; it is not biblical; it is not technical. it is hardly christian! it is bold, independent, inquisitive, questioning every thing, and resolute in its rights of opinion. it is alienated from church and worship to a great degree. it suspects the importance of religious institutions, and reads and thinks and worships in books of poetry and philosophy. a timid heart might easily grow alarmed at the symptoms, and think that irreligion, and decay of worship and fellowship in the christian church, were upon us. but sad and discouraging as the present symptoms are to many, i see more to hope than fear in these tendencies. they are a rebuke to formal and technical theology,--to mere ecclesiasticism, to outworn ways. they are bringing a violent assault upon the hard crust of a stifling belief, of which the world must get rid before the gospel of christ can emerge, and be received in its primitive simplicity. it is the only way in which faith is ever purified,--by doubt and denial. the gospel requires a new statement. it must come out of its ecclesiastical bulwarks. it must abandon its claim to any other kind of judgment than all other truth claims and allows. it must place itself by the side of science, experience, and philosophy, and defy their tests. it must invite the most rigid investigation. it must claim its foundations in eternal truth. it must prove its efficiency, not with the weak, but the strong; not with the ignorant, but the learned; not with the bound, but the free. and then it will recover its lost ground, and take a stronger and diviner position than it ever had before. this is the work that liberal christianity has in hand; a difficult, slow, and often discouraging work, but one that is intensely patriotic, intensely practical, intensely necessary. that which was the mere fortress into which the enlightened and free-minded people of massachusetts fled for refuge from ecclesiastical tyranny, a half-century ago,--unitarianism,--is now become a recognized crusade for religious liberty for the american people. the liberty is coming fast enough, and surely enough; but will the worship, will the christian seriousness, will the fellowship of faith, will the piety that gives aromatic beauty as well as health to the soul, come with it? if it were not to come, liberty would be only license and secularity and worldliness. every firm, well-ordered, earnest and religious congregation of the liberal faith; exhibiting stableness, order, solemnity; doing religious work among the poor, and cultivating piety in its own youth; making sacrifices to its own ideas, and upholding its own worship,--is an argument of the most solid kind, an example of contagious power, an encouragement of priceless cheer, for those who think that christian liberty necessarily leads to license and decay of worship; or that christ is less revered and loved and trusted when he is accepted in the derived and dependent character he claimed,--the only tenable, rational, possible character in which a century hence he can be received by any unsuperstitious persons. we have a sacred privilege, a glorious opportunity. we only need to show ourselves warm, earnest, united, attached to worship, fruitful in piety, devoted to good works, zealous for god's glory and man's redemption, sincere, humble, yet rational and free followers of christ, to win an immense victory for the gospel in this inquiring and doubting age. i have no great _immediate_ hopes, but hopes beyond expression in the gracious development of another generation. i bate not a jot of heart or hope that absolute liberty in religion will favor the growth of piety, as much as political freedom has favored the growth of order and peace and prosperity. oh! not a thousandth part the power of christian truth and righteousness has yet been shown in the world. the love of god, the love of man, have only begun their glorious mission. christ yet waits for his true throne. humanity is just come of age, and, with some wild festivity, is claiming its heritage. but god is with and over it; and jesus christ is its inspirer and guide. he will not lose his headship. he will be more followed when less worshipped; more truly loved when less idolized; more triumphant when more clearly understood! darkness, wrath, threats, enchantments, sacraments, prostrations, humiliations of reason, emotional transports, affectations of belief, belief for its own sake,--none of these things are truly favorable to christ's kingdom or the glory of his gospel. god is light, and in him is no darkness at all. christ is the sun of righteousness. when reason, conscience, affection, rule the world; when love and justice, and mild and tender views of life and humanity, of god and christ, displace the cruel terrors and superstitions that have survived the social and political meliorations of the age, we shall begin to see that love is the fulfilling of the law, and liberty of thought the greatest friend of worship, the finest result of christ's coming, and the throne from which he commands the whole human heart and history. a true theology the basis of human progress. by james freeman clarke. the subject of the present lecture is "a true theology the basis of human progress." and, in order to strike the key-note, and to indicate the object at which i aim, i will read four or five passages from the new testament, which describe such a theology in its spirit and root. the apostle paul says:[ ] "i count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing i do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, i press toward the mark." so he declares himself a progressive christian. [footnote : phil. iii. .] again he says:[ ] "we know in part, and we prophesy [or teach] in part. but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." so he declares that all intellectual statements, his own included, are relative and provisional. he is here speaking, doubtless, not of rational insights, but of the insight when elaborated by the intellect into a statement; not of intuitional knowledge, but that which comes from reflection. in regard to all such propositions, he would accept the modern doctrine of the relativity of knowledge; thus cutting up by the roots the poisonous weed of bigotry. [footnote : cor. xiii. , .] again: "brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit, in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men."[ ] he thus requires and authorizes a manly, intelligent theology. [footnote : cor. xiv. .] again: "who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."[ ] he here rejects the theology of the letter, including the doctrine of literal inspiration. [footnote : cor. iii. .] again: "god hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."[ ] [footnote : tim. i. .] my thesis to-night is not a truism; my argument is not unnecessary or uncalled for. nothing is more common than to undervalue the importance of theology; to regard it as having no bearing on life, no influence on human progress, no causative power in regard to civilization. mr. buckle, one of the most recent english philosophical historians, contends that theology is the result rather than the cause of national character; that it is merely symptomatic of the condition of a people. if they are in a good condition, they have a good theology; if in a bad condition, a bad one. he even thinks it owing to a mistaken zeal that christians try to propagate their religion, because he believes that savages cannot become christians. civilization, mr. buckle supposes, depends greatly upon soil, upon climate, upon food, upon the trade-winds; but not much upon religious ideas. he says that, in england, "theological interests have long ceased to be supreme." "the time for these things has passed by." and this is also a very common opinion among ourselves. many reformers have a notion that we have done with theology, that we can do without it. some men of science tell us that theology has nothing to do with the advance of civilization, but that this comes from discovery in the sphere of physical science. but i believe that the one thing which retards the progress of reform is a false philosophy concerning god and man, a false view of god's ideas concerning this world; and that the one thing needful for human progress is a deeper, higher, broader view of god and his ways. and i hope to be able to show some grounds for this opinion. the religious instinct in man is universal. some individuals and some races possess more of it, and others less; but the history of mankind shows that religion in some form is one of the most indestructible elements of human nature. but whether this religious instinct shall appear as faith or as fanaticism; whether it shall be a blind enthusiasm or an intelligent conviction; whether it shall be a tormenting superstition or a consoling peace; whether it shall lead to cruel persecutions or to heavenly benevolence; all this, and more, depends on theology. religion is a blind instinct: the ideas of god, man, duty, destiny, which determine its development, constitute theology. the same law holds concerning conscience and ethics. conscience in the form of a moral instinct is universal in man. in every human breast there is a conviction that something is right and something wrong; but what that right and wrong is depends on ethics. in every language of man, there are words which imply ought and ought not, duty, responsibility, merit, and guilt. but what men believe they ought to do, or ought not to do,--that depends on the education of their conscience; that is, on their ethics. conscience, like religion, is man's strength, and his weakness. conscience makes cowards of us all; but it is the strong-siding champion which makes heroes of us all. savages are cruel, pirates are cruel; but they cannot be as cruel as a good man, with a misguided conscience. the most savage heart has some touch of human kindness left in it, which nothing can quite conquer,--nothing but conscience. that can make man as hard as alpine rock, as cold as greenland ice. the torture-rooms and _autos da fe_ of the inquisition surpass the cruelties of the north american indian. the cruelties of instinct are faint compared with the cruelties of conscience. now what guides conscience to good or to evil? theology, in the form of ethics, is the guide of conscience. for, as soon as man believes in a god, he believes in the authority of his god to direct and control his actions. whatever his god tells him to do must be right for him to do. therefore religion in its inward form is either a debasing and tormenting superstition or a glad faith, according to the theology with which it is associated. and religion, in its outward form, is either an impure and cruel despotism or an elevating morality, according to the idea of god and duty which guide it; that is, according to its associated theology. some persons, like lucretius, seeing the evils of superstition, bigotry, and fanaticism, and perceiving that these have their root in religion, have endeavored to uproot religion itself. but could this be effected, which is impossible, it would be like wishing to get rid of the atmosphere, because it is sometimes subject to tempests, and sometimes infected with malaria. religion is the atmosphere of the soul, necessary to the healthful action of its life, to be purified, but not renounced. every one has a theology, who has even a vague idea of a god; and every one has this who has an idea of something higher and better than himself, higher and better than any of his fellow-men. the atheist therefore may have a god, though he does not call him so. for god is not a word, not a sound: he is the infinite reality which we see, more or less dimly, more or less truly, rising above us, and above all our race. the nature of this ideal determines for each of us what we believe to be right or wrong; and so it is that our theology rules our conscience, and that our conscience determines with more or less supremacy the tendency and stress of our life. no one can look at the history of the human race without seeing what an immense influence religion has had in human affairs. every race or nation which has left its mark on human progress has itself been under the commanding control of some great religion. the ancient civilization of india was penetrated to the core by the institutions of brahmanism; the grand development of egyptian knowledge was guided by its priesthood; the culture of china has been the meek disciple of confucius for two thousand years. whenever any nation emerges out of darkness into light,--assyria, persia, greece, or rome,--it comes guided and inspired by some mighty religion. the testimony of history is that religion is the most potent of all the powers which move and govern human action. such is the story of the past. how is it at the present time? has mankind outgrown the influence of religion to-day? has the spread of knowledge, the advance of science, the development of literature, art, culture, weakened its power in christendom? never was there so much of time, thought, effort, wealth, consecrated to the christian church as there is now. both branches of that church, the catholic and protestant, are probably stronger to-day than they ever were before. some few persons can live apart from religious institutions; but mankind cannot dispense with religion, and they need it organized into a church or churches. religion is a great power, and will remain so. but what is to determine the character of this power? it may impede progress or advance it; it may encourage thought or repress it; it may diffuse knowledge or limit it; it may make men free or hold them as slaves; it may be a generous, manly, free, and moral religion or a narrow, bigoted, intolerant, fanatical, sectarian, persecuting superstition. it has been both: it is both to-day. what is to decide which it shall be? i answer, its theology; the views it holds concerning god, man, duty, immortality, the way and the means of salvation. religion is an immense power: how that power is to be directed depends on theology. proceeding then with my theme, i shall endeavor to show how false ideas in theology tend to check the progress of humanity, and afterward how true ideas always carry mankind onward along an ascending path of improvement. but first let me say that my criticism is of ideas, not of sects, churches, nor individuals. by a true theology, i mean neither a unitarian nor a trinitarian theology, neither a catholic nor a protestant theology. i do not mean calvinism nor arminianism. i have nothing to say concerning these distinctions, however important they may be; and i, for one, consider them important. but i refer to a distinction more important still, lying back of these distinctions, lying beneath them; a difference not of opinions so much as of ideas and spirit. by a true theology, i mean a manly theology, as opposed to a childish one; a free, as opposed to a servile one; a generous, as opposed to a selfish one; a reasonable and intelligent theology, as opposed to a superstitious one. by a true theology, i mean one which regards god as a father, and man as a brother; which looks upon this life as a preparation for a higher; which believes that god gives us freedom, inspires our reason, and is the author of whatever is generous, self-forgetting, and noble. i find something of this theology in all sects and churches; from the roman catholic at one extreme, to the universalists and unitarians, the spiritualists and come-outers, at the other. and the opposite, the false theology, dishonorable to god, degrading to man, i find in all sects, and accompanying all creeds. and if i shall show, as truth compels me to show, that certain parties and persons are specially exposed to danger in one or another direction, i wish distinctly to state my belief that sincere and earnest men continually rise above the contagion of their position, and live untainted in an atmosphere which may have in it some special tendency to disease. one false idea in theology, which opposes human progress, is that pantheistic view of the deity, which loses sight of his personality, and conceives of him as a blind, infinite force, pervading all nature, and carrying on the universe, but without intelligence and without love. i know indeed that many views have been accused of being pantheism which are not. i do not believe in a god outside of the universe. i believe that he is one "in whom we live, and move, and have our being," one "from whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things,"--a perpetual creator, immanent in his world. but this view is quite consistent with a belief in his personal being, in his intelligent, conscious, loving purpose. without such a belief, hope dies out of the heart; and without hope mankind loses the energy which creates progress. unless we have an intelligent friend who governs the universe, it will seem to be moving blindly on toward no divine end; and this thought eats out the courage of the soul. in some poetical natures, as in the case of shelley, this pantheism takes the form of faith in a spirit of beauty, or love, or intellectual power, pervading all things. in more prosaic minds it becomes a belief in law, divorced from love. it turns the universe into a machine, worked by forces whose mutual action unfolds and carries on the magnificent cosmos. often this view comes, by way of a reaction, against an excessive personality of will. when the christian church speaks of the deity as an infinite power outside of the world, who creates it and carries it on according to some contrivance, of which his own glory is the end, it is perhaps natural that men should go to the other extreme and omit person, will, and design from their conception of deity. but thus they encounter other and opposite dangers. a gospel of mere law is no sufficient gospel. it teaches prudence, but omits providence. this utilitarian doctrine, which reduces every thing to law,--which makes the deity only a great order, not a father or friend,--would soon put a stop to the deepest spring of human progress. it takes faith and hope out of our life, and substitutes observation, calculation, and prudence. but the case of ecclesiastes and of faust teaches us what comes from knowledge emptied of faith. he who increases such knowledge increases sorrow. the unknown, wonderful father; the divine, mysterious infinite; the great supernatural power and beauty above nature, and above all,--these alone make life tolerable. without this brooding sense of a divine love, of a heaven beyond this world, of a providence guiding human affairs, men would not long have the heart to study, because all things would seem to be going nowhere. without such a heavenly friend to trust, such an immortal progress to hope, all things would seem to revolve in a circle. not to believe in something more than a god of law is to be without god in the world, is to be without hope. and hope is the spring of all progress, intellectual progress as well as all other. intellect, divorced from faith, at last kills intellect itself, by destroying its inner motive. it ends in a doctrine of despair, which cries continually, "what is the use?" and finds no answer. and so the soul dies the only death the soul can die,--the death of torpor and inaction. another false idea in theology, which interferes with human progress, is that of ecclesiastical authority in matters of faith and practice. when the church comes between the soul and god, and seeks to be its master rather than its servant, it takes from it that direct responsibility to god, which is one of the strongest motives for human effort. i know that this has always been done from a sincere desire, at any rate in the beginning, to save men from apparent dangers. the church has assumed authority, in order to do good with it. it has commanded men not to think for themselves, lest they should err. but god has meant that we should be liable to error, in order that we should learn to avoid it by increased strength. therefore christ said, "be not called rabbi; be not called masters, and call no man father on earth." his church, and his apostles, and he himself are here, not to be masters of the soul, but to be its servants. the roman catholic church is a great organization, which has gradually grown up, during a thousand years, the object of which has been to educate men in christian faith and christian conduct. it has sincerely endeavored to do this. but, unfortunately, it took a narrow view of christian education; supposing that it meant instruction and guidance, restraint and tuition, but not development. it has magnified its own authority, in order to produce docility in its pupils. it has not allowed them freedom of inquiry nor liberty of conscience. it has not said, like paul, "be not children in understanding;" on the contrary, it has preferred to keep them children, so as to guide them more easily. it has not said, with paul, "stand fast in the liberty wherewith christ has made you free;" for it has come to hate the very name of liberty. what is the result? you may read it to-day in france, where, as mr. coquerel tells us, that church has prevented the steady development of free institutions. it has always supported the principle of authority in the state, as the natural ally of authority in the church. there are so few republicans in france to-day, because the people have been educated by the church to blind submission. the priests are not to blame, the people are not: it is the roman catholic theology which is to blame. that theology teaches that the soul is saved by the reception of external sacraments, and not by vital, independent convictions of truth.[ ] [footnote : the proof of this may be amply found in the famous encyclical and syllabus of pius ix., dec. th, . in the syllabus he denounces as errors such propositions as the following:-- that "every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which guided by the light of reason, he holds to be true." § . that "one may well hope, at least, for the eternal salvation of those who are in no wise in the true church of christ." § . that "the church has no power to employ force." § . that "men emigrating to catholic countries should be permitted the public exercise of their own several forms of worship." § . that "the roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile and harmonize himself with progress, with liberalism, and with modern civilization." § .] or, if you wish another illustration of the same thing, look at new york. why have republican institutions in new york almost proved a failure? why were a few robbers able to take possession of the city, and plunder the citizens? because they could control the votes of the irish catholics in a mass; because this vast body of voters were unable to vote independently, or to understand the first duties of a free citizen. and why was this? not because the irish are naturally less intelligent than the new-englanders, the english, the germans. no; but the roman catholic church, which has had the supreme control over the irish conscience and intellect for a thousand years, has chosen to leave them uneducated. of course, the roman church, if it had pleased to do so, might long ago have made the irish nation as enlightened as any in europe. but its theology taught that education might lead them into heresy, and so take them out of the true church, and that ignorance _in_ the church was infinitely better than any amount of intellectual and moral culture _out_ of it. the fatal principle of roman catholic theology--"out of the true church there is no salvation"--has been the ruin of the irish nation for hundreds of years, and has very nearly entailed ruin on our own. do you wonder that the priests oppose our school system? if i were a roman catholic priest, i should oppose it too. should i run the risk of poisoning my child's body by accepting as a gift a little better food than that i am able to buy? and shall i risk the vastly greater evil of poisoning its soul, by allowing it to be tainted with heretical books and teachers in free schools? the roman catholic priest is consistent: it is the theology which teaches salvation by sacraments that is to blame. it is a theology which naturally, logically, necessarily, stands opposed to human progress. it says, "in order to be children in malice, you must also be children in understanding." when the protestant reformation came, it brought with it a manly theology. it put the bible into all men's hands, and asserted for each the right of private judgment and liberty of conscience. therefore the reformation was the cause of a great forward movement in human affairs. it awakened the intellect of mankind. science, literature, invention,--all were stimulated by it. it ran well, but something hindered. its reverence for the bible was its life; but, unfortunately, it soon fell into a worship of _the letter_. it taught a doctrine of verbal inspiration. it forgot the great saying of paul, "not of the letter, but the spirit; for the letter killeth." very soon that saying was fulfilled. reverence for the letter of the bible killed the spirit of the bible. that spirit is as free as air. it teaches no creed, it demands no blind acceptance of any dogma. it declares that where the spirit of the lord is, there is liberty. but the letter-theology has opposed nearly all the discoveries of science and all moral reforms with the words of the bible. it has set genesis against geology, and the book of psalms against the copernican system. because the book of genesis says the heavens and earth were made in six days, the letter-theology declared that the fossil shells were made in the rocks just as they are, or were dropped by pilgrims returning from the holy land. because the book of psalms said that "god hath established the earth so that it shall not be moved for ever," the letter-theology denied its daily and yearly revolution. because noah said, "cursed be canaan," the letter-theology defended the slavery of the negro. because noah also said, "he who sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," the letter-theology has defended capital punishment as a religious duty. because the jews were commanded to rest on the seventh day, the letter-theology forbids the boston public library to be open on the first. becoming ever more timid and more narrow, it clings to the letter of the common english translation, and the received text. it even shrinks from alterations which would give us the true letter of the bible, instead of the false one. some years ago the american bible society appointed a committee of the most learned scholars, from all orthodox denominations, to correct the text and the translation of our common english bible, so as to make it conform to the true hebrew and greek text. they were not to make a new translation, but merely to correct palpable, undoubted errors in the old one. they did their work; printed their corrected bible; laid it before the bible society,--_and that society refused to adopt it_. they had not the slightest doubt of its superior correctness; but they feared to make any change, lest others might be called for, and lest the faith of the community might be disturbed in the integrity of the scriptures. jesus had promised them the holy spirit to lead them into all truth, to take of his truth and show it to them; but they did not believe him. they preferred to anchor themselves to the words chosen by king james's translators than to be led by the spirit into any new truth. so it is that "the letter killeth." it stands in the way of progress. it keeps us from trusting in that ever-present spirit which is ready to inspire us all to-day, as it inspired prophets and apostles of old. it is an evidence not of faith, but of unbelief. thus, this false idea in theology, that inspiration rests in the letter of a book or a creed rather than in its spirit, is seen to be opposed to human progress. and then there is another theology which is opposed to human progress. it is the theology of fear. it speaks of hell rather than of heaven; it seeks to terrify rather than to encourage; it drives men by dread of danger rather than leads them by hope. its ruling idea is of stern, implacable justice; its god is a god of vengeance, who cannot pardon unless the full penalty of sin has been borne by some victim; whose mercy ceases at death; who can only forgive sin during our short human life, not after we have passed into the other world. to assuage his anger, or appease his justice, there must be devised some scheme of salvation, or plan of redemption. he cannot forgive of pure, free grace, and out of his boundless love. now those who hold such a theology as this will apply its spirit in human affairs. it will go into penal legislation, into the treatment of criminals. it will make punishment the chief idea, not reformation. jesus taught a boundless compassion, an infinite tenderness toward the sinful, the weak, the forlorn people of the world. he taught that the strong are to bear the burdens of the weak, the righteous to help the wicked, and that we are to overcome evil with good. when this principle is applied in human affairs, the great plague spots of society will disappear: intemperance, licentiousness, pauperism, crime, will be cured radically. society, purified from these poisons, will go forward to nobler achievements than have ever yet been dreamed of. but this principle will not be applied while the fear-theology prevails, and is thought more of than that of love. the progress of human society depends on the radical cure of these social evils, not their mere restraint. and they can only be cured by such a view of the divine holiness and the divine compassion as is taught by jesus in the sermon on the mount and the parable of the prodigal son; showing the root of crime in sin, and inspiring a profound faith in god's saving love. it may seem to some persons that i go too far in asserting that a true theology is at the basis of human progress. they may ascribe human progress to other causes,--to the advance of knowledge, to scientific discovery, to such inventions as printing, the steam-engine, the railroad, and the like. but i believe that spiritual ideas are at the root of all others. that which one thinks of god, duty, and immortality,--in short, his theology,--quickens or deadens his interest in every thing else. whatever arouses conscience, faith, and love, also awakens intellect, invention, science, and art. if there is nothing above this world or beyond this life; if we came from nothing and are going nowhere, what interest is there in the world? "let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." but if the world is full of god,--if we come from him and are going to him,--then it becomes everywhere intensely interesting, and we wish to know all about it. science has followed always in the steps of religion, and not the reverse. the vedas went before hindoo civilization; the zend-avesta led the way to that of persia; the oldest monuments of egypt attest the presence of religious ideas; the laws of moses preceded the reign of solomon; and that civilization which joined greeks, romans, goths, vandals, franks, and saxons in a common civilization, derived its cohesive power from the life of him whose idea was that love to man was another form of love to god. "the very word _humanity_," says max müller, "dates from christianity." no such idea, and therefore no such term, was found among men before christ came. but it may be said that these instances are from such obscure epochs that it is uncertain how far it was religion which acted on civilization. let us, then, take one or two instances, concerning which there is less uncertainty. in the deserts, and among the vast plains of the arabian peninsula, a race had slumbered inactive for twenty centuries. those nomad-semitic tribes had wandered to and fro, engaged in perpetual internecine warfare, fulfilling the prediction concerning ishmael, "he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him." no history, no civilization, no progress, no nationality, no unity, could be said to exist during that long period among these tribes. at length a man comes with a religious idea, a living, powerful conviction. he utters it, whether man will bear or forbear. he proclaims the unity and spirituality of god in spite of all opposition and persecution. at last his idea takes hold of the soul of this people. what is the result? they flame up into a mighty power; they are united into an irresistible force; they sweep over the world in a few decades of years; they develop a civilization superior to any other then extant. suddenly there springs up in their midst a new art, literature, and science. christendom, emasculated by an ecclesiastical and monastic theology, went to islam for freedom of thought, and found its best culture in the mohammedan universities of spain. bagdad, cairo, damascus, seville, cordova, became centres of light to the world. the german conquerors darkened the regions they overran: the mohammedans enlightened them. the caliphs and viziers patronized learning and endowed colleges, and some of their donations amounted to millions of dollars. libraries were collected. that of a single doctor was a load for four hundred camels. that of cairo contained a hundred thousand manuscripts, which were lent as freely as those in the boston public library. the college library of cordova had four hundred thousand. in these places grammar, logic, jurisprudence, the natural sciences, the philosophy of aristotle, were taught to students who flocked to them from all parts of christendom. many of the professors taught from memory: one man is reported to have been able to repeat three thousand poems. the saracens wrote treatises on geography, numismatics, medicine, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics. some, like avicenna, went through the whole circle of the sciences. the saracens invented pharmacy, surgery, chemistry. geber, in the eighth century, could prepare alcohol, sulphuric acid, nitric acid, corrosive sublimate, potash, and soda. their astronomers measured a degree of the earth's meridian near bagdad, and determined its circumference as twenty-four thousand miles. they found the length of the year, and calculated the obliquity of the ecliptic. roger bacon quotes their treatises on optics. trigonometry retains the form given it by the arabs, and they greatly improved algebra. we received from them our numerical characters. we all know the beauty and permanence of their architecture, and much of our musical knowledge is derived from them. they also made great progress in scientific agriculture and horticulture, in mining and the working of metals, in tanning and dying leather. damascus blades, morocco, enamelled steel, the manufacture and use of paper, the use of the pendulum, the manufacture of cotton, public libraries, a national police, rhyme in verse, and our arithmetic, all came to us from the arabs. all this fruitful intellectual life must be traced directly back to the theological impulse given by mohammed to the arab mind; for it can be derived from no other source. it is not quite so easy to define the precise influence on human progress given by the doctrines of the reformation; for, before luther, these were in the air. but no one can reasonably doubt that the demand for freedom of conscience and the right of private judgment in religion has led to liberty of thought, speech, action, in all other directions. to the war against papal and ecclesiastical authority in concerns of the soul we owe, how much no one can say, of civil freedom, popular sovereignty, the emancipation of man, the progress of the human mind. the theses of luther were the source of the declaration of independence. and modern science, with the great names of bacon and newton, descartes and leibnitz, goethe and humboldt, is the legitimate child of protestant theology. it is true that printing and maritime discoveries preceded luther. but these inventions came from the same ideas which took form in the lutheran reformation. the discovery of printing was a result, no less than a cause. it came because it was wanted; because men were wishing to communicate their thoughts more freely and widely than could be done by writing. if it had been discovered five hundred years before, it would have fallen dead, a sterile invention, leading to nothing. and so the steam-engine and the railroad did not come before, because they were not wanted: as soon as they were wanted they came. that which lies at the root of all these inventions is the wish of man to communicate easily and rapidly and widely with his brother-man; in other words, the sense of human brotherhood. material civilization, in all its parts and in all times, grows out of a spiritual root; and only faith leads to sight, only the things unseen and eternal create those which are seen and temporal. the two theologies at the present time which stand opposed to each other here are not calvinism and armenianism, not trinitarianism and unitarianism, not naturalism and supernaturalism. but they are the theology of discouragement and fear on one side, that of courage and hope on the other. the one thinks men must be driven to god by terror: the other seeks to attract them by love. the one has no faith in man, believes him wholly evil, believes sin to be the essential part of him. the other believes reason a divine light in the soul, and encourages it to act freely; trusts in his conscience enlightened by truth, and appeals to it confidently; relies on his heart, and seeks to inspire it with generous affections and disinterested love. that this theology of faith is to triumph over that of fear who can doubt? all the best thought, the deepest religion, the noblest aspiration of the age, flows in this direction. whether our handful of unitarian churches is ever to become a great multitude or not, i do not know; but i am sure that the spirit which inspired the soul of channing is to lead the future age, and make the churches which are to be. it is not now a question of unity or trinity, but something far deeper and much more important. while endeavoring to settle the logical terms of christ's divinity and humanity, we have been led up higher to the sight of the divine father and the human brotherhood. like saul, the son of kish, we went out to seek our father's asses, and have found a kingdom. we have recently been told about a boston theology. if there is any thing which deserves to be called a boston theology it is this doctrine of courage and hope. for it is shared by all the leading minds of all protestant denominations in this city. whatever eminent man comes here, no matter what he was when he came, finds himself, ere long, moving in this direction. the shackles of tradition and formality fall from his limbs, his eyes open to a new light; and he also becomes the happy herald of a new and better day. but a better word still, if one is wanted by which to localize these ideas, would be "the new england theology." for in every part of new england, from the beginning; in every one of the multiform sects, whose little spires and baby-house churches have spotted our barren and rocky hills, there have never failed men of this true apostolic succession; men believing in truth, and brave to utter it; believing that god loves truth better than falsehood; that he desires no one to tell a lie for his glory, or to speak words of wind in his behalf. with all our narrowness, our bigotry, our controversial bitterness, our persecuting zeal,--of which, god knows, we have had enough in new england,--the heart of new england has been always free, manly, and rational. yes: all the way from moses stuart to william ellery channing, all along the road from the lecture-rooms on the hills of andover to the tribune of theodore parker standing silent in the music hall, we have had this same brave element of a manly theology. this has been the handful of salt which has saved new england. hence it is that from the days of the early puritans, men and women, of harry vane, mrs. hutchinson, and roger williams, who stood up for the rights of the human soul against priestly tyranny, down through the ministers of the revolution who went with their people to the camp of washington at cambridge; down to the days of the beechers,--there has never failed a man in the new england pulpit to stand up for justice, freedom, and humanity. from our bare hill-tops new england men and women have looked up to the sky and seen it not always nor wholly black with superstitious clouds, but its infinite depths of blue interpenetrated evermore with the warm living light of a god of love. and therefore has new england been the fountain of progress, the fruitful parent of reforms, "the lovely mother of yet more lovely children." i have quoted several striking passages from the apostle paul. one expresses his longing for greater excellence, and declares that he forgets every thing already attained, and is reaching out for better things, for more truth and more love. another passage calls on his disciples to think for themselves, and be rational christians, not children in understanding. a third asserts that he is the minister of the spirit of the gospel, not its letter; a fourth that his religion is not one of fear, but of power and love and a sound mind; a fifth says, stand fast in freedom, and be liberal christians; and in other places he exhorts his brethren not to be narrow, nor bigoted; but to look at every thing beautiful, lovely, true, and good, no matter where they find it. but a little while before he said these things paul himself was one of the most narrow, and intolerant of men, opposed to progress wholly. what made this great change in his soul? it was that he had found a true theology. he learned from christ to trust simply in the divine love for pardon and salvation. he learned that god was the god of heathen and pagans as well as of jews. he learned that no ritual, ceremony, sacraments nor forms, but only the sight of god as a father and friend, can really save the soul from its diseases, and fill it with immortal life. a true theology was the secret of paul's immense progress, and of his wonderful power to awaken and convert others. there are many who suppose his theology obscure and severe. but when we penetrate the veil of jewish language, we find it one of freedom, of reason, of love, manly and tender, generous and intelligent. and this same theology passing in its essence from paul to augustine, to luther, to wesley, has always been the motive power of human civilization and human development. it has been the friend of free thought, liberty of conscience, and universal progress. i mean then by a true theology what paul meant when he said that god "has not given to us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." i mean what he said when he declared that god had made him a minister of the new testament, not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. i mean the theology which places the substance above the form; the thing before the name; which looks at the fact, not at the label. let us then, brethren, who call ourselves unitarians, be glad and grateful for the gospel of faith and hope which we enjoy. and let us give to others what we have ourselves received. if it be true, as we have tried to show, that human progress depends largely on a true theology we cannot help mankind more than by diffusing widely that which god has given us of his truth. freely you have received, freely give. you who have always lived in this community, surrounded by this mellow warm light of peace and freedom, do not know, cannot tell, what those suffer who have been taught from early childhood to fear god, and to distrust his light in their soul. do your part in spreading abroad the beams of a better day. give to the world that religion which is not a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. the rise and decline of the romish church. by athanase coquerel, fils. we live in a time of great and manifold changes. there is one church that for centuries has had her principal glory in asserting that she never has changed,--that she has at all times been exactly the same; but now she can hardly deny that either in accordance with her own will, or by the force of circumstances, very great changes have been wrought in her during the last few years. this, if it is true, must change also the nature, the system, the course of our controversy with her. the controversy between the two churches has not always, perhaps, been quite fair; and i should not like to be unfair to any adversary, whoever he may be. i should not be at ease in my conscience if i thought i had been unfair to any thing, especially to any thing religious, of whatever kind that religion may be; because in any religion, even the most imperfect, there is some aspiration from this earth to the sky; at least, from human souls to what they hope or believe to be god. and especially i could not pardon myself for being in any way unjust to that great church which has for centuries comforted and sustained a multitude of souls, and made them better and happier by her teachings. it is a christian church; and though i think that romish christianity has been in a very great degree alloyed, and mixed with grave errors,--and that is exactly what i wish to show,--yet, even under that veil of human errors, i recognize, i acknowledge, religion, christianity; and therefore i bow before it. i think, however, the changes that have taken place have not altered the essential character of the roman church. i think the changes that have happened are in conformity with the nature of that church; really were to be expected, and have nothing absolutely new in them. we might, perhaps, for a long time have seen them coming; and, if we had had foresight enough, we might have seen them from the very first times of that church. let us try to understand exactly what she is, what she means; let us try to see what there is under that name, "roman catholic church." she calls herself _catholic_, which means _universal_, and at the same time she has a local name. she is for the whole world; but at the same time she belongs to one city, and she bears the name of that city. why? this is the question; and though it seems only a question of name, i think we shall find by other ways that it is a question of facts. a second advance requires a change in our polemics with roman authority. a new science has been created in our time, which gives us better means of judging and studying other churches than our own; that science is called the comparative history of religions. in england max müller, in france burnouf, and in this country james freeman clarke, have compared the history of several religions. according to that comparative history, there are rules to be understood, to be acknowledged, in the development of religion. one of the rules which i think we can deduce from any comparative history of religion may be a startling one; and i will use a very homely comparison, to make myself perfectly understood. have you ever seen over a shop door a sign-board, where the name of the old shop-keeper was painted; and, when his successor came in, he had the same board covered with a new color, and his own name painted over the old one? but in time the new paint wore off, so that the old name reappeared under the new, in such a way that it became perhaps difficult to distinguish clearly which letters or lines belonged to the old, and which to the new. if this image appears somewhat too familiar, let me ask you if you remember what scholars call a palimpsest. sometimes in the middle ages it was difficult to find well-prepared parchment on which to write, and there were a great many monks who had nothing else to do--and it was the best use they could make of their time--but write or copy the bible or other religious books. when they found parchments where were copied the comedies and tragedies or other works of the heathen, they thought those were of very little use, and they could very easily have the writing on those parchments washed out, or covered over with white paint, in such a way that what had been written there was no more visible. then on those parchments they would write the bible, or sermons, or any document they thought useful. but the same thing happened then that happened with the sign-board,--the old writing reappeared after a time; the white covering spread over the page disappeared. and thus it happens that scholars are sometimes pondering for a long time over a page from a sermon of saint augustine, or john chrysostom, in which they find a verse from some comedy of terence or aristophanes; then they have perhaps some trouble in making out which is comedy and which is sermon, in distinguishing exactly what of the writing is old and what is new; and they have not always perfectly succeeded in that effort. now what we see in the sign-board we see also in the religion of the different churches, when a whole multitude, at one time, pass from one worship to another. then, against their will, and perhaps without their knowing it, they never come into the pale of their new church empty-handed: they carry with them a number of ideas, and habits, and turns of thought, which they had found in their old worship. and thus, after a time, when the fervor of the early days is over, you find in the new religion, or new worship, a real palimpsest: the old one is reappearing under the new. that makes itself manifest in a good many ways; sometimes in ways the most strange and unexpected. if you ask me, now, remembering this rule, what means the name, "roman catholic church," i answer: christianity absorbed into itself the roman empire; the roman empire became christian in a very few years, with a most rapid, with a most admirable sway; souls became conquered in large numbers; they became christian. but afterwards it appeared that they were not so perfectly unheathenized as they were thought to be, or as they thought themselves: many of their heathenish habits of life, thoughts, and customs remained even in their very worship. thus, after christianity had absorbed the roman world, it appeared that the roman world had penetrated and impregnated the whole of christianity; and this is the roman catholic church. she is christian, but she is full of the errors and superstitions that belonged to the old roman heathenish world. to understand what this means we must now try to comprehend what the old roman genius was. here i ask you not to confound it with the greek genius, which was in many respects highly superior, but which had, at that time, passed away in a large measure, and been replaced everywhere by the roman genius. what were the especial traits of character of the romans? the first, and a very striking one to those who have travelled and studied in those countries, is a most vivacious love for tradition. in rome, at the present day, you find things that are done, that are said, that are believed, that are liked, because they were two thousand years ago, without the people themselves having a very clear notion of it. their custom--and it is born in their flesh, and in their blood--is to look backwards, and to see in the past the motives and the precedents for their acts and for their belief. of this i could quote to you a number of instances. i will choose but one. the first time i was in rome i stopped, as every traveller does, on the _piazza del popolo_. in the midst of that square is an obelisk, and on one side of the pedestal of that obelisk is written: "this monument was brought to rome by the high pontiff, cæsar augustus." i went round the monument, and on the other face of the same pedestal i read: "this monument, brought to rome by the high pontiff, cæsar augustus, was placed in this square by the high pontiff, sextus v." and then i remembered that one of those high pontiffs was a roman heathen, an emperor; and that the other was a christian, was a priest, was a pope; and i was astonished, at first sight, to find on two faces of the same stone the same title given to those two representatives of very different religions. afterwards, i observed that this was no extraordinary case, but that in many other places in rome instances of the same kind were to be found. i inquired a little more deeply, perhaps, than some other travellers, into the meaning of those words. i asked myself why this pope, sextus v., and this emperor augustus, should each be called "pontiff." what is the meaning of "pontiff"? "pontiff" means bridge-maker, bridge-builder. why are they called in that way? here is the explanation of that fact. in the very first years of the existence of rome, at a time of which we have a very fabulous history, and but few existing monuments,--the little town of rome, not built on seven hills as is generally supposed; there are eleven of them now; then there were within the town less than seven even,--that little town had a great deal to fear from any enemy which should take one of the hills that were out of town, the janiculum, because the janiculum is higher than the others, and from that hill an enemy could very easily throw stones, fire, or any means of destruction, into the town. the janiculum was separated from the town by the tiber. then the first necessity for the defence of that little town of rome was to have a bridge. they had built a wooden bridge over the tiber, and a great point of interest to the town was that this bridge should be kept always in good order, so that at any moment troops could pass over it. then, with the special genius of the romans, of which we have other instances, they ordained, curiously enough, that the men who were a corporation to take care of that bridge should be sacred; that their function, necessary to the defence of the town, should be considered holy; that they should be priests, and the highest of them was called "the high bridge-maker." so it happened that there was in rome a corporation of bridge-makers, _pontifices_, of whom the head was the most sacred of all romans, because in those days his life, and the life of his companions, was deemed necessary to the safety of the town. things changed; very soon rome was large enough not to care about the janiculum; very soon rome conquered a part of italy, then the whole of italy, and finally almost the whole of the world. but when once something is done in rome, it remains done; when once a thing is said, it remains said, and is repeated; and thus it happened that the privilege of the bridge-makers' corporation, as beings sacred and holy, remained; and that privilege made everybody respect them; gave them a sort of moral power. then kings wanted to be made high bridge-makers; after kings, consuls; later, dictators; and, later, emperors themselves made themselves high bridge-makers, which meant the most sacred persons in the town. when constantine, who is generally called the first christian emperor,--but who was very far from being a real christian,--when constantine became nominally a christian, he did not leave off being the high bridge-maker of the heathen. he remained high priest of the heathen at the same time he was a christian emperor; and he found means, as well as his son after him, to keep the two functions. he acted on some occasions as high pontiff of the heathen; on other occasions, he called councils, presided over them, and sent them away when he had had enough of their presence; declared to the bishops that he was in some sense one of them, and acted to all intents and purposes as popes have acted after him. thus that title remained the type of whatever was most sacred in rome; and the bishop of rome, when an opportunity came,--when the title had been lost in rome by emperors,--took it up again. and thus we see on the same stone, at the present time in rome, the name of a high bridge-maker who is a heathen emperor, and the name of a high bridge-maker who is a pope, who is the head of the christian catholic church. thus you see an old superstition, an old local superstition, established with a political meaning, has survived itself, has survived centuries, has survived the downfall of heathenism, and is at the present time flourishing. you all know that the present pope is called _pontifex maximus_; it is his title; and everywhere you see, even on the pieces of money, that pio nono is _pontifex maximus_,--the great bridge-maker, which means the highest of all priests, of all sacred beings. thus has tradition, on that special spot, and in connection with the history and with the antiquities of that spot, established an authority unequalled anywhere else. though the roman catholic church is special to that place, and inherits the local habits and traditions, it pretends also to universality. this is, again, perfectly roman. the heathen romans had thought for centuries that the world was made to be conquered by them; that unity was represented by rome; that rome was all in all; and at the present time the pope, on thursday of every easter week, gives his solemn blessing, as you know, to the town first, and the world afterwards,--_urbi et orbi_. all countries, both hemispheres, all nations, all languages, are lost in that great unity. one town and one world, of which that town is the capital,--that was the wish, the hope of the heathenish romans for centuries; and that has been the aim, the assumption of papal rome for centuries also. when the present pope said, on a celebrated day, after enumerating the great acts of his pontificate, that he had created more bishoprics than any other pope, he was right. he has created, on his own authority, bishoprics in holland, in england, and in other countries; cut out bishoprics on the map of those countries. and he did that because, as pope, he is the spiritual sovereign of the world; because england and holland belong to him; because rome is the capital of the world; and he cuts off a part of any country, in america as well as in europe, in order to make of it the see or dominion of a bishop. the old roman idea was that nobody knew how to govern except romans. they assumed--and often, if an unscrupulous government was the best of all, if a tyrannical government was the best of all, they were right--to govern better, more wisely, and with more acute politics, than any other nation. they said, "other sciences, other arts, may be the share of other nations; but our share in the great things of this world is _government_." i hardly dare to speak latin in an english country, because i cannot pronounce latin as you do; but though i pronounce it as a frenchman, which is, perhaps, a shade less bad than to pronounce it as you do in england and america, you may guess what i mean when i recall to the memory of some of you the famous lines of virgil, where he says what must be, in this world, the function of the romans:-- "tu regere imperio populos, romane, memento; hæ tibi erunt artes." that is to say, "you romans! remember that you are made to govern the nations; that must be your office; all the arts come after this; this is the special roman art." i declare to you that at this present moment the clergy, the cardinals, the bishops, the prelates, the court of rome, think, and have never ceased to think, that they are the people to govern better than any other political body; and that the government of the world has been providentially reserved to that town; first, in a temporal way, for the heathen; and, secondly, in a spiritual way, for the christians, for the catholic countries of the world. and as they believe spiritual things are a great deal more important than temporal things, they think their government is a great deal more important, and greatly superior to any government of any kind. let us now turn back a little again, and try more fully to understand what the old roman genius was in its way of government. they governed by laws. you all have heard about roman law, about roman jurisprudence. it has been said for centuries that they were men who, better than any other, understood the art of making laws,--very precise, full of foresight, forgetting nothing, or few things, and giving in the most exact terms the decisions to be enforced in all possible cases, at least in all the cases with which they had occasion to deal. it is said also, it has always been said, that their laws were hard; but they accepted them, though hard: "_dura lex, sed lex_." and certainly there was something noble and good in this respect for law, whatever the law was: there was something just, really in the interest of nations, in this love of law. but at that time this love of law was accompanied by the fact that the law was exceedingly hard in a great number of cases. yet that hardness was in conformity with the general temperament of the nation at that time: the romans were hard. i have no time to stop to show you how different they were from the greeks; but you remember that when the greeks assembled in one of their great annual festivals, they heard music, they listened to poetry, they listened to the works of the historian; or they saw men run races, or engage in one of those contests that were not cruel, that were only displays of strength, agility, or training. that was the pleasure of the greeks in their annual festival. what did the romans do? you all know. they had immense amphitheatres where they assembled to see men kill one another. their pleasure was to see people die, to see people suffer, to see people maimed, and weltering in their blood: that was their favorite amusement. and ambitious men in that day secured votes by bringing lions, hyenas, and tigers, in large numbers, to rome, and by giving the people the diversion of seeing those animals killing men, devouring living men, women, and children, living christians, often. that was the punishment in fashion at that time: christian men, women, and children were killed, were devoured, were mangled before the eyes of the people, and for their pleasure. in their hardness they had a taste for the formal, precise execution of their law, whatever it might be. christianity came and swept away their abominable pleasures,--this cruelty, which was contrary to every human feeling; but the habit of a sort of hardness, in the infliction of the penalties of law, remained in rome more than it did in any other place. and this was allied to another feeling of a different nature, but which very well connected itself with it. i mean the roman love for the literal in every thing. they did not like to understand any thing as metaphorical, as poetry: they liked to take every thing literally; and it was in consequence of this characteristic of the roman mind that they were able to enforce their law. even if the result of what the law demanded was absurd, they maintained, for the honor of the law, that it must be literally understood, and literally executed; and they permitted none of those different ways of alleviating the hardships of the law that have been in other places not only allowed, but ordered, by those in command. this is of extreme importance. perhaps at first sight it does not strike you so, but it is. remember from what country christianity came. christianity came from the east, came from asia, came from the jews. the apostles, the first propagators of christianity, were oriental men, were jews. i have seen part of the levant, i have seen those very countries, and i can speak of it as a fact known for centuries, that the people of the orient never speak otherwise than by images. they do not like the shortest way from one point to another; they make the way long. they use flowers, and rays of light, and moonshine, or any thing else that gives an image and color to their speech. they bring these things in continually, whatever may be the subject they speak of. perhaps i may give here an illustration that will make you understand me. i was in a house made of branches of trees, where lived a sheik. he told me that every thing in that house, his own person, his own family, were mine; and he said this with the greatest protestations. this is exactly the same as if you should say to a foreigner, coming into your house, "you are welcome." nothing more. if, on going away, i had taken any thing from that house, the man would immediately have shot me; though he had given me every thing, even to his own person and his own family; because he would have had this idea: "this man is a thief; i have a thief in my house." if i had said, "but you gave me every thing in the house," he would have answered me, "you come from a country where people have no politeness. i gave you these things: that means _welcome_, and nothing more." thus a man of the orient never says any thing in the simple short way that western nations do: they always want some poetry, some rhetoric, some image about it. and you must remember that many of the most admirable teachings of the bible are in images, are in poetry, and are extremely beautiful and eloquent by their poetry. we are accustomed to this, so that we know that it is poetry; and we understand it. but the romans, accustomed to their principle, that the law may be hard, but that law is law, and must be understood literally, and executed literally, understood every thing literally, and in that way they spoiled many of the great christian truths. i will not here quote many instances, though it would be exceedingly easy to bring them in large numbers before you. i will take the most striking and best known of all. when our lord, a few hours before being separated from his disciples, to die on the cross, gave them of the bread that was on the table, and said, "eat, this is my body," it was absolutely impossible for eastern people to misunderstand him; it was impossible for them not to understand that he meant, "this represents my body." the idea that what he held in the hands of his own body was his own body again; that he gave them his own body to eat, and that he ate some of it himself with them,--that idea could not for a moment have entered the head of one of those who were there. and if a multitude had been there, instead of the twelve apostles, it would have been exactly the same. nobody would have understood, when the lord said, "i am the way," or when he said, "i am the door," that he was really, in fact, a path or a gate; everybody knew that he meant, "i am the leader; you must come with me; i show you the way." everybody in the orient understood that. but here comes the roman genius, taking every thing literally; and they repeat, "he said, 'this is my body,' and this _is_ his body." they repeat: "you protestants do not accept the truth coming from the lips of your master. he says, 'this is my body,' but you protestants say, 'no, it is not his body, it represents his body.'" thus it seems we are convicted of crime; it seems we will not accept the teachings of our lord; yet we are perfectly true to his own meaning, to his real meaning, that could not be misunderstood in the east, but that was misunderstood when it was carried to rome, a country where people gloried in taking every thing in a literal sense. so they did with many other most beautiful and delicate things in the bible. the roman genius--i cannot help saying it--had something clumsy in it. they were like giants, having very strong arms, and enormous hands, to take every thing, and to dominate over every thing. but any thing very delicate, very poetic, like flowers from the east, they could not touch without the flowers being broken and faded, losing their charm and their color. that was their way of treating many of the most beautiful things of the bible, which they did not understand; which they made absurd or repulsive, by taking in a literal sense what was said, and ought to be taken, in a spiritual sense. they acted exactly as we should, if we received an oriental letter and understood as literal every thing contained in it. i will give another instance to make this clear. i remember having seen two letters, written one by a french general, and another by abd-el-kader, the chief of the enemies of the french in algeria. these letters were intended to convey identically the same thing; that is to say, that some prisoners on one side were to be exchanged for the same number of prisoners on the other side. it had been decided that the french general and the arab chief should say the same thing. i have seen both. the french general writes two lines; very clear, distinct, and polite, with nothing but the exact meaning he wanted to convey. but abd-el-kader, meaning to write the same thing, writes a whole page, about flowers, and jewels, and roses, and moonshine, and every thing of the kind. his intention was to say exactly the same thing, to convey identically the same meaning; but these things, translated from one language to another, pass, as a celebrated german scholar says, "from the shemitic to the japhetic; from the poetic language of the sons of shem, to the precise language of the sons of japhet." this has been the fault of the roman catholic church in many dogmas, in many points of very high importance: the sons of japhet could not understand what the sons of shem meant. they thought they understood it, when they were entirely in error, and gave to it a meaning altogether different from what was intended. i must add, that what helped them along in this belief of things, taken in a literal sense, was roman superstition. in that town, and in italy, have always prevailed the strangest superstitions. the most celebrated romans, men whose wisdom and whose glory have filled the world, if they met, when they went out of their house in the morning, a hare in the way, re-entered their house on the instant, and renounced any thing they had to do, because meeting a hare was ominous of misfortune, and any thing they should undertake that day would result in their confusion or misfortune. when they put their foot in the wrong way, the left before the right, or the right before the left, on the stone at the entrance of a house, they stopped there and returned to their house, because every thing they should do in that house would prove unfortunate, since they had made a mistake in putting the wrong foot foremost when they entered the house. so there were a multitude of superstitions. you know when they were to decide the greatest questions of peace or war, they consulted their sacred chickens. they gave them grains of wheat, and if the chickens ate it, or if they refused to eat it, or if they ate it too fast, or if the chickens let fall a grain of wheat from their mouths,--these signs meant that war would be successful, or that it would not be, and they decided according to these whether there should be a war or not. and those great magistrates, who were sometimes men of the greatest eminence, like cicero, were augurs. you know what cicero says, "two of us cannot meet without laughing;" because they knew that their auguries were utterly worthless, but the multitude thought they were true. so the romans were superstitious to the highest degree, and they have never ceased to be so. there is superstition in the marrow of their bones. many romans are ready to believe any thing to-day, at the present moment. i shall allude to a single fact. they all believe devoutly in the evil eye; that there are people who, if they look at you, will bring upon you some horrible misfortune, disease, or death. they believe this so fully, that they have a gesture, representing with their fingers a pair of horns; and, when they meet any one who is supposed to have the evil eye, they endeavor, in a secret way, to make that sign, to prevent misfortune from coming upon them. it is believed, in rome, that the present pope, who is to them god on earth, who is to them the successor and vicar of jesus christ, that he, as a man, has the evil eye. and when he passes through the streets of rome, a great many women, devoutly kneeling before him, with their heads almost in the dust, craving to receive his blessing, as he passes in his carriage, will, under their aprons, make this sign, to preserve themselves from the effects of the evil eye. this is no disparagement to his person; they think that the poor man cannot help it; that there is no ill will in it; that it is fate; he has the evil eye. i could cite many other instances of this superstition; perhaps it will be enough to refer to one more, and one that disgusted me completely. it is the worship with which they surround the _santo bambino_. there is on the capitoline hill a church that was formerly a heathen temple, and which has kept an old name, "_ara c[oe]li_," or "altar of heaven." in that church, the franciscan monks keep a very ugly doll. this doll is said to have been sculptured out of one of the olive-trees on the mount of olives, and then saint luke is supposed to have painted it over. saint luke must have been the painter of the poorest daubs that ever were in the world, and the angels who took it to him must have been very far from being connoisseurs of painting. this doll is covered with diamonds, emeralds, sapphires, and other precious stones, of greatest price. it is kept in a box on the altar, and, when you ask to see it, the monks pray before the door, they light tapers, they produce the box, and then the box is opened, and you see the hideous little wooden image. now, this _santo bambino_ is supposed to have healing properties. he heals people, when they are rich enough to pay a good salary to him; he is not a physician who heals for nothing. he has a magnificent carriage of his own, and servants with his own livery; and, when any rich man wants to be cured by him, the _santo bambino_ goes in his own carriage to the man's house, carried on the knees of franciscan monks, and cures the patient,--if he can. such is the belief of the country. but i could not see any very great difference between that doll and the idols that the old romans had, and used in the same way. the idea is this: they suppose that the _santo bambino_ represents christ as a little child. not only were the old romans superstitious, but we know, by historical testimony coming from the heathen themselves, that at the time when christianity appeared there was an increase of superstition; there was a general feeling of a want of something definite, something like a sort of atonement; and at that time all sorts of ceremonies, all sorts of bloody sacrifices, were introduced from syria, from libya, from the most remote countries, and the romans tried to find for their consciences some satisfaction in those rites. for instance, you all know they had a custom of having their sins expiated by means of what they called _taurobolium_. a man had a grave dug in the ground, and then over that grave was put a marble slab, with a great many holes in it, like a sieve. in that grave the man stretched himself at full length, and over the marble slab a bull was killed, in such a way that the blood fell through the holes into the grave. when the bull was taken away, and the marble slab was lifted, the man rose out of that grave perfectly covered with the blood of the bull, entirely bathed in that blood. then he was supposed to be a new man, supposed to be washed of all his sins. he believed that from that moment the anger of the gods had passed to the bull, and that the blood of the bull had been shed instead of his own. we find in ovid, one of the poets of the time, the prayer of a man for whom was about to be offered up the sacrifice of the black hen. he asks the gods to take the heart of the hen instead of his own, the fibres of the hen's body instead of the fibres of his own body. the poor black hen was sacrificed in the most cruel way they could find; she must suffer as long as possible, because then the anger of some god who was supposed to pursue the man found full satisfaction. the ferocity of the god had ample satisfaction in the torture of the poor black hen, and the sins of the man were expiated. then there was superstition upon superstition, because, when the mangled remains of the unfortunate hen were thrown into the street, if any person unconsciously put his foot on that body, then he became the inheritor of the crimes of the first man, and of the anger of the gods. they had a special name for those bloody remains of the sacrificed fowl: they called them _purgamentum_, because they thought that such a sacrifice purged a man of his sins. as nobody dared lift or touch the body of the victim, they put a fence around it; and, as long as there remained on the ground in the streets of rome a vestige of the poor bird, nobody would tread on that place; and the fence was put there to prevent this. these were the superstitions of that time; and plutarch wrote a treatise to which he gives the title [greek: deisidaimonia], which is translated very often by the word "superstition;" but it means more than that, it means "terror of the gods." it means that feeling which was more and more prevailing in the roman world, that the gods were to be feared; that there was anger in heaven; that the earth could not defend itself against the bad will of a supernatural power. we can very well understand that when christianity was preached to those people they were happy to take that religion of hope, that religion of regeneration and sanctification. it was to them a marvellous deliverance to be out of that old doctrine and in the new one. but they carried with them many habits of thought, many things which were inherent in the ancient religion. among those things was the habit of multiplying the divine being. they had been for a long series of centuries polytheists, believing in many gods. with their superstitious fears, they were always afraid there were not gods enough. that was saying a good deal, for they had more than , of them at the time of christ. it was recognized that nobody could even know them all by name. again you will excuse me if i use here a very familiar illustration to make the leading thought of polytheism understood. you know that in fairy tales the fairies are always called in to the festival at the baptism of the infant child. the intention is to invite them all, but there is always one forgotten; and that one curses the child in some way or other; and then all the gifts of all the good fairies cannot prevent the child from suffering, at least for a time, from the bad will of the one that has been forgotten. this involves the essential idea of polytheists. they had always the thought that all the good gods whom they worshipped could not prevent any malevolent one who had been neglected from hurting them; and they were always in search of that one. they were always making altars "to the unknown god or gods," to be certain in that way to include them all. they were constantly asking what gods were worshipped in such a country, in such a place; and if it was a god that was not known among them, straightway they prepared a place for his worship. they said, "he has no existence, very likely; but if he has, if he lives, then we must sacrifice to him, to prevent his spoiling the happiness that the other good gods wish to give us." so there was an incessant adding to the immense number of gods. at the time of christ, they had so many of them that, from the time a grain of corn was put into the ground to the time the harvest commenced, they had nine different deities who in succession took charge of the corn that had been put into the ground, and thus it passed from one god to another. nine of them were necessary while the grain was in the ground. thus, when the heathen became christians, they had been in the constant habit of adding gods to their heaven, of adding good men to their gods, and also men not good, but whom they feared,--for all the emperors were made gods the moment they died, so that one of them, who was rather a wit, when he was dying said, "i feel that i am becoming a god." the heathen had become so habituated to this that, when they became christians, they continued very naturally to multiply the number of the objects of worship. they soon ceased to make the slightest difference between christ and the father. in good time they unconsciously put mary, the mother of christ, above christ; now, without ever having this intention, they put, in fact, mary above the father. and so on, adding always a new god to a new worship, and always making the new worship as binding and as efficacious as possible, to satisfy that polytheistic craving. they did not understand their error in keeping between the infinite god and themselves an immense number of minor deities. this craving was unwholesome, but very sincere. that unconscious wish to multiply gods and make saints has continued to this day; and no pope has canonized so many saints as the present one, who is always trying to show that he does more in this way than any of his predecessors. this will suffice to give you an idea of what the old spirit of rome was, the whole tendency of the roman mind, and what was brought by them into the church. i must now ask you to go in imagination with me to the tomb of one of those old romans, who were not burned, according to the custom of that period, say the scipios. suppose one of the scipios taken out of his tomb; and bring him into a roman catholic church: do you think he will be very much astonished? he will be astonished at one thing,--by the crucifix, the image of the crucified son of god. that was completely contrary to the roman ideal and their habit of thought. but all the other things he will see will not astonish him at all. he had seen them all his life in his own time. you believe, perhaps, that the shape of a roman catholic church at rome will astonish a pagan? not at all. cato had given the romans the pleasure of enjoying, for the first time, a portico with three ranges of columns, the middle aisle being broader than the others; and at the end was what we call an apse, but the ancients a conch. the end was rounded off, and thrown into the form of a semi-circle, and the tribunal for the prætor or judge was placed in that half-circle at the end. this portico was called a _stoa basilica_, and the first roman christian churches were built on that plan. afterwards, the idea came of making the church in the shape of a cross; and then a smaller basilica was placed across the other, forming the transept of the church. but those long ranges of columns remained, with the same wide space in the middle, and narrower aisles on either side. the basilica was the form of public buildings most in fashion in rome at that time. there the gothic style was never popular. even now, of four or five hundred churches in rome, only one, the minerva, is gothic. when christian architecture was born, christian architecture accepted the heathen plan. in the new church, in that _basilica_, what do we find? we find holy water at the door. that was exactly what you found in the pagan temple, only it was called lustral water. in the temple, my scipio, who goes with me, recognizes all his old habits of thought, all the old emblems of his religious devotion. he sees a number of statues, or images; but he has seen those all his life. there is not only a central shrine, but there are small chapels. the saints have a golden circle round their heads: christians call it the _aura_, the ancients called it the _nimbus_; but it was exactly the same thing. they had it around the heads of their deities in painting and sculpture, and so on. there are censers and there are tapers burning there; and there are all the ornaments a pagan was accustomed to see in his temple. all those things had been kept, had been re-established, and the pagans had brought them with them into the catholic churches. when i went for the first time to naples, the man who showed me the museum there showed me feet, legs, and arms, hands, eyes, and ears, in stone. he said, "these are _ex voto_." people who were ill gave to some of the gods, the ones they chose, these things as marks of gratitude for having been cured. the cicerone told me, "you see, sir, it is exactly the same thing we have in our churches." and so it is. in all the churches in naples and rome, and in the roman catholic churches all over spain and france, you see, in wax, in gold, in silver, and in stone, such legs and arms, eyes and ears. it is exactly the same thing. the heathen man said to his god, "i will pay you by this mark of honor and gratitude, by this mark of your power and your glory, if you cure me." the roman catholic says exactly the same thing to a saint, to the virgin, sometimes to jesus, and very rarely to god. i cannot mention here all the other details, like funeral services at the end of the year, like funeral chapels, like many other institutions that exist in the roman catholic church, that are practised every day in it, and that are exactly the same, so far as religious ideas go, as were practised in the pagan churches. but i must add something of more consequence than that, about the worship of human beings, and especially of the worship of the virgin mary. it was nothing new to the pagans to worship a woman, and especially to worship a virgin. that was one of the ideas the most familiar to their devotion. in rome they had the temple of hestia or vesta, who was supposed to be a virgin; and she had around her nuns who were pledged to live in celibacy, and punished by death if they did not remain true to their vow. in greece it was the same thing with pallas. perhaps you all know that in athens, the largest, most perfect, and most beautiful of the greek temples--immensely superior to any edifice i ever saw in any country--is called the parthenon, which means the virgin temple. that temple is the temple of pallas,--athene, or minerva,--who was the principal deity of athens. thus that idea was perfectly familiar to them, and they only kept it, and brought it with them into christianity. i have spoken of monks. you must not believe that the monks are by any means a roman catholic invention. in the east there have been monks in all times and in all religions. it seems to have been a special habit or taste of the people of the east to give some men no other business, no other work to do, but to live in solitude, and pray for them; and some men have always, in those very hot countries, where it is exceedingly tiresome to work, liked to live in perpetual prayer better than any other more fatiguing labor. we find the monk in all times and countries in the east, then in the west; and he has been imported from paganism into christianity, like all the rest. i do not believe there is a religion more completely contrary to the monastic feeling than the religion of christ. i do not think there was ever a type more radically contrary to the type of the monk, than the figure of christ as we find it in the bible. however, that old monkish spirit of the orient was always known to the romans from the beginning; for they had priests and monks from the time their city began. that spirit has, like other things, been smuggled into the church, though it was contrary to the spirit of christianity. i must recall one last rite of great importance. both the old romans and the old jews had, as a principal part of their worship, the rite of sacrifice. the origin of it was simply this: that men in the first place possessed nothing but flocks, and they gave to god one head of their flock, one sheep, or one bull, as being the only riches they had to give. before they had houses, before they had garments, before they had any other thing,--money they were very far from having,--men had to eat, and they had flocks because they wanted to have meat to eat; and thus they gave to god the only necessity of life to them, the only thing they understood the importance of. and they gave him the whole animal, not reserving to themselves any part of it, in some cases; in other cases, a part of it only, making a meal of the rest for themselves. to give a part to god was one essential element of their worship, the rite of sacrifice; and we find that the rite grew out of that, and nothing else. it was a habit deeply rooted in the roman mind, and at the same time already familiar to the jews; and when those christians who had been jews spoke of christ to the romans, they could not prevent that roman or jewish habit from taking double force, and double space in religion. what happened? it happened that the old romans and old jews wanted a sacrifice; wanted to give something to god; wanted a victim; and then came this strange fact, very easy to understand however, of which we find traces in the first days of christianity,--that there was no better victim to offer to god than christ. when they had identified completely christ with the father, then there was no greater victim to offer to god than god himself. therefore, they had a sacrifice that is called "the mass." you know the official name is "sacrifice of the mass." it consists in this. the priest takes the host, which is merely bread,--it is nothing but a little flour and water, made into bread,--he pronounces the consecrating words; then, after he pronounces them, there is no bread, there is no flour; instead of the bread, instead of the flour, there is jesus christ. according to the council of trent, that _is_ jesus christ, his body, his blood, his soul, and his divinity; it is jesus christ; is perfect god. and this has been, by an old roman catholic writer, very clearly expressed in these three words: "the priest, what is he? what does he do? _creatus creatorem creat._" he is a creature who creates the creator. after that comes the second great part of the sacrifice of the mass. there is god, and the priest sacrifices god to god. and how? _sacrificat manducando._ that is to say, according to the formal explanation, he sacrifices god by eating god. this is the sacrifice of the mass. if the roman mind had not been accustomed, as i have shown you, to superstition, to all literalism, to the love of the law and the letter, even when the law or the letter was absurd, they would not easily have accepted all this; but with their turn of mind, with their way of taking things, that was exactly what they wished for, and that was what they adopted. not at once: it was very long in elaborating itself. it was so completely, i cannot say otherwise, so completely absurd, that it required a great deal of time to make it so precise; but they attained to that at last, and they could not but do so. see, then, what a man the priest is. he has before him bread, and he makes god; he afterwards sacrifices god; he is almost a god himself. at the moment when he makes god, he seems to be superior to god; at the moment when he sacrifices god, by eating him, he seems superior to god. thence comes the immense power of the priesthood, of priestcraft. and as if this were not enough, in the mass, as you know, the priest has not only the host, but he has the wine, the cup. the other members of the church have not the cup, because they must not be equal to the priest even in the communion; even in the act of uniting themselves with god. laymen cannot arrive at the height of glory to which the priest arrives; they must eat the host when it is given to them, but they cannot touch the cup; that is reserved to the priest, a sort of heavenly, or divine, or godlike character. even as the romans had respected their old bridge-makers, their old _pontifices_, their old priests, whom they considered the bulwarks of their town, they respected afterwards the priests of the roman catholic church. so the mass was established, with all its consequences. this is not all. i must explain exactly how a part of the heathenish religion answered, in the time of jesus, the wants of the heathen better than the more natural religion of the christians. at the time of christ, many romans did not believe in thirty thousand gods and in all the absurd and indecent history of those thirty thousand deities, but they had a form of worship that had become purer and purer. they had what they called "mysteries." in greece, and in rome also, there were "mysteries." these were ceremonies in which great philosophic and religious lessons were given. there exists a very touching letter from plutarch to his wife, written at the time he lost his only daughter, and when they were in the deepest affliction and desolation. he writes to his wife, who was separated from him at that time, a very kind and loving letter, trying to give her comfort and hope. he says to her, "remember the beautiful things we have seen together in the mysteries of bacchus." you must not believe, as many would at first believe, that the mysteries of bacchus were nothing but drunkenness and disorder: they were something else. they were like the mysteries of ceres, the goddess of corn, and like the representations, in other cases, of the immortality of the soul. they were a sort of tragedy in which, less by word than by singing, and by acting especially, was shown to men that, when the body is interred in the ground, the soul lives, and the soul shall rise to fulness of life. a grain of wheat hidden in the ground remained hidden there for weeks before coming to life. that was the emblem of the new life of immortality. now, this teaching, good in itself, true in itself, but given in dramatic images, was at that time the very best, soundest, most human, and most natural part of heathenism. and then it happened that mysteries were acted, not only in the heathen churches, but in christian churches; that the history of christ, that the death of christ, that the resurrection of christ, took the place of the resurrection of proserpine, the daughter of ceres, who represented wheat and corn; and then christianity became a sort of subject of sacred myths, sacred plays, that were very devoutly acted, and that kept their title of "mysteries." as soon as we see something of the dark ages, and what the practice of worship was, we see this same thing. it is going on in all countries in some measure. you may see it in the roman catholic churches during easter week. you may see then that, when christ dies, all the lights are put out, save one very small light, because that represents the moment when the sky was covered with darkness at his death. and you hear in a choir some persons sing the words of the people who screamed "crucify him!" and others repeating the words of caiaphas and the words of christ. this "mystery," this serious, devout play, is acted in all roman catholic churches. when christ is dead, the host is taken away from the altar, and it is carried into the tomb, carried into some lower chapel, from which it comes back to the great altar on easter morning, on the day of the resurrection. that solemn play is going on in all roman catholic countries at the present time, and that is a "mystery." such is also the "mystery" that was played in germany, at oberammergau (bavaria), during the last year, and is played there every ten years. it is a devout, religious, serious, dramatic representation of our lord's suffering, death, and resurrection. the mass in itself was in the beginning a mystery; it is often called so; it is often called in old roman catholic books and often in modern ones the "mystery of the mass." it was a representation of the death and sacrifice of jesus; but the roman catholic spirit coming in declared that this mystery was not, like others, a mere representation, a sacred play, but a reality; and according to the doctrine proclaimed by the council of trent, three hundred years ago, the sacrifice of the mass is much more than a representation of christ's death, of christ's sacrifice, for he is sacrificed anew, he suffers death really anew. and it has been declared, because some protestant opponents were astonished at it, that every time any priest says mass,--and every priest must say mass at least once every day,--every time a priest says mass, christ suffers again, and dies again, sacrificed by the priest for the redemption of human kind. this is the doctrine of the mass, and this gives it a very tragic, grand, and solemn effect in the eyes of those who believe in it. yet this again is nothing but roman literalism, the roman way of taking every thing literally. is all this real christianity? at all events i have said enough, i hope, to give you an idea of the way in which the religion of jesus of nazareth, as he was called, preached by him on the hills of galilee,--a religion that was quite spirit, and quite truth; a religion that had at that time no bleeding, no consecrated man, but that was alive by the spirit of god in the conscience and in the hearts of men,--how that religion, purely spiritual as it was, became all the pomp, all the exterior complications, all the dramatic intricacies of the church of rome. and here i stop to ask again, can all this suit the urgent necessities of our times? is that the truth after which our souls hunger and thirst? now i must, before i end, say a few words to you about the late changes. do those changes make matters better or worse? let us pass over ages and centuries, and come to the present day, because i say we must make some change in our way of resisting the church of rome. i must state, and very rapidly, what these changes are. there are three of them. the first is, that a new dogma has been established. the new dogma amounts to this, without going into details, that mary, the mother of christ, was created, at the moment she began to exist, exempt from original sin. all human beings are guilty of adam's sin, with one exception, and that exception is mary. that exception dates from the very first instant of her existence. she never was, even in thought or in feeling, a sinner; she is consequently out of the pale of humanity; she is not a human being; she is more than a woman, she is something godlike from before her birth. that is the dogma. it is not new; it was invented in spain; it is a spanish, an andalusian dogma. it was invented at a time when the catholics in spain were laboring very hard to expel from their country the moors, the african moslems, who were masters of a great part of spain, and who had more science, more art, and more literary culture than the christians of spain, but who had absurd doctrines about the family and about religion, as well you know. nothing could displease them more, could astonish them more, or could confound all their ideas more, than to tell them that a woman was godlike. they thought, as all moslems have thought, that a woman had no soul; and here was a woman who was a goddess before her birth, who was always a goddess. this was something absolutely incredible to them, and it showed the great difference between christians and moslems, between spaniards and arabs. this became the general rule among the spaniards of the southern part of the country, in andalusia especially; and when they met one another they did not salute with words of good greeting, but for centuries it was the habit in andalusia, when one spaniard met another, to say to him, _ave maria purissima_, and the other answered, _sin pecado concepida_, which means that that dogma was proclaimed every time two persons met. this dogma has been taken into special favor by the very powerful order of jesuits. they thought it was important to the church; it was putting mary in the highest honor, to have that dogma become the law of the church. but up to the present century, up to last year in the roman catholic church, people could believe it or not; now the pope has declared that henceforth every man who does not believe that dogma is eternally lost and damned. this he has decreed, after consulting with some bishops, with whom he conferred about it, but declaring that he did so of his own accord, because, as pope, he had a right to decide on that. he said, it is no new doctrine; it has always been in the church. as the great writer father perrone wrote, "that dogma has been developing itself in the church a long time." when i saw the church of rome speaking of a dogma "developing itself," i thought, this is the beginning of the end. if they understand that dogmas develop themselves, that they have not fallen like aerolites from the heavens, it seems to me that that is the end of infallibility. some people think it was the beginning of infallibility, that it was the pope for the first time declaring a dogma for all men without consulting officially or legally any one, and that when he had done this he had augmented his power. i must remark here, that when a pope is very weak, the general rule is, he does something extremely strong. when he is extremely weak, politically, materially, he generally makes some great demonstration of spiritual power. when pope gregorius vii. kept henry in his shirt a whole night at the door of the castle of canossa without opening the door to him, saying, "you are a sinner, do penance,"--when he did that, the pope had been expelled from rome, he had lost rome, therefore he must prove his immense spiritual power, because his temporal power was lost. and when the present pope has done acts of authority greater than any other pope, it has not been because he was strong, but because he was weak; to remain on his throne he wanted to have the bayonets of louis bonaparte to keep him in power. his own subjects would very soon have shown him a second time the way to the frontier, if they had not been prevented by the bayonets of that man. thus the pope did more towards asserting and confirming his own power than any of his two hundred and fifty odd predecessors. when afterwards he took a new step, it was in continuance of this. he called a council when three hundred years had elapsed since an [oe]cumenical council had been called. i know old roman catholic families who had been waiting for centuries for the moment when an [oe]cumenical council should assemble, to denounce before that council the encroachments of the pope, and to ask that the popedom be kept within bounds for the future. pio ix. had an [oe]cumenical council called, and held it in his own house, in the vatican. and there, in one end of one of the transepts of the immense church of saint peter, the pope had himself declared infallible by the council. thus all the other councils which had been the hope of such persons in the church as could not accept every word of the pope, all those councils have been sacrificed, have abdicated, in the last of them, at the foot of the pope. now, the roman catholic church has become very logically, what it ought to become, the same thing in the spiritual world that the roman empire became in the temporal world. the roman emperor was every thing; there had been priests and magistrates who had great powers; then the emperor made himself dictator, consul, tribune of the people; made himself high bridge-maker; took upon himself all dignities. he was every thing; and then the whole roman empire was one man; and sometimes it happened that that man was a mad man like caligula, who said, "i am sorry that all men have not one head that i might cut it off." such was the unity of the roman empire, and we see the same fact in the roman catholic church to this extent, that there is one human brain that thinks for all roman catholics in the world, and if that human brain decides that such a thing is or is not, all other human brains must believe it, or be damned eternally; there is no choice. this is perfectly logical; this is not an unexpected change; this must have come to pass. as the pope became physically weak, the more absolute became the necessity that this should be done. now, he is weak, he has lost rome. although it was not in my way, i passed through rome a few months ago for the purpose of seeing rome free, and it was an immense joy to see that. i had seen rome groaning under that proud, domineering government of the priests, who declared that their government was the best in the world, while the whole world called it emphatically _il mal governo_. now i have seen it free; and i think no bonaparte of france, nor any french government, nor any other government, had any right to give up rome to the priests, to prevent the romans from being masters in their own house, from being free in their own city. i must declare to you, that if in one sense the roman catholic church has lost a great deal because she has lost that great tradition, lost that long habit of ruling in rome, and the high prestige that comes from it, yet the roman catholic church has gained more perhaps than she has lost in this. you must not believe that the roman catholic church is to disappear to-morrow, or the next day: that shall not happen. there are hundreds of thousands of souls who like better to have one man on a throne thinking for them, taking on his conscience and his honor the question of their salvation,--they like that better than to think for themselves; and there will be roman catholic churches for a long time to come. they will even be stronger in one sense, because that temporal power was so exercised that it caused great weakness; and now the pope will be strengthened; will find more interest and sympathy, because he is a king without a crown, a king without a throne: in his weakness he will find new strength. what must we do, we protestants, in the presence of this fact? must we exaggerate, must we be unfair in our attacks? no. must we go to sleep, thinking there is nothing to do? no, not that either. we must work; we must work steadily to give light and instruction to all. we have here,--and i have tried in a very rapid way to give you an idea of it,--we have here history. that is the greatest of weapons in such a case as this. usurpers never like history, because they know very well that history condemns them. we must make history known, make the facts known, and proclaim liberty and the rights of the human conscience. we must do that over the whole world. i do not believe that protestantism, as it has often been said, is nothing else but roman catholicism stripped of some of its abuses, and without some of its errors. it is something else. if there were time, and i could begin now instead of ending, i would try to show you that in the history of protestantism, and even before protestantism appeared, there has always been, next to that stream of power of roman catholicism, always becoming stronger and more encroaching up to these last days, another current of protest; there have always been men struggling for faith with liberty, who said, "that cannot be;" who understood better the gospel, who liked the spirit of the gospel, the spirit of god in christ, better than the spirit of rome. for centuries their mouths may have been closed; their speaking and teaching punished by death; but always they became more and more numerous, and active, and vigorous; and then came the great day of luther. protestantism has not been a negation, a remnant of roman catholicism, the negative side of christianity. i cannot adopt that idea in the least. true protestantism is full of the spirit of the gospel; it is the living soul of christ in the church, it embodies the perfect conviction that there is truth, that there is salvation, that there is liberty, in the gospel, and nowhere else so completely. now, we must consider the roman catholic church as being an organization of power, the most dreadful, the most tyrannical, the most crushing organization of power that ever was. it is the master-piece of roman genius. it has been preparing during centuries, and it has been complete only since yesterday. it is a great organization against liberty, against man's rights, against man's conscience, for the honor of a church and of a man. and this we must resist, too. in my country, i declare that the cause of all our ills, the fact that is at the basis of all our suffering and all our misfortunes, is nothing else than roman catholicism. this is against the conscience of many souls; this throws many people into sheer atheism, because they see no choice between kissing the shoe of the pope, as is done in ceremonies, and denying the existence of god. so they deny god rather than submit to the pope. we must give them sound teaching, religious teaching; we must give them the gospel. and i came to this country to say these things to you; to ask you to help us with all your might, and with all your heart, to do what is necessary should be done in france to-day; what will be necessary to be done in this country sooner or later, and what will be necessary to be done in all countries, to show more and more that "where is the spirit of the lord, there is liberty." selfhood and sacrifice by orville dewey. the title which i have chosen for this discourse, is selfhood and sacrifice. my purpose is, to consider what place these principles have in human culture. i use the word, selfhood, rather than self-regard or self-interest, because i wish to go back to the original principle--selfhood, according to the analogy of our language, describing the simple and absolute condition in which self exists; as manhood does that of man, or childhood, that of a child. and i say sacrifice, rather than self-sacrifice, because the true principle does not require the sacrifice of our highest self, but only of that which unlawfully hinders outflow from self. the subject of culture has been brought before the public of late, by professor huxley, and matthew arnold, and mr. shairp. i do not propose to enter into the questions which have engaged their able pens, but to go back to those primary and foundation principles, which i have proposed to consider--the one of which is the centre, and the other, the circumference of human culture,--selfhood and sacrifice. it is the object of this course of lectures, in part at least as i understand it, to discuss this subject--to discuss, _i.e._ the principles and grounds, on which right reason and rational christianity propose to build up a good and exalted character. now with regard to what christianity teaches, has it never occurred to you, or has it never seemed to you, in reading the gospels, that they appeal to self-interest, to the desire to be saved, in a way that is at variance with the loftiest motives? but it is appealed to, and therefore is, in some sense, sanctioned. and yet, as if this self-interest were something wrong, the prevalence of it in the world, the world's selfishness in other words, is represented by many preachers, as if it were the sum of all wickedness, the proof indeed, of total depravity. here then, it seems to me, whether we look at christianity or at the teachings of the pulpit, there is urgent need of discrimination. and there is another aspect of the same subject, which seems to require attention; and that is what is called, individualism--the mentally living, if not for, yet in and out of ourselves; claiming to find all the springs and forces of faith and culture within ourselves, to the exclusion of the proper influence of society, of christianity, of the whole great realm of the past, by which we have been trained and formed; individualism, which says, "i belong to myself, and to nobody else, and do not choose to be brought or organized into any system of faith or action with anybody else." this, indeed, is an extreme to which, perhaps, but few minds go; but there is a tendency of this kind, which needs to be looked into. now there is a way of thinking, in matters of practical expediency, to which i confess that i am committed by my life-long reflections; and which has always prevented me from going to the extreme with any party, whether in reforms, in politics, in religious systems, or in any thing else; and that is, to look to the mean in things; to look upon human nature and human culture, as held in the balance between opposing principles. with this view, i shall first undertake to show that the principle of self-regard, or of individualism, is right and lawful--is indeed, an essential principle of culture. there is a remarkable passage in the old "theologia germanica," which hits, i think, the very point in this matter of self-regard. speaking of its highest man, it says, "all thought of self, all self-seeking, self-will, and what cometh thereof, must be utterly lost, surrendered and given over to god, _except in so far as they are necessary to make up a person_." this personality, this stand-point, we must hold to, go where we will. but let me state more precisely what it is, that is here conceded, and must be maintained; and why it is important to defend and justify it. i call it selfhood; and the word, i conceive, is philosophically necessary to meet the case. because it is a principle, that goes behind selfishness; and of which selfishness is the excess and abuse. selfishness calculates, overreaches, circumvents. but selfhood is simpler. it is the instinctive, instantaneous, uncalculating rush of our faculties, to preserve, protect and help ourselves. selfishness proposes to take advantage of others; selfhood only to take care of itself. it is not, as a principle of our nature, a depraved instinct; animals possess it. it is not moral, or immoral, but simply unmoral. it is a simple force, necessary to our self-preservation, to our individuality, to our personality. the highest moral natures feel it as well as the lowest. the martyr, who gives up every thing else, holds his integrity fast and dear. it is written of the great martyr, that, "for the joy that was set before him, he endured the cross, despising the shame." no being that is not an idiot, can be divested of all care and regard for himself. and not only does necessity enforce, but justice defends the principle. if happiness is a good, and there are two equal amounts of it, the one of which is mine, and the other my neighbor's, i may in strict justice, value and desire my own as much as his. if i love his more than my own, i go beyond the commandment. it is not worth while to put any utopian strain upon the bond of virtue; nay, it does positive harm. yet this is constantly done; to the injury of virtue, of conscience, and of a proper self-respect. in our theories of culture, we demand of ourselves, what is impossible, what is unjust to ourselves, what repudiates a part of the very nature we would cultivate. we demand of ourselves, and we suppose that christianity demands of us, a certain unattainable perfection,--or what we call perfection,--a sinking of ourselves out of sight, and an absorption into the love of god and men, quite beyond our reach: and failing of that--thinking it entirely out of our sphere, we give up the proper rational endeavor to be christians. we make the highest virtue something exceptional, instead of regarding it as a prize for us all. we imagine that some few have attained it; that jesus did, and that a few persons, denominated _saints_, have approached him; but that for the common run of men, this is all out of the question. the fact is, that christianity is regarded by many, as an enigma, a secret of the initiated, as an idle vision or hard exaction--not as a rational culture. listen to the conversation of the mart or the drawing-room, you will find that the high christian law is but a mocking dream in their eyes. "giving to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow, turning not away, and to him that takes from us our coat, giving our cloak also; and turning the other cheek to the smiter;"--what is this, they say, but extravagance and fanaticism? as if they did not know that there is such a figure of speech as hyperbole; and that it was perfectly natural, in a society where the poor and the weak were trodden under foot, for the greatest heart that ever was, thus to pour out itself in pleadings for sympathy, commiseration and kindness. but the same master said, "it is profitable for thee--it is better for thee," to have some of thy pleasures cut off--thine offending hand or eye; rather _that_, than to have thy whole being whelmed in misery. it is really necessary in this matter, not only to vindicate christianity as a reasonable religion, but to vindicate human nature to itself; to save it from the abjectness of feeling that the necessity of self-help is an ignoble necessity. men say, "yes, we are all selfish, we are all bad;" and they sink into discouragement or apathy, under that view. the conditions of true culture are attracting increased attention at the present time; and it is natural that they should, when men's minds are getting rid of theologic definitions and assumptions, and are coming to take broad and manly views of the subject. i am endeavoring to make my humble contribution to it; and with this view, to show, in the first place, what part our very selfhood, both of right and of necessity, has in it. this principle lies in the very roots of our being; and it is developed earliest in our nature. before the love of right, of virtue, of truth, appears this self-regard. disinterestedness is of later growth. infancy comes into the world like a royal heir, and takes possession, as if the world were made for itself alone. itself is all it knows; it will by and by, take a wider range. there is a natural process of improvement in the very progress of life. "you will get better," says a dramatic satirist,[ ] "as you get older; all men do. they are worst in childhood, improve in manhood, and get ready, in old age, for another world. youth with its beauty and grace, would seem bestowed on us, for some such reason, as to make us partly endurable, till we have time to become so of ourselves, without their aid, when they leave us. the sweetest child we all smile on, for his pleasant want of the whole world to break up, or suck in his mouth, seeing no other good in it--would be roughly handled by that world's inhabitants, if he retained those angelic, infantile desires, when he has grown six feet high, black and bearded; but little by little, he sees fit to forego claim after claim on the world, puts up with a less and less share of its good as his proper portion, and when the octogenarian asks barely for a sup of gruel or a fire of dry sticks, and thanks you as for his full allowance and right in the common good of life,--hoping nobody will murder him--he who began by asking and expecting the whole world to bow down in worship to him--why, i say, he is advanced far onward, very far, nearly out of sight." [footnote : browning: a soul's tragedy, p. .] this advancement, thus springing out of the very experience of life, i am yet to consider, and have it most at heart to consider. it is of such priceless worth, it so embraces all that is noble in humanity, that the importance of the opposite principle, is liable to be quite overlooked. selfishness, which is the excess of a just self-regard, is the one form of all evil in the world. the world cries out upon it, and heaps upon it every epithet, expressive of meanness, baseness and guilt. and let it bear the branding scorn; but let us not fail to see, though selfishness be the satirist's mark, and the philosopher's reproach, and the theologian's argument, the real nature and value of the principle, from which it proceeds. selfhood i have preferred to call it; self-love, be it, if you please. it is that, which satire and false criticism have misconstrued, when they have said that love of kindred, of friends, of country, of god himself, is but self-love. the mistake arises from that primal and vital part and participation which ourself has in every thing that we enjoy or love or adore. this magnificent _i_--and i emphasize it, because all meanness is thought to be concentred in that word--this mysterious and magnificent _i_--this that one means, when he says i--we may utter, but can never explain, nor fully express it. there are great men in the world, whose lives are of far more importance than mine--statesmen, commanders, kings--but _i_--no being can feel an intenser interest in his individuality than i do in mine; no being can be of more importance to himself than i am to myself; the very poles of thought and being turn upon that slender line; that simple unity, like the unit in figures, swells to infinite multiplication; that one letter, that single stroke of pen or type, may be varied and complicated, till it writes the history of the world. "i think, therefore i am," said the philosopher; but the bare utterance of the word i, yields a vaster inference. no animal ever knew what that word means. it is some time before the little child learns to say, i. it says, "willy or ellen wants this or that--will go here or there." what is insanity, but the wreck of this personality? the victim loses himself. and the morally insane, the prodigal, when he returns to reason and virtue, comes to himself. "a man's self," says thackeray, "must always be serious to him, under whatever mask or disguise or uniform he presents it to the public." yes, though it were as mime, harlequin, jester fool almost; nor could there be a more deplorable or desperate condition for a human being, than to account himself nothing, or nothing worth, or worthy only to be the butt of universal scorn and contempt. from this utter ruin, every man is protected by that mysterious and momentous personality that dwells within him. we may be little in comparison with the general mass of interests, little in comparison with kingdoms, little in comparison with the swelling grandeur of thrones and empires, little in comparison with the great orb that rolls round the sun, and bears millions of such; but we are forever great in the sense of individual destiny. _this_ swells beyond kingships, grandeurs, empires, worlds, to infinitude and eternity. there is another element in this selfhood, to be considered, besides its conscious importance, and that is free will--itself also unmoral, but indispensable. for imagine a rational being to be placed in this world, _without_ free will. he can choose neither wrong nor right. he has a conscience, but no freedom; no power to choose any thing. it is, i think, an incongruous and impossible kind of existence; but imagine it. evils, troubles, temptations press against this being, and he can do nothing; he cannot even will to resist. could there be a condition more horrible? no; man is a nobler and happier being than this amounts to. free will is put in him, on purpose to fight the great battle against evil. he could not fight, if he could not will. he could not choose the right, without being free to choose the wrong; for choosing one path without being at liberty to take the other, would be no choosing. free will is to fight the battle. it is a glorious prerogative. and man, i believe, is out of all proportion, happier, with this power, all its aberrations included, than he would be without it. i am glad for my part, that i am not passing through this world, like a car on a railroad, or turning round like a wheel in a mill; that i can go, this way or that, take one path or another; that i can read, or write, or study, or labor, or do business; and that when the great trial-hour, between right and wrong, comes, though i may choose the wrong, yet that i _can_ choose the right. what better would there be for me than this--what better constitution of a rational nature? i know of no better possible. selfhood, then--this interest in ourselves, being seen to be right, and the play of free will which is a part of it desirable; let us turn finally to the useful working of the principle. you may have said in listening to me thus far, "what need of insisting so much upon self-regard, which we all perfectly well understand?" i doubt whether it is so well understood; and this must be my apology. we have seen that the principle is native and necessary to us; let us look a moment, at its utility. i am put in charge of myself--of my life, first of all. so strong is the impulse to keep and defend it, that self-preservation has been called the first law of our being. but that argues an antecedent fact--self-appreciation. why preserve that which we value not? we defend ourself, because we prize ourself. we defend our life, with the instant rush of all our faculties to the rescue. "very selfish," one may say; "and why does a man care so much for himself; he isn't worth it." he can't help it. he obeys the primal bond; he is a law to himself. is it not well? man's life would perish in a thousand ways, if he did not thus care for it. the great, universal and most effective guardianship over human life everywhere, is--not government nor law, not guns nor battlements, not sympathy, not society--but this self-care. i am put in charge of my own comfort, of my sustenance. i must provide for it. and to provide for it, i must have property--house, land, stores, means--something that must be my own, and not another's. if i were an animal, i might find food and shelter in the common storehouse of nature's bounty. but i have other wants; if i have no provision for them that is my own; if some godless international league, or agrarian law, could break down all the rights of property, there would be an end to industry, to order, to comfort, and eventually to life itself. whatever evils, whatever monstrous crimes come of the love of gain, its extinction would be infinitely worse. i am put in charge of my good name, my place among men. i must regard it. i am sinking to recklessness about virtue if i cease to value approbation. even the martyr, looking to god alone, seeks approval. and good men's approbation is the reflection of that. to seek honor from men at the expense of principle, is what the master condemns--not the desire of honor. it has been made a question whether the love of approbation should be appealed to, in schools. it cannot be kept out, from there, nor from anywhere else. if it could, if the vast network of social regards, in which men are now held, were torn asunder, society would fall to pieces. finally, i am put in charge of my virtue--of that above all. and that i must get and keep for myself; no other can do it for me. another may stretch out the hand to defend me from a fatal blow; another may endow me with wealth; another may give me the praise i do not deserve; but no friendly intervention, no deed of gift, no flattery, no falsity, can give me inward truth and integrity. that solemn point in human experience, that question upon which every thing hangs--shall i do right?--or shall i do wrong?--is shrouded in the secrecy and silence of my own mind. all the power in the world, cannot do for me the thing that i must do for myself. to me, to me, the decision is committed. now what i have been saying, is this; it is well that that self-regard, upon which so much is devolved, should be strong; that there should be no apathy, no indifference, upon this point; that if ever a man wanders away into recklessness, into idleness, into disgrace, into utter moral delinquency and lawlessness, he should be brought to a stand, and brought back again, if possible, by this intense and uncontrollable regard for himself--for his own well-being. i do not resolve every thing in human nature, into the desire of well being. i do not say that the love of life, of property, of reputation, still less of virtue, is the same as the love of happiness; but i say that to the pursuit of all these a man is urged, driven, almost forced, by this love of his own well-being; nay more to the pursuit of the highest eventually, and that, by the very laws of his nature. let us now turn to the other principle which i propose to discuss--that which opens the whole field of our culture--the principle that carries us out of, and beyond ourselves. it has been no part of my design, in discussing the principle of selfhood, to show the hinderance to culture, and the evil every way, that come from the abuse of it. that will be sufficiently manifest, if it be made to appear, that all culture and happiness are found in the opposite direction. but if i wanted to put this in the strongest light, i should point to the pain and obstruction which are experienced in a diseased self-consciousness. it would be a powerful argument for that going out of self, which i am about to speak of. self, if it is a necessary stand-point, is yet liable to be always in our way. a morbid anxiety about our position, our credit with men, the good or ill opinion others have of our talents, tastes or merits, causes more misery, i am inclined to think, than any other form of human selfishness. see a company of persons, inthralled with music, charmed by eloquence, transported by some heroic action set before them; and they forget themselves; they do not think, how they look, how they are dressed, what others think of them, in their common delight. the sense of this, i believe it was, that lay at the bottom of the old buddhist doctrine of nirwana--_i.e._, self-oblivion. to lose this wearisome, diseased self, seemed to gautama, the great apostle of buddhism, to be the chief good. nirwana has been taken to mean absolute annihilation. i do not believe the buddhists meant that; for to me, it is incredible, that any great sect, numbering millions, should have so totally given up the natural love of existence, and desire of immortality; and max müller and others have brought that construction of the buddhist creed, into doubt. individuals may go that length. unhappy blanco white, tortured in body and mind, could say that he desired no more of life, here or hereafter. a german naturalist could say, "blessed be the death hour--the time when i shall cease to be." but this revolt against self and very self-existence, whether ancient or modern, i advert to, only to show the necessity of going out from it, in order to build up the kingdom of god within us. it is notable; it is suggestive; but it is neither healthy, nor true to human nature. far truer is that admirable little poem of david wasson's, originally entitled "bugle notes," which in unfolding the blessing and joy of existence, touches, i think, the deepest and divinest sense of things. but let us proceed to consider the law of sacrifice--not sacrifice of happiness nor improvement, but the finding of both, in going out from self, to that which is beyond and above it. a man's thought starts from himself; but if it stopped there, he would be nothing. all philosophy, science, knowledge presuppose certain original faculties and intuitions; but not to cultivate or carry them out, would leave their possessor to be the mere root or germ of a man. a line in geometry presupposes a point; but unless the point is extended, there can be no geometry; it is a point barren of all science, of all culture. every intellectual step is a step out of one's self. the philosopher who studies _himself_, that he may understand his own mind and nature, is but studying himself objectively; his very self _then_ lies out of himself, and is an abstraction to him. and the mathematician, the astronomer, the naturalist, the poet, the artist, each one goes out of himself. his subject, his theorem, his picture it is, that draws him--not reward, not reputation. doubtless newton or herschel, when he left his diagram or his telescope, and seated himself in the bosom of his family, might say, "we must live; i must have income; and if public or private men offer to remunerate and sustain me, it is right that they should do so." but the moment he plunges into deep philosophic meditation, he forgets all that. nature has more than a bridal charm, science more than golden treasures, truth more than pontifical authority, to its votaries. not wooing, but worship, is found at its shrines and altars. in the grand hierarchies of science, of literature, of art, there is a veritable priesthood, as pure, as unworldly, as can be found in any church. it is delightful to look upon its work, upon its calm and loving enthusiasm. the naturalist brings under his microscope, the smallest and most unattractive specimen of organized matter, and goes into ecstasies over it, that might seem ridiculous; but no, this is a piece of _holy nature_--a link in the chain of its majestic harmonies. and so every intellectual laborer, when his work is noblest, forgets himself--the lawyer in his case, the preacher in his sermon, the physician in his patient. is it not true then, and is it not noteworthy, that all the intellectual treasures that are gathered to form the noblest humanity, all the intellectual forces that are bearing it onward, come of self-forgetting? equally true is it--more true if possible, in the moral field. the man who is revolving around himself, must move in a very small circle. vanity, self-conceit, thinking much of one's self, may be the foible of some able and learned men, but never of the greatest men: because the wider is the circle of a man's thought or knowledge, at the more points does he see and feel his limitations. vanity is always professional, never philosophic. it belongs to a narrow, technical, never to the largest, moral culture. and all the moral _forces_ in the world, are strongest, divinest, when clearest of self. when the public man seeks his own advancement, more than the public weal, he is no more a statesman, but a mere politician; and when the reformer cares more for his own opinion than for the end to be gained, the people will not regard nor respect him. the world may be very selfish, but it will have honesty in those whom it permits to serve it. the truth is that the whole culture of the world, is built on sacrifice; and all the nobleness in the world lies in that. to show that, it is only necessary to point to those classes of men and spheres of action, which exert the widest influence upon the improvement and welfare of mankind. they will all be found to bear that mark. look, first, at the professional teachers of the world--the authors, artists, professors, schoolmasters, clergymen. in returns of worldly goods, their services have been paid less, than any other equal ability and accomplishment in the world. doubtless there have been exceptions; some english bishops and roman prelates have been rich; and some authors and artists have gained a modest competence. more are doing it now, and yet more will. but the great body of intellectual laborers, has been poor. the instruction of the world, has been carried on by perpetual sacrifice. a grand army of teachers--authors, artists, schoolmasters, professors, heads of colleges--have been through ages, carrying on the war against ignorance; but no triumphal procession has been decreed to it; no spoils of conquered provinces have come to its coffers; no crown imperial has invested with pomp and power. in lonely watch-towers the fires of genius have burned, but to waste and consume the lamp of life, while they gave light to the world. it is no answer to say that the victims of intellectual toil, broken down in health or fortune, have counted their work, a privilege and joy. as well deny the martyr's sacrifice, because he has joyed in his integrity. and many of the world's intellectual benefactors, have been martyrs. socrates died in prison, as a public malefactor; for the healing wisdom he offered his people, deadly poison was the reward. homer had a lot so obscure, at least, that nobody knew his birthplace; and indeed some modern critics are denying that there ever was any homer. plato travelled back and forth from his home in athens to the court of the syracusan tyrant, regarded indeed and feared, but persecuted and in peril of life; nay, and once sold for a slave. cicero shared a worse fate. dante, all his life knew, as he expressed it,-- "how salt was a stranger's bread, how hard the path still up and down to tread, a stranger's stairs." copernicus and galileo found science no more profitable than dante found poetry. shakspeare had a home; but too poorly endowed to stand long in his name, after he left it; the income upon which he retired was barely two or three hundred pounds a year; and so little did his contemporaries know or think of him, that the critics hunt in vain for the details of his private life. "the mighty space of his large honors," shrinks to an obscure myth of a life in theatres of london or on the banks of the avon. i might go on to speak, but it needs not, of the noble philanthropists and missionaries, often spoken of lightly in these days, because what is noblest must endure the severest criticism; of inventors, seldom rewarded for their sagacity and the immense benefits they have conferred upon the world; of soldiers, our own especially, buried by thousands, in unknown graves--green, would we fain say, green forever be the mounds that cover them! let processions of men and women and children, every year, bring flowers, bring garlands of honor, to their lowly tombs! but there is another form of self-consecration which is yet more essential, and which is universal. and yet _because_ it is essential and universal, the very life-spring of the world's growth; because it is no signal benefit, but the common blessing of our existence; because it moulds our unconscious infancy, and mingles with our thoughtless childhood, and is an incorporate part of our being, it is apt to be overlooked and forgotten. the sap that flows up through the roots of the world--it is out of sight. the stately growths we _see_; the trees that drop balsam and healing upon the nations, we _see_; the schools, the universities, the hospitals, which beneficence has builded, we _see_; but the stream that, through all ages, is flowing from sire to son, is a hidden current. it is one of the miracles of the world--this life that is forever losing, merging itself in a new life. we talk of martyrdoms; but there are ten thousands of martyrdoms, of which the world never hears. beautiful it is to die for our country; beautiful it is to surrender life for the cause of religious freedom; beautiful to _go forth_, to bear help and healing to the sick, the wounded, the outcast and forlorn; but there are those who _stay at home_, alone, unknown, uncelebrated, to do and to bear more than is ever done, in one brief act of heroism or hour of martyrdom. in ten thousand homes are those, whose life-long care and anxiety wear and waste them to the grave. they count it no praise; they consider it no sacrifice. i speak not, but for the simple truth, of that which to me, is too holy for eulogy. but meet it is, that a generation coming into life, which owes its training and culture and preservation to a generation that is passing away, should be sensible of this truth--of this solemn mystery of providence--of this law of sacrifice, of this outflow from self into domestic, into social life, which lies at the very roots of the world. there is one further application of the principle of disinterestedness, which goes beyond classes and instances such as i have mentioned, and embraces men simply as fellow-men. much has been said among us of late years, and none too much, of the dangers of an extreme individualism. we began as a religious body, in a strong assertion of the rights of individual opinion; and we went on in that spirit for a considerable time; till it seemed, at length, as if we were liable to lose all coherence and to fall to pieces in utter disintegration. but a few years ago, moving in that zig-zag line which marks all human progress, we awoke to the dangers of the situation; and happily found that if we could not agree upon any technical definition of christian faith, we _could_ combine for christian work. the national conference was formed; a new impulse was given; new funds were poured into our treasury; we are circulating books and tracts more widely than we have ever done before; we are helping feeble churches and founding new ones, besides doing something for missions abroad: in short, we are trying to do the work which, in common with other christian communions, properly belongs to us. but there is another movement, which i regard with equal interest, and which promises in fact, to go deeper than any thing else we can do. i allude to those unions, in which, i think the city of providence leads the way: and in which new bedford, worcester, and brooklyn have followed the example. these associations provide a public room or rooms, well lighted and warmed, for those who will, to resort to them; but especially for the young, who most need good culture, entertainment and encouragement; and in these rooms are found books, pictures, games, and music perhaps; and classes for regular instruction may be formed, and lectures occasionally given, or discussions held; in fact, whatever will contribute to the general improvement and to the pleasant and profitable passing of social evenings, may be introduced. this kind of institution is especially adapted to our smaller cities; and may be extended to our country villages. our people in the country, live too much apart and alone; and besides the direct advantages of these gatherings together, a mutual acquaintance and a kindly feeling would be promoted, which are of scarcely less importance. let me add that there is a new ideal of life, which, i think, is slowly arising among us; and which, when it is fully carried out, i believe, will make an impression upon society, never before seen in the world. this is the idea of mutual helpfulness; of every man's living not to himself, but to god, in loving and helping his kind. helpfulness, i say--that which mr. ruskin describes as the most glorious attribute of god himself; and which has so seized upon his imagination, that he ventures to substitute for "holy, holy, holy is the lord," helpful, helpful, helpful, is the lord god almighty! this will not do; but it indicates a glorious tendency of modern thought. the old ideal of life has been, to get together the means of comfort and enjoyment; to get wealth, to get a fine house, to get luxuries for wassail and feasting, or to get books and pictures; and then to sit down and enjoy all this good estate, and transmit it to fortunate heirs, with little thought of others--with some charities perhaps, but without taking into heart or life, the common weal, happiness and improvement of all around. what a millennium would it begin, if, instead of this, every man should be thinking, just so far as he can go beyond taking care of his own body and soul, what he can do for others--not in any merely eleemosynary way; not merely to instruct and improve men, with the pharisaic assumption of being better or better off than they; but by acting a brotherly part towards them, speaking neighborly words, doing neighborly deeds, smoothing the path, softening the lot, seeing all erring and sorrow, and joy and worth, as if they were their own; and wherever there is any difficulty or trial or need, to "lend a hand." whenever such a spirit enters into and pervades society, it will make a world, compared with which, _our_ time will sink back among the dark ages. in short, when is it, that a man does and is, the highest that he is capable of? the answer is, when forgetting himself, forgetting advantage, gain, praise, fame, he pours himself out, in intellectual or moral, and, any way, beneficent activity. when does culture or art in him attain to the highest? it is when going beyond all thoughts of culture and art, he flings himself, in perfect sympathy and free communion, into the great mass of human interests. it is so that the greatest things have been achieved in all the higher fields of human effort--in writing, in eloquence, in painting and sculpture and music; and it is so, especially, that the doers of great things, have become the noblest men. "art for art's sake," has been the motto for culture, with some. and to a certain extent, that is true. it is fine to work for the perfection of the work, and without any intrusion of self. but a man may work so, upon a theme of little or no significance to the world's improvement or welfare. he may work so, with small thoughts, small ideals, for which nobody cares, or has any reason to care. but so can he not work grandly, however finished be the result. art is for the sake of something beyond itself. only when it goes out into great ideals that mingle themselves with the widest culture and improvement of men, only when it strikes for the right, for liberty, for country, for the common weal, does it achieve its end. we have had literature enough, and have it now, in which the writer seems hardly to go beyond himself--writing out of himself and into himself--occupied with making fine sentences, without any earnest intent; and which readers, used to feed upon the honest bread of plain english speech, hardly know what to make of. very fine, these sparkling sentences may be, very beautiful, very apt to strike with admiration; but they divert attention with surprises, or cover up thought with coruscations. they are like gems that lie scattered upon the table; they are not wrought into any well-woven fabric; they do not move _on_ the subject to any conclusion. men may win great admiration and great fame, but not great love; though they gain, perhaps, as much as they give. only by writing out of the bosom of a great humanity _to_ the great humanity, can one fill the measure of good art or good culture. even goethe, of whom professor seeley says, that "he found every thing interesting except the fact that napoleon was trampling upon germany"--a fatal exception: even goethe, with all his art, his marvellous versatility and fine accomplishment, failed to reach the highest place, either in the best self-culture, or in men's best love. _savant_, poet, novelist, of high mark, as he was, he has no such place as newton, wordsworth, and walter scott, in men's love. schiller and richter, i believe, are more beloved in germany, than goethe. in mere art, in perfection of style, no writers have equalled homer and shakspeare. but _they_ did not say, "art for art's sake." they had no thought but to communicate their thought. if singular felicities appear in their style, little eddyings of exquisitely turned conceits, as especially in shakspeare, they made a part of, and swept on the strong current of their ideas. they were not introduced for their own sake, or merely to please the writer. it has been said that great authors are born of great occasions. some remarkable era, some turn or tide in human thought, or in human affairs, have borne them on to their supreme greatness. will not the time come, when men shall so look into the depths of the human heart, into the tragic or blissful experiences of all human life, that no great era shall be necessary to make great writers? i believe it. i believe in a perpetual human progress--progress in every kind, material, mental, moral, religious, divine; and i greatly desire to say a few words in close, if you will indulge me upon this point. for i found this faith in progress, on the two principles which i have been considering in this lecture. selfhood obliges a man to take care of himself. to go out of himself is the only way, in which he can take care of himself--can take care, that is to say, of his own improvement and happiness. in selfhood, necessary as it is, there is no virtue, and little joy. outflow from it--love, generosity, disinterestedness--embraces the whole sphere of our culture and welfare. can there be any doubt upon either of these points--either the culture or welfare? upon the culture, i say; upon what makes for human improvement. there is evil enough in the world; but what nation or age ever approved of it? what people ever praised selfishness, injustice, falsifying of speech or trust? no literature ever celebrated them. no religion ever enjoined them. no laws ever enacted them. imagine a law that proposed to reward villains and to punish honest men. the world would spit upon it. imagine a book or essay or poem or oration, that plainly set about to tell what a beautiful and noble thing it is, to lie, to defraud, to wrong, corrupt, and ruin our fellows. no man ever had the face to do such a thing. no; books may have taught such things, but they never taught them as noble things. the man never lived, that would stand up and say, "it is a glorious thing to betray trust, or to ruin one's country, or to blaspheme god." men do such things, but they don't reverence nor respect themselves for doing them. this then being settled--and it is a stupendous fact--the right principle about culture, being thus set up, high and irrepealable in the human conscience and in the sentiments of all mankind--what says the common judgment of men about the happiness or misery of following the right? does it say--"it is a blessed thing to be a bad man; it is good and wise to be a base or cruel man." does it say--"happy is the miser, the knave, the drunkard." no, it does not. there is temptation to do wrong; _that_ all know; there is a notion that it may promote some temporary interest or pleasure; there is a disposition in many, to prefer some sensual gratification to the purer satisfactions of the higher nature; but there is, at the same time, a deep-founded conviction, that misery in the long run must follow sin; that the everlasting law of god has so ordained it to _be_; and that only the pure, the noble, the heroic, the good and godlike affections can ever make such a nature as ours, content and happy. here then is another stupendous principle settled. and now, i say, this being is a lover of happiness. he is not wise; he is not clear-seeing; he is not good either--_i.e._, he is not fixedly and determinately good; he is weak too; he is easily misled; he is often rebellious to the higher laws of his nature; but--i hold to that--he is a lover of happiness; and happiness, he knows, can never be found, but in obedience to those higher laws. he is a lover of happiness, i say; he cannot be worse off, without wishing to be better off; if he is sick, he wants to be well; if his roof lets in the rain, he will have it repaired; if the meanest implement he uses, is broken, he will have it mended. is it not natural--is it not inevitable, that this tendency should yet develop itself in the higher concerns of his being? is it not in the natural order of things, that the higher should at length gain the ascendency over the lower, the stronger over the weaker, the nobler over the meaner? how can it be thought--how can it _be_, in the realm of infinite beneficence and wisdom, that meanness and vileness, sin and ruin should be strong and prevail, and gain victory upon victory, and spread curse beyond curse, and draw their dark trail over the bright eternity of ages! no, in the order of things, this cannot be. grant that there are evils, difficulties, obstacles in the way. but in the order of things, principles do not give way before temporary disturbances. law does not yield to confusion. gravitation binds the earth, notwithstanding all the turmoil upon its bosom. light prevails over darkness, though cloud and storm and night interrupt its course. the _moral_ turmoil upon earth's bosom, war and outbreak and widespread disaster, the cloud and storm and darkness of human passions and vices, the bitter struggles and sorrows of humanity, the dark shadows of earthly strife and pain and sin, are yet to give place to immutable law, to all-conquering might and right, to everlasting day. i am as sure of it, as i am of the being of god--as i am of my own being. the principles of progress are laid in human nature. if man did not care for himself, i should have no hope of him. if he could not go out from himself, and find therein his improvement, virtue and happiness, i should have no hope of him. but these two principles yoked together, in the heaven-ordained frame of our being, will draw on to victory. the relation of jesus to the present age. by charles carroll everett. the writer to the hebrews affirms that jesus christ is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." paul exclaims to the corinthians, "though we have known christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." christ was the same; yet before the generation that he left upon the earth had passed away his relation to the earth had changed. thus does the work of christ shape itself afresh to meet the needs of every generation. compare together the christ of the first century, the christ of the thirteenth, the christ of the sixteenth, and the christ of the nineteenth centuries, and you would hardly think they all represent the same personality. christ is always the same. his work is always substantially the same; but because the ages change, the method of this work changes. the same needs always exist in the heart of humanity, but in different ages these needs manifest themselves in different ways, and are to be met by different instrumentalities. and, further, it is not merely because the needs of humanity continually change their aspect that the work of christ is ever changing. no age is a recipient alone. there is no action without reaction each age contributes something to the work of christ. it adds new forces, new methods, new machinery. its spirit, and by this i mean its real, vital, energizing spirit, becomes united with the spirit of christ, as it is present and active in the world. in considering the relation of christ to the present age, we have then to consider it under two aspects. we have to consider each as a giver, and each as a receiver. we may help to make this double relation clear by saying that christ is present to this nineteenth century at once as a problem and as a power. no questions have stirred more deeply the heart of the age than those which have to do with the person and the office of christ. the answers to these questions shape the aspect in which he stands to the age, and become therefore parts and elements of the power by which he acts upon the world. but this statement does not exhaust the twofold relation of which i speak. that which the age gives to christ is not merely its thought about him. the secular thought and life of the age bring their contribution, they are themselves a contribution to him. they furnish one part of that complete organism of which christ furnishes the other. if the age, in any fundamental forms of its thought and life, seems to stand in opposition to christ, this apparent opposition is only the antithesis of elements which belong together. if what we call the spirit of the age seems, in any respect, to stand in opposition to the spirit of christ, this only shows the need that each has of the other. the spirit of this nineteenth century needs the spirit of christ, and the spirit of christ needs the spirit of this nineteenth century. it is not then merely that the thought of the age clears away something of the obscurity and the misconception that have gathered about the person and the work of christ. if all he said and did were as truly comprehended now as they could have been at the first, no less real, no less important, would be the offering which this age would bring to him. neither does the fact, that the work of christ needs the work, and that his spirit needs the spirit, of the century in which we live, necessarily imply any imperfection in his original work, or any thing originally lacking in his spirit. the question as to what he had in reserve, as to the limit, or the lack of limit, of his insight and comprehension, is one that i do not need, and do not intend here to raise. there is a kind of work that cannot be done all at once. there is a fulness of spirit that cannot manifest itself all at once. it is sufficient to know that christ recognized this fact as well as we can. he affirmed it as clearly and as confidently as it is possible for us to do. "i have," he said to his disciples, "yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. howbeit, when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he shall lead you into all truth." all, so far as we can see, that it was possible for any spirit to do at one moment, christ did. he infused into the world a spirit of love and faith and consecration, a principle of enthusiasm for humanity. he added to these the vitalizing power that came from his personality. this he did, and with this he was forced to be content. he told us the nature of his work, and foretold to us its history. it was to be as a little leaven which a woman hideth in a measure of meal till the whole is leavened. he hid in the world the leaven of his truth. that was all that he could do. it is for us to witness, and to contribute to, the completion of his work. in considering the theme before us, i shall speak, first, of the external history of christ, next of his teaching, and finally of his personality, in their relation to the present age. in considering the relation of christ to the present age, we are met, then, first by the most external form of this relation. the external history of christ, the very framework of many of his highest and purest teachings, contains elements that are utterly opposed to the habits of thought which are most peculiar to the present century. i refer to whatever in the history of christ implies the exercise of any miraculous power by him. the idea of a miracle is opposed to the fundamental axioms of the popular thought of the present. the writers who best represent this thought do not hold it necessary to disprove the fact of miracles. they simply affirm, with strauss, that the time is past when a miracle can be believed. on the other hand, the miraculous is inextricably intertwined with the history of christ. we find miracles recognized, not merely in records the genuineness of which has, with or without reason, been suspected. in epistles of paul, the genuineness of which no critic of repute has ever dreamed of assailing, the miraculous element is recognized as distinctly as in the gospels. we have at least the testimony of paul--one of the grandest souls that ever lived, a man whom we know and honor as we know and honor few--that he believed himself to have wrought miracles, and that he believed the other apostles had done and were in the habit of doing the same. and we further have his testimony, with that of others indorsed by him, in regard to the most important of the miracles of jesus; namely, the manifestation by jesus of himself to his disciples after his death. here is a collision between the form of the external manifestation of christ and the spirit of the age. the age itself has given such prominence to this that we cannot overlook it. the idea of miracle is so foreign to the spirit of the age that it has a fascination for it. it has less importance than any thing else in the history of jesus, and yet nothing has more occupied the thoughts of the thinkers of the present generation. for the reasons already stated, we must concede a certain degree of right to both sides of the great controversy. if we cannot eliminate the miraculous from the history of jesus, neither can we, nor would we if we could, eliminate from the spirit of the age that element which finds it hard to accept a miracle. the very antagonism between the two, the right which each maintains being granted, shows the need that each has of the other. each has a contribution for the other which could be received from no other source. in the first place, the absolute incredulity with which the most thorough representatives of the thought of the time receive any story of the miraculous shows that now, for the first time, a miracle is seen to be in the truest sense of the word a miracle. to the child or the savage a miracle is hardly possible. either every thing is a miracle or nothing is. it is only as the absoluteness of law is recognized that a miracle, which is in appearance a violation of this law, begins to produce its full impression. the present age has placed behind miracle a mighty background of law. from out this does miracle first stand forth in its true nature, as something demanding yet defying credence. those who blame the spirit of the age for lack of faith in this direction should at least give it credit for this immense contribution to the idea of miracle, by which, for the first time, a miracle stands forth absolutely in its true nature. not only does the spirit of the age thus furnish to miracles the background that they need: it furnishes to them also a content. the thought of law does not stop with the background of laws of which i spoke. laws may be finite: law is infinite. the miracle sets at defiance the great background of recognized laws; but itself can be only the manifestation of some higher, grander, more comprehensive law. thus does a miracle more truly than ever before come as a real revelation. for the first time it has its full and logical meaning. it was before expected to prove something which from the nature of the case it could not prove. no miracle, however stupendous, can prove the truth of a principle in morals. it can show, indeed, some superiority, in some respect, in him who works the miracle; but this superiority may not be of a nature to demand implicit confidence towards the person in all respects. it may be like the superiority of the european over the ignorant savage. the missionary may win the trust of the simple barbarian by sending a message written upon a chip; but the sailor, bringing the seeds of all the vices of civilization, can "make the chip speak" as well as the missionary. but when the miracle testifies of the comprehensive law which it manifests, then first does it have a meaning which cannot be wrested out of it. nay, then first does it become really sublime. before, it was a single meteor flashing in short-lived brightness across the sky. now, it is the first manifestation of a vast system of worlds of which we had not dreamed. such is the contribution which the spirit of the age, through the very antagonism of which i spoke, makes to the miracles which constitute so much of the external form in which christ meets it. on the other hand, miracle brings a no less important contribution to the spirit of the age. this spirit tends, not only to look upon law as absolute, but to look upon the system of laws which it has discovered as final. these laws tend continually to become narrow and hard. they tend to become merely a system of physical forces. there is danger that the spirit may become shut up within these physical laws as in a prison-house. the miracle demonstrates to the senses that these physical laws are not absolute, even in their own realm; that these physical forces are encompassed and interpenetrated by spiritual forces; that matter is at the last subordinate to spirit. it may not reveal the nature of these spiritual forces; but it does reveal their presence. all do not need this demonstration. the same truth may be reached in other ways. the laws of thought reveal it. the spiritual consciousness may be sufficient unto itself. christ himself regarded his miracles as of comparatively small account. he wrought them because he was moved to use whatever power he had to bless mankind. if he healed the sick, it was because he loved to heal them. he sympathized with sorrow and suffering, and, so far as he could, would remove their cause. but the miracles carry, as we have seen, their own revelation with them; and they have their place, however lowly, in regard even to the spiritual consciousness. the albatross, we are told, with all its magnificent sweep of wing, cannot lift itself from the flat surface of the deck on which it may be lying. just because its wings are so strong and large, it needs to be lifted a little, that they may have space to move, that they may have freedom to smite the air. when this freedom has been given it, then it mounts upward, sustained by its own inherent strength. so is it, sometimes, with the spirit. it has strength of its own. it has a self-sustaining power. but it sometimes needs to be lifted a little way above the dead level of its daily life, above the plane of physical relations, before its wings find strength and freedom to beat the air. then, leaving its temporary support behind it, it mounts in glad flight heavenward. such help many have found, and may yet find, in the miracles of jesus. the miracle may lift the level surface of life as if into a wave, from the crest of which the spirit may start upon its flight. from the external manifestation of the history of christ, and the external relations in which through this he stands to the present age, we pass to the inner power of this life. within these external manifestations we find his teachings. we have, then, next to consider the relation in which christ stands to the present age as a teacher. we shall find here the same twofold relation which we have found before; and the external may thus stand as a type and illustration of the internal. we will first consider, under this aspect, the basis and form of the teaching of christ, and next its substance. the spirit of the age is truth-seeking. we speak often of the eagerness for wealth that marks the age. i think that when, from the distant future, men shall look back upon this period of the world's history, the search for wealth will not be seen to fill the place that to us it seems to occupy. the age will be seen to be animated by a nobler quest than this. the search for truth will be seen to be the quest by which it is marked most really. we speak of the corruption of the age, of the trickeries of trade, of the unscrupulousness of speculation, of the pretence and display of fashion, of the venality of politics. all this is true. these things deserve the denunciation of the moralist and the preacher. but behind all this is the life which truly marks the age. it is the life of patient, earnest, honest search for truth. i believe that never and nowhere has there been manifested, to so great extent, such conscientious and self-forgetful love of truth for its own sake as may be found in the scientific investigations of the present day. such accuracy of research, such microscopic delicacy of measurement, such patient and unprejudiced examination, i believe to be unequalled in the history of man. this proves that, in spite of the frauds and falseness of which i spoke, the age is really sound at heart. theologians sometimes speak of the flippancy and conceit of the science of the day. the terms would be more true applied in the opposite direction. theology is more open to such charges than science. a love of truth that would fling away even the highest glory of the earth and the hope of heaven, if so be truth may stand pure and perfect, has something sublime about it. well might the theologian take a lesson from the man of science in regard to this consecration to truth. for theology, with its presumption, its prejudice, its pretence, its glossing over of difficulties, its leaning upon authority which it feels at heart is not authority, its saying what it does not exactly believe, that it may not contradict those who perhaps do not believe exactly what they say, may well stand ashamed in the presence of the science of the day that has left all to follow truth. theology should give to science not tolerance, not patronage, but reverence. while it utters fearlessly the truth that is given it to speak, it should in its turn seat itself as a learner at the feet of science, and seek not only to gather the facts which it has to teach, but to catch something of its spirit, the spirit that loves truth, and that will suffer nothing to take the place of this. but christ was not a truth-seeker. it does not appear that he ever doubted or questioned. pilate asked the question, what is truth? it does not appear that jesus ever did. jesus came not to seek the truth, but to announce it. "to this end," he cried, "was i born, and for this cause came i into the world, that i should bear witness unto the truth." he came to bear witness unto the truth, but it was truth that came to him without his seeking. neither does it appear that christ loved truth above all things. to the jesuit there is something better than truth, and to this he will sacrifice truth itself. i assert nothing like this in regard to christ. truth was to him fundamental and essential. he would not accept or tolerate what was false. but still to know was not the great object of his life. there was something better to him than truth; namely, life. he would rather be than know. at his touch truth sprang into life. if he came to bear witness to the truth, this was only a step in his grander work, the work which he proclaimed at the very beginning of his mission, when he cried, "i am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." and, further, christ did not merely teach life through truth: he taught truth through life. "if any man," he said, "will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine." and john was full of the spirit of his master when he cried, "the life is the light of men." we see more clearly the antithesis between christ as a teacher on the one side, and the present age on the other, in this fact: viz., that christ speaks with authority to an age which rejects authority. the cry of the age, in the world of the intellect as well as in that of politics, is for liberty. but to this age, as to every age, christ comes as a master. "my yoke," he says, "is easy;" but it is a yoke none the less. if the relation of christ to his truth is so different from that of the spirit of the age to its truth, it must follow that the two forms of truth rest on different bases. the faculties by which the age seeks truth must be different from those through which the truth came unsought to jesus. this age seeks truth by the discriminating and investigating power of the understanding. truth came to jesus through the intuitions of the soul. in him the moral and spiritual faculties were full of strength. he lived as naturally in the world of spiritual realities as other men live in the world of physical realities. as we need only open our eyes and see, so his spirit had only to open its eyes and it saw. as the voices of the outward world come to us without our listening for them, so the voice of god came to him whether he would or no. and this was the ground of the authority with which he spoke. whoever speaks from the moral and spiritual consciousness to the moral and spiritual consciousness may and must speak with authority. we may illustrate this by an extreme case. when a man is lurking for the commission of some crime, or after he has committed it, he feels the mastery of all innocent things. the rustle of a leaf may excite his dread. to a voice denouncing his crime, or crime like his, he listens as to the voice of god. this recognition of the mastery of a higher degree of life after its own kind is felt at every stage of moral and spiritual development. if the soul be comparatively guilty, it recognizes this mastery with dread. if it be comparatively innocent, it recognizes it with joy. such was the authority with which jesus spoke. though he spoke with authority, what he said did not rest on this authority. it was the authority with which the awakened calls to the sleeper, bidding him awake, for the world is bright with the morning. the voice penetrates to the obscured consciousness of the sleeper. he stirs himself, he opens his eyes, and rejoices for himself in the morning brightness. so christ called to a sleeping world. nay, he called to those who were dead in trespasses and sin, and they that were dead heard the voice of the son of man and lived. if the truth taught by jesus and the truth that is sought by the present age rest on such different bases, they must be, we should suppose, in some respects different each from the other. but, if each be truth, they must be the complements each of the other. and, if they are the complements each of the other, they must need one another. each must be imperfect without the other. each must find a certain confirmation and support from the other, and each must complete for the other the circle of truth. we are thus led to look at some points in the teaching of christ, and to see how these complete and are completed by the truth which the present age seeks and finds. in the first place, christ teaches us of the loving providence of god. he awakens in our hearts all childlike instincts of trust and confidence. he tells us that god is our father, that his love watches over all his children, that it follows the prodigal in his wandering and greets him on his return, that even a sparrow does not fall to the earth without it. this teaching is sufficient for the spiritual necessities of our nature. the spirit that has adopted these principles into itself will live a strong and blessed life. they have been the inspiration of the centuries ever since christ uttered them. they contain all that could be told of god in the age when jesus lived. but they do not exhaust the truth of god. they leave space for misconception. love may be universal, and yet be not without caprice. providence may watch over all, and yet in every case be only a special providence. god may watch over every individual of the race, but over each merely as an individual. if there may be the caprices of love, then it is not a long step to the possibility of caprices which spring from the lack of love. love may alternate with hate. if each individual be dealt with singly, as though he existed by himself, the step is not a long one to the thought of discrimination between individuals. the caprices of love may become favoritism, and the special favor shown to one implies the neglect of another. all these things are foreign from the spirit and the teaching of christ. they contradict the fundamental principles of his teaching. and yet, men's habits of thought being such as they were, the teaching of christ could not be absolutely fortified against them. he told men that the love of god was like the sunshine that visits all alike, but the words passed through their ears unheeded. thus christianity all along has been corrupted by misrepresentations of its truth in which the thought of love had suggested caprice, and the thought of special love and special providence had suggested the thought of favoritism, and favoritism had suggested discrimination and neglect. all men were seen to stand in the presence of god as individuals, which is true; and merely as individuals, which is false. the truth that god is love needs to be supplemented by another truth; namely this, that god is law. the great truth of the absoluteness of law cannot be taught in a single lesson. no man can tell it to another. it must be demonstrated to be believed. it must be shown in its myriad and unvarying applications to all forms of being before it can be felt as a reality. one must see for one's self the grand march of the order of the universe, the unfailing sequence of cause and effect, the mathematical exactness of the correlation of all the forces of the world, before one can have a sense of the truth which lies at the basis and forms the culmination of scientific thought to-day. this truth has not been reached suddenly. the ages have been groping after it. this age has reached, by slow and patient thought, a comprehension of this truth which is its inspiration. the ages to come will only add to it new illustrations as they follow its mighty sweep. this truth is what seems at times to put this age into antagonism with the spirit of christ. it is really the offering which the thought of the age brings to christ. the teaching of christ needs, as we have seen, this truth as its complement. the antithesis between the two shows the intimate relationship between them. when we bring the two together in one thought, we have the most sublime conception that ever dawned upon the mind of man. the truth of christ finds a body: the truth of the age finds a soul. on the one side, all possibility of caprice is driven from our thought of god. the love of god, as strong and tender as the lips of jesus could describe it, is seen to be as regular and as calm as the movements of the heavens. this truth only adds to the strength and the clearness of our thought of the love of god. we see demonstrated before us how his care pursues all things, how not a sparrow falls to the earth unfollowed by this watchful providence, how every grain of dust that floats in the summer sun has its place and work in the great whole, not a single mote forgotten. we learn in what direction to look for the action and succor of this providence. we do not look for it to come to us in weakness, but in strength. we see that this perfect order is the truest providence, that the care of each is most perfect that recognizes each in its relations to all the rest. so soon as we recognize the divinity of law and the love that is enshrined in it, we feel the omnipresent might of this divinity, the omnipotence of this love. the restlessness and passion of our hearts are stilled. trust in god takes on the peace and the calmness of the heavens. such is the offering which the age brings to christ. it brings a body in which his spirit may incarnate itself afresh. the result of the union of the thought of the age with the thought of christ may be seen in all the relations in which the soul stands to god. christ bade his followers preach his gospel to every creature. the age has taught us the necessity of educating and civilizing the barbarian, if we would christianize him. christ taught us to love the sinner while hating sin. this has seemed to some paradoxical; but the age has removed some of the difficulty by showing how much of what we call character is the result of inherited tendencies and outward circumstances. jesus taught the doctrine of immortality. men have tended to look upon the future life as something standing over against the present. the age teaches us that such a break in life is impossible, that if there be an immortality it must lie hidden in the present. it teaches, too, that the judgments of god, if there be a god, are never arbitrary. he does not hold blessing in one hand and cursing in another, and give each, by an outward bestowal, as he may see that it is deserved. men's acts drag their consequences after them. thus the old scripture phrases are just coming to their meaning. it is not an angry god that pursues the sinner: it is his own sin that has found him out. men do reap the fruit of their own sowing. there is no scientific truth of the day that stands in any stronger antagonism to the truth of christ than is implied in such antitheses as have been referred to. even the theories of development, so rife at present, do not stand in the way of christ. christ looks not downward but upward, not backward but forward. such theories, if established, would only show the progressive power of spirit, the omnipotence of life. but if the thought of jesus needs that of the present age, still more does the thought of the age need that of jesus. if the spirit needs a body, still more does the body need a spirit. the laws, the forces on which the thought of the age dwells, until this divineness is added to them are hard and cold. the body, which could carry on all the functions of its life, yet without life, would be a machine, perfect indeed and wonderful, but a machine none the less. the thought of the age, taken by itself, uninspired by christian truth, tends to drag down the soul, to imprison it in mere mechanism, to take from it its divine inspiration; and while we need the thought of the present age to illustrate to us the methods of god's dealings with the soul, none the less does the thought of the age need the knowledge that there is a soul. among all the forces of the universe, the power of the soul, the culmination of them all, is apt to be lost sight of. the thought of the age tends to look upon things from without, and to lose that which is their essence. it needs the voice that shall awaken its own inner life, and thus bring it to a consciousness of the life that lies at the heart of all things. thus we see how the thought of christ and the thought of the age need and complement each other. the thought of christ is spiritual, the thought of the age tends to become material. in this world we are neither wholly spiritual nor wholly material. and we must bear in mind that the two elements should not exist over against one another in our thought. we must not hold the two conceptions, however opposite they may appear, as two. in life the spirit and the body do not exist as two but as one. as soon as they exist as two, there is death. so must the truth of jesus and the truth of this present age be blended in one thought. we must not say love and law, but love in law. we must not see the divine power setting at work forces that by their natural operation shall reward or punish the spirit. we must see the divine power working in and through these forces. then, as science makes us feel that we are encompassed by law, the words will not need translating to us; for we shall feel that we are encompassed by god. the relation which we have found to exist between the intellectual teaching of christ and the thought of the age is no less marked between the moral teaching of christ and the life of the age. the moral teaching of christ is absolutely true. it is as true as his thought of god; yet like that it needs its complemental truth. further, the moral teaching of christ needs instrumentalities. love, however strong, cannot work without means. the heart needs the hands and the feet. in both of these respects the age brings its offering to christ. christ teaches love and self-sacrifice. he bids us do for others as we would have them do for us. he bids us give to him that asks, and lend to him that would borrow. these principles are the very life of society. they are the very truth of god. but yet these principles carried out, without explanation and qualification, would produce harm as well as good. the church of every age, in striving to carry out these precepts, has done much good; but it has done much harm also. it has done good by bringing succor to the lives that needed it. it has done immeasurable good by keeping alive on the earth the spirit of christian love. men have been blest by the power of the spirit, even more than by its specific acts of mercy. but, while it has relieved the poor, it has too often tended to perpetuate poverty. indiscriminate alms-giving, mere alms-giving, is the very mother of pauperism. we see in some catholic countries how the alms-giving which the church has taught in the very words of christ has degraded whole populations, has taken from manhood its real dignity and strength. we need, then, not only the principle of love, but also a knowledge of all social laws. the science of political economy must be understood; but this, like physical science, cannot be taught in a day. ages must teach the lesson. the present age has only half learned it. but it has learned enough to bring a magnificent contribution to christ. christ bids us help men: the age, in its poor blundering way, is just beginning to tell us how to help them. it teaches that the best way to help the poor is to strike at the root of poverty. no less does the age furnish means for carrying out the principles of jesus. it brings the ends of the earth together. christ bids us love our neighbor. this age has made those from whom the sea parts us our neighbors. there is famine, or some more sudden calamity, on the other side of our continent, or in a foreign land. christ bids us help those who need. how shall we carry sudden help unless we hear at once the story? how shall we send prompt help if there be no strong and swift messenger waiting at our door? but now the lightning tells the story the moment in which there is a story to be told, and the unwearied steam bears our gifts as soon as they can be gathered. the commands of jesus are absolute. the power of the age to fulfil these commands is approaching absoluteness. thus does the age add to the teaching of christ the completeness that it needs. but does not the age in turn need this teaching? materialism and mechanism in thought are bad enough: they are worse in life. the life of the age has a tendency to materialism and mechanism. the science of political economy tends to become a hard system of rules, in which the spontaneous sympathy of the helper and the individuality of the helped are lost together. the eagerness of the world after material prosperity tends to a practical absorption in these ends. thus we have the greed, the excitement, the madness, the display, the corruption that to so great an extent characterize the age. we have seen that there is a deeper life beneath this superficial one; but these evils, however superficial, need prompt and constant care lest they eat into the very heart. the body needs the spirit, or it will sink into decay. i have spoken of the two elements which we are considering as if they stood simply over against one another. this is in some respects true. the thought and life of the age are, indeed, largely indebted to the stimulus of christianity; but they are not, like the painting and architecture of the middle ages, the direct outgrowth of it. the science of the present day is self-developed and self-sustained. the machinery of the world has been invented for the world's uses. its political economy has been thought out to facilitate its own ends. but though the two elements, to some extent, stand over against one another, yet each, by its natural development, is approaching the other, and each is becoming penetrated by the other. on the one side, religion is catching the spirit of the age, and is approaching the clearness and accuracy of scientific thought. on the other side, science is becoming conscious of truth which is unattainable by its methods, and which is to it therefore the unknowable. already does herbert spencer, who represents the foremost thought of the time, feel the awe of this mystery, and see gleaming through it something of the presence of the infinite love. the life of the age, also, by bringing men near to one another, tends to produce the sense of human brotherhood. its vast business enterprise, in some of its aspects, does more for the cause of humanity than many a professed charity. further, the age is, to some extent at least, directly inspired by christianity. its zeal for humanity, its sympathy with the oppressed and suffering everywhere, its gigantic and unparalleled charities, show it to be more truly christian than any age that has preceded it. if however, in spite of all this, we are sometimes tempted to doubt whether the power of the truth which christ represents is to win the mastery, or whether it is destined to be lost in the great struggle, we must remember that its authority is that of elements that are fundamental in human nature. the spiritual instincts may be repressed: they cannot be exterminated. as in every little creek and inlet along the shore the water answers to the call of the ocean, and feels the might of the outgoing and the incoming tide, so in human life deep answers unto deep. we must remember, too, that christ is not a mere teacher. his power is not alone that of the truth he utters. it is no mere accident of history that the higher truth and life which we have been considering confront the age as christian truth and life. they receive a power from their union with christ which they could not have received, even had the thought of men attained to them, without this. we have looked at the external form of his life and at his teaching in their relation to the age. there is yet another step to take. there is still an inner reality to be unveiled. behind the power of his teaching is the power of his personality. in this is found the climax of the antithesis in which he stands to the present. the tendency of the present age is, consciously or unconsciously, to disown personality. the laws which make the substance of its thought, the mechanism that makes the framework of its life, both tend to assert themselves against the power of a free personality. we may illustrate this by the modern method of warfare. in ancient times the victory depended on the strength of the individual arm and the courage of the individual heart. now it depends more upon the drill of the army and the clear head of the general. this tendency of the thought of the age is not based on error. it brings to our thought of personality the correction that it needs. the tendency of the past has been to look upon personality as existing by and for itself. it has recognized no limits to the power of freedom. each individual stood by and for himself in the universe. now we see a common element in all lives. all lives are entwined together. we see limits which freedom cannot pass. we understand something of the limits of each individual. we understand something of the laws of descent and of the power of education. even the personality of jesus does not stand by itself as it seemed to once. we see in him the power of the common nature. we see in him the effect of forces which had been in operation since the world was. he was no stranger upon the earth. he was the son of god, but he was no less the son of man. he was the flowering of a nation's history, the flowering of humanity. the flower is drawn forth by the sun, but it is drawn out from the plant. even the sun can kindle the flame of no rose upon the bramble's stalk. while, however, the age teaches us what is the background out from which the power of personality stands forth, and what are the elements that are fused together in it, personality itself remains too much unrecognized. but, i repeat, the integrity of human nature can never be violated; and personality is the culmination of human nature. the power of a modern army, we have seen, depends largely on its drill; yet even here the impetuous courage of a leader may infuse a life into this vast machine that shall decide the victory. mere signals, it is found, upon a ship will not answer the purpose of communication between the captain and the men. in times of peril, in the midst of the fury of the storm, the sailor needs the inspiration of the captain's voice, ringing with a force that is mightier than the tempest; namely, the force of human will and courage. no matter how mechanical the age may become, no matter how the idea of freedom may be eliminated from its thought, the great heart of humanity beats still in its bosom, and the voice of a strong, free personality will sooner or later arouse it to an answering consciousness. the very bands which it sets about personality will make its power more strongly felt when it is perceived. its very knowledge of the elements that are united in it will make it feel more really the might of the force which can fuse these into one burning point. personality involves three elements. the first is freedom; the second, a purpose freely chosen; the third, devotion to this purpose. there is no slavery like sin. absolute freedom, and thus absolute personality, can be found only in a nature wholly pure and unselfish. christ was thus free. his purpose was the vastest that any human soul has grasped; and he gave himself to it with all the power of his nature. thus christ possessed the most intense personality ever felt upon the earth. his teaching came forth glowing with its fire. we feel to-day the effect which his personality produced upon those who came into direct contact with it. this influence has propagated itself from age to age. the church grew out of it, and its influence is felt to-day far beyond the limits of the church. besides this indirect power of the personality of jesus, we may feel its force directly, as we bring ourselves into personal relation with him. it has not lost its original might. it still tends to reproduce itself in the present. the form in which truth first utters itself has a power which no subsequent repetition can equal. there is a kind of work that can be done only once. the first discoverer or announcer of any truth stands in a relation to it which no other can ever fill. many navigators have crossed the sea, but there is only one columbus. many astronomers have searched the heavens, but there has been no second newton. this fact is most noticeable in regard to truths that represent not merely the intellect, but the whole moral and spiritual nature of him who first uttered them in their fulness. there is a fact in science strange, apparently illogical, but yet unquestionable. it is this: the power of heat-bearing rays to pass through any resisting medium depends not upon the temperature of the rays, but upon that of the body from which they come. the heat-bearing rays of the sun that approach the earth hardly differ in temperature from the rays that are reflected from it; but the former pass almost unimpeded through the atmosphere by which the latter are to a great extent imprisoned. the rays reach the earth without difficulty, but are entrapped by the principle referred to, and remain to bless the world. the first have this power to pass through the atmosphere because they come direct from the burning body of the sun. the reflected rays have lost this power, because they proceed from the colder earth. this law is as true in the intellectual and spiritual as it is in the physical world. the power of moral and spiritual truths to penetrate to the hearts of men has this strange dependence upon the moral and spiritual power of him who utters them. the very spontaneity of this utterance is a revelation of this power. it is because the truth that jesus uttered came forth from his glowing heart of love, it is because it sprang fresh and spontaneous from the intensity of his spiritual life, that it has such power to-day to touch the hearts of men. as the sun's rays preserve their penetrating force through all the interplanetary spaces, so the teachings of christ have preserved it through all the reaches of history. no subsequent repetition of these truths can ever have quite the power that their first complete utterance still retains. and the power that they exercise is largely in this, that they excite in the hearts of men a spiritual life akin to that from which they originally sprang. scientific truths are taught by demonstration. spiritual truths are taught chiefly by stimulating the spiritual life. when we live merely in the contemplation of laws, in the study of external relations, our intellect is stimulated, but our moral and spiritual nature may be comparatively dormant. our life is stimulated as we are brought into living relationship with the universe. as our inner nature is thus stimulated, as it rounds itself into completeness, the moral and spiritual consciousness is awakened. this is the reason why it so often happens that spiritual truths are so real in moments of sorrow. in its sorrow the soul lives wholly in love, and it receives the enlightenment of love. our nation had almost forgotten god; but in those terrible years of war, when every soul was full of life and earnestness, the earth and the heavens were full of god. our nation's history became transparent to us, as the history of the hebrews was transparent to them, and we saw god's providence in it all. theology has wrestled vainly with science. in such a struggle it will always be the loser. christian theology can never conquer science. christian life must absorb science into itself. the truths that jesus uttered, as they have been absorbed into the common thought of men, or as they are received directly from the record of his life, have a mighty power to purify the thought and elevate the hearts of men. but i think that the greatest power of christ to-day is that of imparting his life to the men and women who are now living in the world. the power of the church will depend upon its power to receive this life and to impart it. it is well to have a true theology; but the church that has the most of the life of christ will accomplish the most for men. it brings to this truth-seeking and law-investigating age the pure personality which it needs. and it will at last possess the truest theology, for now and evermore it is the life that is the light of men. the mythical element in the new testament. by frederic henry hedge. "[greek: philosophôteron kai spoudaioteron poiêsis historias estin.]" aristotle. when dr. strauss, thirty-five years ago, in his "life of jesus," advanced and applied to the narrative of the new testament a theory of interpretation, in principle the same with that which a christian father of the third century had employed in his treatment of the old, the theological world was profoundly shocked by what seemed to be the last impiety of criticism. a hundred champions rushed with drawn pen to the rescue of the old interpretation of the text. the truth of christianity was supposed to be assailed; the belief in christianity as divine revelation was felt to be imperilled by a theory which substituted mythical figment for historic fact. that no such harm was intended, or was likely to ensue from his labors, the author himself assures us in the preface to that extraordinary work. "the inner kernel of christian faith," he declares, "is entirely independent of all such criticism. christ's supernatural birth, his miracles, his resurrection and ascension, remain eternal truths, however their reality as facts of history may be called in question." in this declaration i find a fitting text for the following discourse. how far does the cause of christianity depend on the facts, or alleged facts, of the gospel narrative? or, to state the question in other words, is the truth of christianity identical and conterminous with the literal truth of its record? it is obvious at the start that a certain amount of historic truth must be assumed as implied in the very existence of any religion which dates from a personal founder whose thought it professes to embody, and whose name it bears. christianity purports to be founded on the ministry of a jewish teacher, entitled by his followers "the christ." we have the testimony of a nearly contemporary latin historian to the fact that an individual so named was the leader of a numerous body of religionists, and was put to death by command of pontius pilate, in the reign of tiberius. but, without this confirmation, the very existence of the christian church compels us to accept as historic facts, the ministry of jesus, the strong impression of his word and character, his purity of manners and moral greatness, his life of beneficent action, his martyr death, and his manifestation to his disciples after death, however that manifestation be conceived, whether as subjective experience or as objective reality. so much, beyond all reasonable question, must stand as history, vouched by documentary evidence, and by the existence, in the first century, of a church universally diffused, which affirmed these facts as the ground of its being, and in the strength of them overcame the world. but, observe, it is christianity that assures the truth of these facts, and not the facts that prove christianity. to base the truth of christianity on the credibility, in every particular, of the gospel record; to measure the claims of the religion by the strict historic verity of all the narrative of the new testament, is to prejudice the christian cause in the judgment of competent critics. it is to challenge the cavil and counter-demonstration of unbelief. christianity assures the truth of certain facts; but by no means of all the facts affirmed by the writers of the new testament. faith in christianity as divine dispensation does not imply, and must not be held to the belief, as veritable history, of all that is recorded in the gospel. not the historic sense, but the spiritual import; not the facts, but the ideas of the gospel, are the genuine topics of faith. christianity, like every other religion, has its mythology,--a mythology so intertwined with the veritable facts of its early history, so braided and welded with its first beginnings, that history and myth are not always distinguishable the one from the other. every historic religion, that has won for itself a conspicuous place in the world's history, has evolved from a core of fact a nimbus of legendary matter which criticism cannot always separate, and which the popular faith does not seek to separate, from the solid parts of the system. and in one view the legends or myths which gather around the initial stage of any religion are as true as the vouched and substantial facts of its record: they are a product of the same spirit working, in the one case, in the acts and experiences; in the other, in the visions, the ideas, the literary activity of the faithful. it is one and the same motive that inspires both the writer and the doer. when i speak of historic religions, i mean such as trace their origin to some historic personage, and bear the impress of his idea, in contradistinction to those which have sprung from unknown sources, the wild growths of nature-worship as found in ancient egypt, in the indian and scandinavian peninsulas, and in greece. no distinction in religion is so fundamental as that between the wild religions and those which have sprung from the word of a human sower going forth to sow; the religions of sense and those of reflection, the "natural" and the "revealed." the prime characteristic of the former is polytheism; that of the latter, monotheism. mosaism, mohammedism, buddhism,--so far as it knows any god,--even parsism, is monotheistic in as much as its dualism is resolvable into the final triumph and supremacy of the good. no founder of a religion ever taught a plurality of gods. another characteristic of the wild religions is their transitoriness. the egyptian, the greco-roman, the scandinavian, perished long ago. bramanism, the last survivor of the ancient polytheisms, is fast melting beneath the advancing heats of islam and the brahmo somaj. the "revealed" religions on the contrary are permanent. no religion of historic origin, so far as i know, has ever died out. judaism, the eldest of them, still flourishes: never since the destruction of jerusalem has it flourished with a greener leaf than now. mohammedism is pushing its conquests faster than christianity in the east, parsism is still strong in bengal, buddhism in one or another form calls a third part of the population of the globe its own. all religions have their mythologies, but with this distinction: polytheism is mythical in principle as well as form, in soul as well as body, and mythical throughout. its whole being is myth. whatever of scientific or historic truth may be hidden in any of its legends, such as the labors of herakles, the fire-theft of prometheus, or the rape of europa, is matter of pure conjecture. in the "revealed" religions, on the contrary, the mythical is incidental, not principial, and always subordinate to doctrine or fact. always the truth shines through the myth, explains it, justifies it. before proceeding any farther, i desire to explain what i mean by myth in this connection. i shall not attempt a philosophic definition, but content myself with this general determination. i call any story a myth which for good reasons is not to be taken historically, and yet is not a wilful fabrication with intent to deceive, but the natural growth of wonder and tradition, or a product of the spirit uttering itself in a narrative form. the myth may be the result of exaggeration, the expansion of a veritable fact which gathers increments and a _posse comitatus_ of additions as it travels from mouth to ear and ear to mouth in the carriage of verbal report; or it may be the reflection of a fact in the mind of a writer, who reproduces it in his writing with the color and proportions it has taken in his conception; or it may be the poetic embodiment of a mental experience; or it may be what strauss calls "the deposit[ ] of an idea," and another critic "an idea shaped into fact." i think we have examples of all these mythical formations in the new testament; and i hold that the credit of the gospel in things essential is nowise impaired, nor the claim of christianity as divine revelation compromised, by a frank admission of this admixture of fancy with fact in its record. on the contrary, i deem it important, in view of the vulgar radicalism which confounds the christian dispensation and its record, soul and body, in one judgment, to separate the literary question from the spiritual, and to free the cause of faith from the burden of the letter. [footnote : niederschlag.] it has been assumed that the proof of divine revelation rests on precisely those portions of the record which are most offensive to unbelief. on this assumption the christian apologists of a former generation grounded their plea. prove that we have the testimony of eye-witnesses to the miracles recorded in the gospels, and christianity is shown to be a divine revelation. in the absence of such proof (the inference is) christianity can no longer claim to be, in the words of paul, "the power of god unto salvation." this is substantially paley's argument. planting himself on the premise that revelation is impossible without miracles, in which it is implied that miracles prove revelation, he labors to establish two propositions: . "that there is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be original witnesses of the christian miracles passed their lives in dangers, labors, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief in those accounts; and that they also submitted from the same motives to new rules of conduct." . "that there is _not_ satisfactory evidence that persons pretending to be original witnesses of any other similar miracles have acted in the same manner in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief in the truth of those accounts." the argument is stated with the characteristic clearness of the author, and as well supported perhaps as anglican church-erudition in those days would allow; but the case is not made out, and, if it were, the argument fails to satisfy the sceptical mind of to-day. to say nothing of its gross misconception of the nature of revelation, which it makes external instead of internal, a stunning of the senses instead of mental illumination, an appeal to prodigy and not its own sufficient witness,--waiving this objection, the argument fails when confronted with the fact that, in spite of the evidence which scholars and critics the most learned and acute of all time have arrayed in support of the genuineness of the gospels, the number is nowise diminished, but rather increases, of intelligent minds that find themselves unable, on the faith of any book, however ancient, to receive as authentic a tale of wonders which contradict their experience of the limits of human ability and their faith in the continuity of nature. for myself, i beg to say, in passing, i am not of this number. i do not feel the force of the objection against miracles drawn from this alleged constancy of nature, which it seems to me reduces the course of human events to a dead mechanical sequence, makes no allowance for any reserved power in nature or any incalculable forces of the spirit, and virtually rules god, the present inworking god, out of the universe. i can believe in any miracle which does not actually and demonstrably contravene and nullify ascertained laws, however phenomenally foreign to nature's ordinary course. but the possibility of miracles is one thing, the possibility of proving them another. with such views as these objectors entertain of the constancy of nature, i confess that no testimony, not even the written affidavit of a dozen witnesses taken on the spot, supposing that we had it, would suffice to convince me of the truth of marvels occurring two thousand years ago, of the kind recounted in the gospels. my christian prepossessions might incline me to believe in them: the weight of evidence would not. no wise defender of the christian cause, at the present day, will rest his plea on the issue to which paley committed its claims. after all that biblical critics and antiquarian research have raked from the dust of antiquity in proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the books of the new testament, credibility still labors with the fact that the age in which these books were received and put in circulation was one in which the science of criticism as developed by the moderns--the science which scrutinizes statements, balances evidence for and against, and sifts the true from the false--did not exist; an age when a boundless credulity disposed men to believe in wonders as readily as in ordinary events, requiring no stronger proof in the case of the former than sufficed to establish the latter,--viz., hearsay and vulgar report; an age when literary honesty was a virtue almost unknown, and when, consequently, literary forgeries were as common as genuine productions, and transcribers of sacred books did not scruple to alter the text in the interest of personal views and doctrinal prepossessions. the newly discovered sinaitic code, the earliest known manuscript of the new testament, dates from the fourth century. tischendorf the discoverer, a very orthodox critic, speaks without reserve of the license in the treatment of the text apparent in this manuscript,--a license, he says, especially characteristic of the first three centuries. these considerations, though they do not discredit the essential facts of the gospel history,--facts assured to us, as i have said, by the very existence of the christian church,--might seem to excuse the hesitation of the sceptic in accepting, on the faith of the record, incidental marvels of a kind very difficult of proof at best. i recall in this connection the remarkable saying of an english divine of the seventeenth century. "so great, in the early ages," says bishop fell, "was the license of fiction, and so prone the facility of believing, that the credibility of history has been gravely embarrassed thereby; and not only the secular world, but the church of god, has reason to complain of its mythical periods."[ ] [footnote : tanta fuit primis seculis fingendi licentia, tam prona in credendo facilitas, ut rerum gestarum fides graviter exinde laboraverit, nec orbis tantum terrarum sed et dei ecclesia de temporibus suis mythicis merito queratur.] it is not in the interest of criticism, much less of a wilful iconoclasm, from which my whole nature revolts, but of christian faith, that i advocate the supposition of a mythical element in the new testament. i am well aware that in this advocacy i shall lack the consent of many good people who identify the cause of religion with its accidents, and fancy that the sanctuary is in danger when a blind is raised to let in new light. i respect the piety that clings to idols which truth has outgrown, as paul at athens respected the religion which worshipped ignorantly the unknown god. but truth once seen will draw piety after it, and new sanctities will replace the old. no protestant in these days feels himself bound to accept as history the ecclesiastical legends of the post-apostolic age. some of them are quite as significant as some of those embodied in the canon; but no protestant scruples to reject as spurious the story of the caldron of boiling oil into which st. john was thrown by order of the emperor domitian, and from which he escaped unharmed, or that of the lioness which licked the feet of thecla in the circus at antioch, or peter's encounter with christ in the suburbs of rome. if we talk of evidence, i do not see but the miracles said to be performed by the relics of martyrs at milan, attested by st. augustine, and those of st. cuthbert of durham, attested by the venerable bede, are as well substantiated as the opening of the prison doors and the liberation of the apostles by an angel, attested by luke. the church of rome makes no such distinction between the first and the following centuries: she indorses the miracles of all alike. but modern protestantism draws a line of sharp separation between the apostolic and the post-apostolic ages. on the farther side the portents are all genuine historic facts: on the hither side they are all figments. while john the evangelist, the last of the twelve, yet breathed, a miracle was still possible: his breath departed, it became an impossibility for evermore. and yet when conyers middleton first ran this line between the ages, and published his refutation of the claim of continued miraculous power in the church, religious sensibility experienced a shock as great as that inflicted in our day by strauss, and resented with equal indignation the affront to christian faith. the author of the "free inquiry" published in was assailed by opponents, who "insinuate" he tells us "fears and jealousies of i know not what consequences dangerous to christianity, ruinous to the faith of history, and introductive of universal scepticism." the larger work had been preceded by an "introductory discourse" put forth as a feeler of the public pulse; for "i began," he says, "to think it a duty which candor and prudence prescribed, not to alarm the public at once with an argument so strange and so little understood, nor to hazard an experiment so big with consequences till i had at first given out some sketch or general plan of what i was projecting." the experiment which required such careful preparation was to ascertain how far the english public in the middle of the eighteenth century would bear to have it said that the miracles affirmed by augustine and chrysostom and jerome, as occurring in their day, were not as worthy of credit as any of the wonders recorded in the new testament. up to that time, english protestants as well as romanists had given equal credence to both, and esteemed the former as essential to christian faith as the latter. men like waterland and dodwell and archbishop tillotson held that miracles continued in the church until the close of the third century, and were even occasionally witnessed in the fourth. whiston, the consistent arian, maintained their continuance up to the establishment of the athanasian doctrine in , and "that as soon as the church became athanasian, antichristian, and popish, they ceased immediately; and the devil lent it his own cheating and fatal powers instead." to me, i confess, the position of the church of rome in this matter seems less indefensible than that of middleton and modern protestantism. either deny the possibility of miracles altogether to finite powers, or admit their possibility in the second century, and the third century, as well as the first, and in all centuries whenever a worthy occasion demands such agency. i can see no reason for separating, as middleton does, the age of the apostles from all succeeding. had he drawn the line between the miracles of christ and those ascribed to his followers, the principle of division would have been more intelligible, and more admissible on the ground of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. * * * * * but the question here is not of the possibility or probability of miracles, as such, in one age rather than another. it is a question simply of biblical interpretation,--whether the literal sense of the record is in every case the true sense, whether history or fiction is the key to certain scriptures. those who insist on the verbal inspiration of the new testament will be apt to likewise insist on the literal historic sense of every part of every narrative. and yet that mode of interpretation is by no means a necessary consequence or logical outcome of that theory. origen believed in the verbal inspiration of the old testament, but origen did not accept in their literal sense the hebrew theophanies: he allegorized whatever seemed to him to degrade the idea of god. the spirit can utter itself in fiction as well as fact, and in communicating with oriental minds was quite as likely to do so. and surely, for those who reject the notion of verbal inspiration, the way is open, in perfect consistency with christian faith, for such interpretation as reason may approve or the credit of the record be thought to require. the credit of the record will sometimes require an allegorical interpretation instead of a literal one. it is a childish limitation which in reading stories can feel no interest in any thing but fact; and a childish misconception which supposes that where the form is narrative, historic fact must needs be the substance. recount to a little child a fable of pilpay or �sop, and his questions betray his inability to apprehend it otherwise than as literal fact. he has no doubt of the truth of the story; "what did the lion say then?" he asks; and "what did the fox do next?" the maturer mind has also no doubt of the truth of the story, but sees that its truth is the moral it embodies. of many of the gospel stories the moral contained in them is the real truth. in the height of our late civil war there appeared in a popular journal a story entitled "a man without a country," related with such artistic verisimilitude, such minuteness of detail, such grave official references, that many who read it not once suspected the clever invention, and felt themselves somewhat aggrieved when apprised that fiction, not fact, had conveyed the moral intended by the genial author. but those who saw from the first through the veil of fiction the needful truth and the patriotic intent were not less edified than if they had believed the characters real, and every incident vouched by contemporary record. the story of william tell was once universally received as authentic history: it was written in the hearts of the people of uri, and so religiously were all its incidents cherished, that when a book appeared discrediting the sacred tradition it was publicly burned by the hangman at altorf. for five centuries the chapel on the shore of the lake of the four cantons has commemorated a hero whose very existence is now questioned, of whom contemporary annals know nothing, of whose tyrant gessler the well-kept records of the canton exhibit no trace, whose apple placed as a mark for the father's arrow on the head of his child is proved to have done a foregone service in an elder danish tale. the story resolves itself into an idea. that idea is all that concerns us; and that idea survives, inexpugnable to criticism, a truth for evermore. in the world of ideas there is still a william tell who defied the tyrant at altorf, and slew him at küsnacht, and whose image will live while the mountains stand that gave it birth. and so all that is memorable out of the past, all that tradition has preserved, the veritable facts of history as well as the myths of legendary lore, pass finally into ideas. only as ideas they survive, only as ideas have they any abiding value. the anecdote recorded of aristides--his writing his own name at the request of an ignorant citizen on the shell that should condemn him--embodies a noble idea which has floated down to us from the head-waters of grecian history. do we care to know the evidence on which it rests? if by critical investigation the fact were made doubtful, would that doubt at all impair the truth of the idea? the story of damon and pythias, reported by valerius maximus, for aught that we know, may be a myth: suppose it could be proved to be so, the truth that is in it would be none the less precious. we do not receive it on the faith of the historian, but on the faith of its own intrinsic beauty. there is scarcely a fact in the annals of mankind so vouched and ascertained as to be beyond the reach of historic doubt, if any delver in ancient documents, or curious sceptic, shall see fit to call it in question. but, however the fact may be questioned, the idea remains. we have lived to see apologies for judas iscariot, and the literary rehabilitation of henry viii. but judas is none the less, in popular tradition, the typical traitor, the impersonation of devilish malice; and henry viii. is no less the remorseless tyrant whose will was his god. when napoleon i. pronounced all history a fable agreed on, he reasoned better perhaps than he knew. the agreement is the thing essential; but that agreement is never complete, is never final. every original writer of history finds something to qualify, and often something to reverse, in the judgment of his predecessors. how can it be otherwise, when even eye-witnesses disagree in their observation and report of the same transaction; when even in a matter so recent as the siege of paris, or the conflagration of chicago, the verification of facts is embarrassed by contradictory accounts? the best that history yields to philosophic thought is not facts, but ideas. these are all that remain at last when the tale is told,--all, at least, that the mind can appropriate, all that profits in historical studies, the intellectual harvest of the past. a fact means nothing until thought has transmuted it into itself: its value is simply the idea it subtends. homer's heroes are as true in this sense as those of plutarch. ajax and hector are as real to me as cimon or lysander; don quixote's battle with the windmills which cervantes imagined is as real as the battle of lepanto in which cervantes fought; and shakespeare's hamlet is incomparably more real than the prince of denmark whom saxo grammaticus chronicles. i do not underrate the importance of facts on their own historic plane. the historian, as annalist, is bound by the rules of his craft with conscientious investigation to ascertain, substantiate, and establish, if he can, the precise facts of the period he explores. i only contend that historic truth is not the only truth; that a fact,--if i may use that term in this connection for want of a better,--that a fact which is not historically true may yet be true on a higher plane than that of history, true to reason, to moral and religious sentiment and human need. the story of christ's temptation is none the less true, but a great deal more so, when the narrative which embodies the interior psychological fact is conceived as myth, than when it is interpreted as veritable history. the truth that concerns us is that the son of man "was tempted in all points as we are," not that he was taken by the devil and set on a pinnacle of the temple, and thence spirited away "into an exceeding high mountain." we have now attained a point of view from which to estimate on the one hand the real import of what i have ventured to call the myths of the new testament, and on the other hand to overrule the petulant radicalism which, not distinguishing truth of idea from truth of fact, contemns these legends, and perhaps contemns the gospel, on their account. i have wished to show how unessential it is to the right enjoyment or profitable use of those portions of the record that we receive them as fact; to show that, if we seize and appropriate the idea, those narratives are quite as edifying from a mythical as from an historical point of view; in other words, that the holy spirit may and does instruct by fiction as well as fact. if i am asked to draw the line which separates fact from fiction, or to fix the criterion by which to discriminate the one from the other, i answer that i do not pretend to decide this point for myself, much less should i presume to attempt to settle it for others. i am not disposed to dogmatize on the subject. it is a matter in which each must judge for himself. i will only say that for myself i do not place the line of demarcation between miracle and the unmiraculous, for the reason that it seems to me, as i said before, unphilosophical to make our every-day experience of the limits of human power and the capabilities of nature an absolute standard by which to measure the possible scope of the one or the other. i content myself with a single illustration of what i regard as a mythical formation. my example is the story known as "the annunciation." luke alone, of all the evangelists, records the tale. the angel gabriel is sent to a virgin named mary, and surprises her with the tidings, "thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and shalt call his name jesus. he shall be great, and shall be called the son of the highest. and the lord god shall give unto him the throne of his father david. and he shall reign over the house of jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." this beautiful legend, the most beautiful, i think, of all the legends connected with the birth of christ, the favorite theme of christian art, so lovingly handled by fra angelico, by correggio, raphael, titian, andrea del sarto, and a host of others, is best understood as a jewish-christian conception, taking an historic form and "shaped into a fact." the legend represents the humility and faith of a pious maiden communing with the heavenly presence, drawing to herself divine revelations of grace and promise, and thus sanctioning the hope so dear to every jewish maiden,--that of becoming the mother of the messiah. the sudden inspiration of that hope is the angel of the annunciation. a word more. how far is our idea of christ affected by a mode of interpretation which supposes a mingling of mythical with historic elements in the gospel record? that idea is based on the representations of the evangelists. will not our confidence in those representations be impaired by this view of their contents? i see no cause to apprehend a result so distressing to christian faith. the mythical interpretation of certain portions of the gospel has no appreciable bearing on the character of christ. the impartial reader of the record must see that the evangelists did not invent that character; they did not make the jesus of their story; on the contrary, it was he that made them. it is a true saying that only a christ could invent a christ. the christ of history is a true reflection of the image which jesus of nazareth imprinted on the mind of his contemporaries. in that image the spiritual greatness, the moral perfection, are not more conspicuous than the well-defined individuality which permeates the story, and which no genius could invent. if the christ of the church, of christian faith, is, as some will have it, an ideal being, it was jesus of nazareth who made the ideal. the ideal in him is simply the result of that disengagement from the earthly vestiture which death and distance work in all who live in history. by the very necessity of its function, history idealizes. the historic figure and the individual represented by it, though inseparably one in substance, are not so identical in outline that the one exactly covers the other, no more and no less. the individual is the bodily presence as it dwells in space; the historic figure is the image of himself which the individual stamps on his time, and, so far as his record reaches, on all succeeding time,--his import to human kind. that image is a veritable portrait, but not in the sense of a _fac-simile_. a material portrait, a portrait painted with hands, if the painter understands his art, is not a _fac-simile_: it presents the chronic idea or characteristic mode, not the temporary accidents, "the fallings off, the vanishings," of the person portrayed. in the hero-galleries of tradition, as in the visions of the apocalypse, they are seen with white robes, and palms in their hands, and unwrinkled brows of grace, who in life were begrimed with the dust and furrowed with the cares of their time. st. paul is there without his thorn in the flesh, luther without his impatience, washington without his fiery choler, lincoln without his coarseness, dante and milton without their scorn. history strips off the indignities of earth when she dresses her heroes for immortality. and the transfigurations she gives us are nearer the truth than the limitations of ordinary life. the man is more truly himself in the epic strain of public action, with spirit braced and harness on, than in the subsidence and undress of the closet. it is not the gossiping anecdotes, the spoils of the ungirt private life, so dear to antiquaries and literary scavengers, but the things which history hastens to record, that show the man. we must take the life at full-tide; we must view it in its freest determination, in its supreme moment, to know the deepest that is in him. and the deepest that is in him is the true man. that is his idea, his mission to the world, his historic significance. it is this that concerns us in all the great actors of history,--the historic person, not the individual. and the more the historic person absorbs the individual, the higher we rise in the scale of being until we reach the idea of god, from which all individuality is excluded, and only the person remains, filling space and time with the ceaseless procession of his being. we misread the gospel and reverse the true and divine order, if we suppose the ideal christ to be an essence distilled from the historical. on the contrary, the ideal christ is the root and ground of the historical; and without the antecedent idea inspiring, commanding, the history would never have been. it has not been my intention in any thing i have said to make light of the record. the record to me is a literary relic of inestimable value, aboriginal memorial of the dearest and divinest appearance in human form that ever beamed on earthly scenes. i sympathize with every attempt to clear up and verify its minutest details, with the labors of all critics and archæologists devoted to this end. i rejoice in all topographical adjustments and illustrations; in all that local researches, following in the steps of "those blessed feet," have gleaned from the soil of palestine. but all this is important only as it draws its inspiration from and leads my aspiration to the ideal christ, "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." dissociated from this idea, the acres of palestine are as barren as any which the ebbing of a nation's life has left desolate. the place of mind in nature and intuition in man. by james martineau. "behold, there went forth a sower to sow."--mark iv. . that the universe we see around us was not always there, is so little disputed, that every philosophy and every faith undertakes to tell how it came to be. they all assume, as the theatre of their problem, the field of space where all objects lie, and the track of time where events have reached the now. but into these they carry, to aid them in representing the origin of things, such interpreting conceptions as may be most familiar to the knowledge or fancy of their age: first, the _fiat of almighty will_, which bade the void be filled, so that the light kindled, and the waters swayed, and the earth stood fast beneath the vault of sky; next, when the sway of poetry and force had yielded to the inventive arts, the idea of a _contriving and adapting power_, building and balancing the worlds to go smoothly and keep time together, and stocking them with self-moving and sensitive machines; and now, since physiology has got to the front, the analogy of _the seed or germ_, in itself the least of things, yet so prolific that, with history long enough, it will be as spawn upon the waters, and fill every waste with the creatures as they are. the prevalence of this newest metaphor betrays itself in the current language of science: we now "_unfold_" what we used to "_take to pieces_;" we "_develop_" the theory which we used to "_construct_;" we treat the system of the world as an "_organism_" rather than a "_mechanism_;" we search each of its members to see, not what it is _for_, but what it is _from_; and the doctrine of _evolution_ only applies the image of indefinite growth of the greater out of the less, till from some datum invisible to the microscope arises a teeming universe. in dealing with these three conceptions,--of _creation_, _construction_, _evolution_,--there is one thing on which religion insists, viz., that _mind is first, and rules for ever_; and, whatever the process be, is _its_ process, moving towards congenial ends. let this be granted, and it matters not by what path of method the divine thought advances, or how long it is upon the road. whether it flashes into realization, like lightning out of night; or fabricates, like a demiurge, through a producing season, and then beholds the perfect work; or is for ever thinking into life the thoughts of beauty and the love of good; whether it calls its materials out of nothing, or finds them ready, and disposes of them from without; or throws them around as its own manifestation, and from within shapes its own purpose into blossom,--makes no difference that can be fatal to human piety. time counts for nothing with the eternal; and though it should appear that the system of the world and the ranks of being arose, not by a start of crystallization, but, like the grass or the forest, by silent and seasonal gradations, as true a worship may be paid to the indwelling god who makes matter itself transparent with spiritual meanings, and breathes before us in the pulses of nature, and appeals to us in the sorrows of men, as to the pre-existing deity who, from an infinite loneliness, suddenly became the maker of all. nay, if the poet always looks upon the world through a suppliant eye, craving to meet his own ideal and commune with it alive; if prayer is ever a "feeling after him to find him," the fervor and the joy of both must be best sustained, if they are conscious not only of the stillness of his presence, but of the movement of his thought, and never quit the date of his creative moments. in the idea, therefore, of a gradual unfolding of the creative plan, and the maturing of it by rules of growth, there is nothing necessarily prejudicial to piety; and so long as the divine mind is left in undisturbed supremacy, as the living all in all, the belief may even foster a larger, calmer, tenderer devotion, than the conceptions which it supersedes. but it is liable to a special illusion, which the others by their coarsely separating lines manage to escape. taking all the causation of the world into the interior, instead of setting it to operate from without, it seems to dispense with god, and to lodge the power of indefinite development in the first seeds of things; and the apprehension seizes us, that as the oak will raise itself when the acorn and the elements are given, so from its germs might the universe emerge, though nothing divine were there. the seeds no doubt were on the field; but who can say whether ever "a sower went forth to sow"? so long as you plant the supreme cause at a distance from his own effects, and assign to him a space or a time where nothing else can be, the conception of that separate and solitary existence, however barren, is secure. but in proportion as you think of him as never in an empty field, waiting for a future beginning of activity, as you let him mingle with the elements and blend with the natural life of things, there is a seeming danger lest his light should disappear behind the opaque material veil, and his spirit be quenched amid the shadows of inexorable law. this danger haunts our time. the doctrine of evolution, setting itself to show how the greatest things may be brought out of the least, fills us with fear whether perhaps mind may not be last instead of first, the hatched and full-fledged form of the protoplasmic egg; whether at the outset any thing was there but the raw rudiments of matter and force; whether the hierarchy of organized beings is not due to progressive differentiation of structure, and resolvable into splitting and agglutination of cells; whether the intellect of man is more than blind instinct grown self-conscious, and shaping its beliefs by defining its own shadows; whether the moral sense is not simply a trained acceptance of rules worked out by human interests, an inherited record of the utilities; so that design in nature, security in the intuitions of reason, divine obligation in the law of conscience, may all be an illusory semblance, a glory from the later and ideal days thrown back upon the beginning, as a golden sunset flings its light across the sky, and, as it sinks, dresses up the east again with borrowed splendor. this doubt, which besets the whole intellectual religion of our time, assumes that we must _measure every nature in its beginnings_; admit nothing to belong to its essence except what is found in it then; and deny its reports of itself; so far as they depart from that original standard. it takes two forms, according as the doctrine of evolution is applied to man himself, or to the outward universe. in the former case, it infuses distrust into our self-knowledge, weakens our subjective religion or native faith in the intuitions of thought and conscience, and tempts us to imagine that the higher they are, the further are they from any assured solidity of base. in the latter case, it weakens our objective religion, suggests that there is no originating mind, and that the divine look of the world is but the latest phase of its finished surface, instead of the incandescence of its inmost heart. let us first glance at the theory of human evolution, and the moral illusions it is apt to foster. i. under the name of the "experience philosophy," this theory has long been applied to the _mind of the individual_; and has produced not a few admirable analyses of the formation of language and the tissue of thought; nor is there any legitimate objection to it, except so far as its simplifications are overstrained and cannot be made good. it undertakes, with a minimum of initial capacity, to account for the maximum of human genius and character: give it only the sensible pleasures and pains, the spontaneous muscular activity, and the law by which associated mental phenomena cling together; and out of these elements it will weave before your eyes the whole texture of the perfect inner life, be it the patterned story of imagination, the delicate web of the affections, or the seamless robe of moral purity. the outfit is that of the animal; the product but "a little lower than the angel." all the higher endowments--our apprehension of truth, our consciousness of duty, our self-sacrificing pity, our religious reverence--are in this view merely transformed sensations; the disinterested impulses are refinements spun out of the coarse fibre of self-love; the subtlest intellectual ideas are but elaborated perceptions of sight or touch; and the sense of right, only interest or fear under a disguise. if this be so, how will the discovery affect our natural trust in the intimations of our supreme faculties? does it not discharge as dreams their most assured revelations? by intuition of reason we believe in the law of causality, in the infinitude of space, in the relations of number, in the reality of an outside world, in all the fundamental conceptions of science; but here are they, one and all, recalled to the standard of sense, which they seem to transcend, and emptied of any meaning beyond. by vision of imagination we see an ideal beauty enfolding many a person and many a scene, and appealing to us as a pathetic light gleaming from within; but here we find it all resolved into curvature of lines and adjustments of color. by inspiration of conscience we learn that our sin is the defiance of a divine authority, and, though hid from every human eye, drives us into a wilderness of exile,--for "the wicked fleeth, though no man pursueth;" but here we are told that the ultimate elements of good and evil are our own pleasures and pains, from which the moral sanction selects as its specialty the approbation and disapprobation of our fellow-men. thus all the independent values which our higher faculties had claimed for their natural affections and beliefs are dissipated as fallacious; they are all based upon a _sentient measure_ of worth which lies at the bottom; they are like paper money, refined contrivances representative of the ultimate gold of pleasure, but, where not interchangeable with this, intrinsically worthless. and so the feeling almost inevitably spreads, that we are dupes of our own characteristic capacities; that the loftier air into which they lift us is a tinted and distorting medium, and shows us glories that are not there; that the idea of an eternal fount of beauty, truth and goodness, behind the pleasingness and concinnity of phenomena, is an illusion; and that the tendency, irresistible as it is, to cling to this idea as something higher than its denial, is but a part of the romance. is this scepticism imaginary? let any one, in studying the modern writers of this school, compare the solid, manly, sensible way in which they deal with every thing on the physiological and sensational level, with their manner towards all the convictions and sentiments usually recognized as the supreme lights of our nature; the tone now of forbearing indulgence, now of sickly appreciation, often of hardly concealed contempt, that is heard beneath the interminable conjectural analyses of moral and religious affections,--and he will feel the difference between the honor that is paid to truth, and the constrained patience towards what other men revere. by a recent extension, the theory of evolution has been applied to the whole natural history of our race; and the resources of _habit_, already serviceable in explaining the aptitudes of individuals, have been turned to account on the larger scale of successive generations, transmitting by inheritance the acquisitions hitherto made good. in the training of a nature, the world thus becomes a permanent school, the interruption of death is virtually abolished, and life is laid open to continuous progress. by this immense gain of power, it is supposed, all the differences which separate man from other animals may be accounted for as gradual attainments; and many an intuition of the mind, too immediate and self-evident to be a product of personal experience, may yield to analysis as a more protracted growth, and stand as the compend of ages of gathering feeling and condensing thought. among creatures that herd together for common safety, each one learns to read the looks of anger or of good-will in its neighbors, and discovers what it is that brings upon him the one or other; and insensibly he forms to himself a rule for avoiding the displeasure and conciliating the favor in which he has so large an interest. this rudimentary experience imprints and records itself in the nervous organization, and descends to ulterior generations as an original and instinctive recoil from what offends and impulse towards what gratifies the feeling of the tribe: so that the lesson needs not be gone over again; but the offspring, taking up his education where the parent left off, accumulates his feeling, quickens his mental execution, and hands down fresh contributions to what at last emerges as a moral sense. in this way, it is contended, the conscience is a hoarded fund of traditionary pressures of utility, gradually effacing the primitive vestiges of fear, and dispensing itself with an affluence of disinterested sympathy. and the religious consciousness that visits the soul in its remorse, of an invisible witness and judge who condemns the sin, comes, we are told, from the deification of public opinion, or the fancy that some dead hero's ghost still watches over the conduct of his clan. this vast enlargement of the doctrine of evolution, while increasing its power, and removing it from the reach of accurate tests, alters neither its principle nor its practical effect. it undertakes to exhibit the highest and the greatest in our nature as ulterior phenomena of the lowest and the least. and it usually treats as a superstition our natural reverence for the rational, moral, and religious intuitions as sources of independent insight and ultimate authority; and, in order to estimate them, translates them back into short-hand expressions of sensible experience and social utility. nor can we wonder at this scepticism. if the only reality at bottom of the sense of duty is fear and submission to opinion, whatever it carries in it that transcends this ground, and persuades us of an obligation in which fear and opinion have no voice, is an ideal addition got up within us by causes which produce in us all sorts of psychological figments. if the only facts that lie in our idea of space are a set of feelings in the muscles and the skin and the eye, then whatever beliefs it involves which these cannot verify are naturally discredited, and treated as curiosities of artificial manufacture. if our human characteristics are throughout the developed instincts of the brute, differing only in degree, then the moment they present us with intuitions which are distinct _in kind_, they begin to play us false; and those who see through the cheat naturally warn us against them. and so we are constantly told that our highest attributes are only the lower that have lost their memory, and mistake themselves for something else. it is not my present intention to call in question either of these varieties of evolution. inadequate as the evidence of them both appears to be, i will suppose their case to be made out: and still, i submit, it does not justify the sceptical estimate which it habitually fosters of the intellectual, moral, and religious intuitions of the human mind. for, ( ) though animal sensation, with its connected instinct, should be the raw material of our whole mental history, it is not on that account entitled _to measure all that comes after it_, and stand as the boundary-line between fact and dream, between terra firma and "airy nothing." that which is first in time has no necessary priority of rank in the scale of truth and reality; and the later-found may well be the greater existence and the more assured. if it is a development of faculty, and not of incapacity, which the theory provides, the process must advance us into new light, and not withdraw us from clearer light behind: and we have reason to confide in the freshest gleams and inmost visions of to-day, and to discard whatever quenches and confuses them in the vague and turbid beginnings of the past. with what plea will you exhort me, "if you would rid yourself of intellectual mysteries, come with us, and see the stuff your thought is made of: if you would stand free of ideal illusions, count with us the medullary waves that have run together into the flood-tide of what you call your conscience: if you would shake off superstition, look at the way in which the image of dead men will hang about the fancy of a savage, or the personification of an abstract quality imposes on the ignorance of simple times"? is our wisdom to be gathered by going back to the age before our errors? and instead of consulting the maturity of thought, are we to peer into its cradle and seek oracles in its infant cries? if the last appeal be to the animal elements of experience, we can learn only by unlearning; and by shutting one after another of the hundred ideal eyes of the finished intellect, we shall have a chance of seeing and feeling things as they are. if nothing is to be deemed true but what the pre-human apes saw, then all the sciences must be illusory; with the suicidal result that, with them, this doctrine of evolution must vanish too. or if, stopping short of this extreme distrust of the acquired intuitions, you make a reservation in favor of the new visions of the intellect, what right can you show for discharging those of the conscience? the tacit assumption therefore that you upset a super-sensual belief, by tracing the history of its emergence among sensible conditions, is a groundless prejudice. ( ) further, the question to be determined may be presented as a problem in physiology, to be resolved by corresponding rules: what is the _function_ of certain parts of our human constitution, viz., the reason and the moral faculty? now it is a recognized principle that, in estimating function, you must study the organ, not in its rudimentary condition, before it has disengaged itself from adjacent admixtures and flung off the foreign elements, but in its perfect or differentiated state, so as to do its own work and nothing else. in order to give the idea of a timepiece to one who had it not, you would not send him to one of the curious mediæval clocks which could play a tune, and fire a gun, and announce the sunrise, and mark the tides, and report twenty miscellaneous things besides; but to the modern chronometer, simple and complete, that, telling only the moment, tells it perfectly. and in natural organizations, to learn the capabilities and project of any structure, you would not resort to the embryo where it is forming but not working: you would wait till it was born into the full presence of the elements with which it had to deal; not till then could you see how they played upon it, and what was its response to them. in conformity with this rule, whither would you betake yourself, if you want to measure the intrinsic competency of our intellectual faculty, and determine what its very nature gives it to know? would you take counsel of the nurse who held you "when you first opened your eyes to the light,"[ ] or otherwise study "the first consciousness in any infant," "before the time when memory commences,"[ ] and disregard every thing "subsequent to the first beginnings of intellectual life"?[ ] on the contrary, you would avoid that soft inchoate promise of nature, only nominally born, where the very structures of its finer work have not yet set into their distinctive consistency and form; and will hold your peace till the faculty is awake and on its feet, and can clearly tell you what it sees for itself, and what it makes out at second-hand: just as, to gauge the lunar light, you must have patience while the thin crescent grows, and wait till the full orb is there. still less can you take the report of the moral faculty from the confessions of the cradle, or from the quarrels and affections of the apes; the conditions being not yet present for the bare conception of a moral problem. the most that can be asked of an intuition is, that it shall keep pace with the cases as they arise, and be on the spot when it is wanted; and if you would know what provision our nature holds for dealing with its duty and interpreting its guilt, you must go into the thick of its moral life, and bid it tell you what it sees from the swaying tides of temptation and of victory. the "purity" of intuitions is not "pristine," but ultimate; cleared at length from accidental and irrelevant dilutions, and with essence definitely crystallized, they realize and exhibit the idea that lay at the heart of all their tentatives, and constitutes their truth. am i told that it is hopeless at so late an hour to separate what is an indigenous gift from what is implanted by education? i reply, it no doubt requires, but it will not baffle, the hand of skilled analysis; it is a difficulty which, in other cases, we find it not impossible to overcome; for there are assuredly instincts and affections, strictly original and natural, that make no sign and play no part till our maturer years, yet which are readily distinguished from the products of artificial culture. [footnote : mill's examination of hamilton, d ed. p. .] [footnote : ibid.] [footnote : ibid., p. .] if, to find the functions of our higher faculties, we must look to their last stage, and not to their first, we at once recover and justify the ideal conceptions which the expositors of evolution are accustomed to disparage as romance. for among these functions are present certain intuitive beliefs--for the reason, in divine causality; for the conscience, in divine authority; together blending into the knowledge of a supreme and holy mind. these august apprehensions we are entitled to declare are not the illusions, but the discoveries, of man; who, by rising into them, is born into more of the universe of things than any other being upon earth, and is made conscious of its transcendent and ultimate realities. if these trusts are indeed the growth of ages, from seeds invisibly dropped upon the field of time, be it so; it was not without hand: there was _a sower_ that went forth to sow. ii. we turn now to the second form of doubt raised by the doctrine of evolution: under which it weakens our objective trust in an originating mind. a naturalist who to his own satisfaction has traced the pedigree of the human intellect, conscience, and religion, to ascidian skin-bags sticking to the sea-side rocks, is not likely to arrest the genealogy there, at a stage so little fitted to serve as a starting-point of derivative being. or, if his own retreat should go no further, others will take up the regressive race, and, soon passing the near and easy line into the vegetable kingdom, will work through its provinces to its lichen-spotted edge: and, after perhaps one shrinking look, will dare the leap into the dead realm beyond, and bring home the parentage of all to the primitive elements of "matter and force." to give effect to this extension over the universe at large of the theory of evolution, the scientific imagination of our day has long been meditating its projected book of genesis, and has already thrown out its special chapters here and there; and though the scenes of the drama as a whole are not yet arranged, the general plan is clear: that the lucretian method is the true one; that nothing arises for a purpose, but only from a power; that no divine actor therefore is required, but only atoms extended, resisting, shaped, with spheres of mutual attraction and repulsion; that, with these _minima_ to begin with, a growth will follow of itself by which the _maxima_ will be reached; and that thus far the chief and latest thing it has done is the apparition of mind in the human race and civilization in human society, conferring upon man the melancholy privilege of being, so far as he knows, at the summit of the universe. the main support of this doctrine is found in two arguments, supplied respectively by physical science and by natural history; each of which we will pass under review. i. the former relies on the new scientific conception of the _unity of force_. when newton established the composition of light in his treatise on optics, and the law of gravitation in his principia, he conceived himself to be treating of two separate powers of nature, between which, quick as he was to seize unexpected relations, he dreamt of no interchange. yet now it is understood that when collisions occur of bodies gravitating on opposite lines, the momenta that seem to be killed simply burst into light and heat. when priestley's experiments detected the most important chemical element on the one hand, and the fundamental electrical laws on the other, he seemed to move on paths of research that had no contact. yet, in the next generation, chemical compounds were resolved by electricity; which again turns up in exchange for magnetism, and can pass into motion, heat, and light. to see the transmigration of natural agency, trace only through a few of its links the effect of the sunshine on the tropic seas. so far as it warms the mass of waters, either directly or through the scorched shores that they wash, it stirs them into shifting layers and currents, and creates _mechanical_ power. but it also removes the superficial film; and thus far spends itself, not in raising the temperature, but in changing the form from liquid to vapor, and so altering the specific gravity as to transfer what was on the deep to the level of the mountain-tops. it is the pacific that climbs and crowns the andes, resuming on the way the liquid state in the shape of clouds, and as it settles crystallizing into solid snow and ice. the original set of solar rays have now played their part, and made their escape elsewhere. but there is sunshine among the glaciers too, which soon begins to resolve the knot that has been tied, and restore what has been stolen. it sets free the waters that have been locked up, and lets their gravitation have its play upon their flow. as they dash through ravines, or linger in the plains, they steal into the roots of grass and tree, and by the tribute which they leave pass into the new shape of _vital_ force. and if they pass the homesteads of industry, and raise the food of a civilized people, who can deny that they contribute not only to the organic, but to the _mental_ life, and so have run the whole circuit from the lowest to the highest phase of power? that the return back may be traced from the highest to the lowest, is shown by every effort of thought and will; which through the medium of nervous energy in one direction sets in action the levers of the limbs, and in another works the laboratory of the organic life, and forms new chemical compounds, of which some are reserved for use, while others pass into the air as waste. still further: all doubt of identity in the force which masks itself in these various shapes is said to be removed by the test of direct measurement before and after the change. the heating of a pound of water by one degree has its exact mechanical equivalent;[ ] and a given store of elevated temperature will overcome the same weights, whether applied directly to lift them, or turned first into a thermo-electric current, so as to perform its task by deputy.[ ] the inference drawn from the phenomena of which these are samples is no less than this: that each kind of force is convertible into any other, and undergoes neither gain nor loss upon the way; so that the sum-total remains for ever the same, and is only differently represented as the proportions change amongst the different forms of life, and between the organic and the inorganic realms. hence arises the argument that, in having _any_ force, you have virtually _all_; and that, assuming only material atoms as depositories of mechanical resistance and momentum, you can supply a universe with an exhaustive cosmogony, and dispense with the presence of mind, except as one of its phenomena. [footnote : viz., the fall of lbs. through a foot. see mr. joule's experiments in grove's correlation of physical forces, p. , th ed.] [footnote : see grove's correlation, p. , th ed.] to test this argument, let us grant the data which are demanded, and imagine the primordial space charged with matter, in molecules or in masses, in motion or rest, as you may prefer. put it under the law of gravitation, and invest it with what varieties you please of density and form. thus constituted, it perfectly fulfils all the conditions you have asked; it presses, it moves, it propagates and distributes impulse, is liable to acceleration and retardation, and exhibits all the phenomena with which any treatise on mechanics can properly deal. in order, however, to keep the problem clear within its limits, let us have it in the simplest form, and conceive the atoms to be all of _gold_; then, i would fain learn by what step the hypothesis proposes to effect its passage to the _chemical_ forces and their innumerable results. _heat_ it may manage to reach by the friction and compression of the materials at its disposal; and its metal universe may thus have its solid, liquid, and gaseous provinces; but, beyond these varieties, its homogeneous particles cannot advance the history one hair's breadth through an eternity. it is not true, then, that the conditions which give the first type of force suffice to promote it to the second; and in order to start the world on its chemical career, you must enlarge its capital and present it with an outfit of _heterogeneous_ constituents. try, therefore, the effect of such a gift; fling into the pre-existing caldron the whole list of recognized elementary substances, and give leave to their affinities to work: we immediately gain an immense accession to our materials for the architecture and resources for the changes of the world,--the water and the air, the salts of the ocean, and the earthy or rocky compounds that compose the crust of the globe, and the variable states of magnetism and heat, which throw the combinations into slow though constant change. but with all your enlargement of data, turn them as you will, at the end of every passage which they explore, the _door of life_ is closed against them still; and though more than once it has been proclaimed that a way has been found through, it has proved that the living thing was on the wrong side to begin with. it is not true, therefore, that, from the two earlier stages of force, the ascent can be made to the vital level; the ethereal fire yet remains in heaven; and philosophy has not stretched forth the promethean arm that can bring it down. and if, once more, we make you a present of this third phase of power, and place at your disposal all that is contained beneath and within the flora of the world, still your problem is no easier than before; you cannot take a single step towards the deduction of sensation and thought: neither at the upper limit do the highest plants (the exogens) transcend themselves and overbalance into animal existence; nor at the lower, grope as you may among the sea-weeds and sponges, can you persuade the sporules of the one to develop into the other. it is again not true, therefore, that, in virtue of the convertibility of force, the possession of any is the possession of the whole: we give you all the forms but one; and that one looks calmly down on your busy evolutions, and remains inaccessible. is, then, the transmigration of forces altogether an illusion? by no means; but before one can exchange with another, _both must be there_; and to turn their equivalence into a universal formula, _all_ must be there. with only one kind of elementary matter, there can be no chemistry; with only the chemical elements and their laws, no life; with only vital resources, as in the vegetable world, no beginning of mind. but let thought and will with their conditions once be there, and they will appropriate vital power; as life, once in possession, will ply the alembics and the test-tubes of its organic laboratory; and chemical affinity is no sooner on the field than it plays its game among the cohesions of simple gravitation. hence it is impossible to work the theory of evolution upwards from the bottom. if all force is to be conceived as one, its type must be looked for in the highest and all-comprehending term; and mind must be conceived as there, and as divesting itself of some specialty at each step of its descent to a lower stratum of law, till represented at the base under the guise of simple dynamics. or, if you retain the forces in their plurality, then you must _assume_ them _all_ among your data, and confess, with one of the greatest living expositors of the phenomena of development, that unless among your primordial elements you scatter already the germs of mind as well as the inferior elements, the evolution can never be wrought out.[ ] but surely a theory, which is content simply to assume in the germ whatever it has to turn out full-grown, throws no very brilliant light on the genesis of the universe. [footnote : lotze's mikrokosmus, b. iv. kap. , band ii. , seqq.] ii. the second and principal support of the doctrine under review is found in the realm of natural history, and in that province of it which is occupied by _living beings_. here, it is said, in the field of observation nearest to us, we have evidence of a power in each nature to push itself and gain ground, as against all natures less favorably constituted. there is left open to it a certain range of possible variations from the type of its present individuals, of which it may avail itself in any direction that may fortify its position; and even if its own instincts did not seize at once the line of greatest strength, still, out of its several tentatives, all the feeble results would fail to win a footing, and only the residuary successes would make good their ground. the ill-equipped troops of rival possibilities being always routed, however often they return, the well-armed alone are seen upon the field, and the world is in possession of "the fittest to live." we thus obtain a principle of self-adjusting adaptation of each being to its condition, without resorting to a designing care disposing of it from without; and its development is an experimental escape from past weakness, not a pre-conceived aim at a future perfection. i have neither ability nor wish to criticise the particular indications of this law, drawn with an admirable patience and breadth of research, from every department of animated nature. though the logical structure of the proof does not seem to me particularly solid, and the disproportion between the evidence and the conclusion is of necessity so enormous as to carry us no further than the discussion of an hypothesis, yet, for our present purpose, the thesis may pass as if established; and our scrutiny may be directed only to its bearings, should it be true. ( ) the genius of a country which has been the birthplace and chief home of political economy is naturally pleased by a theory of this kind; which invests its favorite lord and master, _competition_, with an imperial crown and universal sway. but let us not deceive ourselves with mere abstract words and abbreviations, as if they could reform a world or even farm a sheep-walk. _competition_ is not, like a primitive function of nature, an independent and original power, which can of itself do any thing: the term only describes a certain intensifying of power already there; making the difference, under particular conditions, between function latent and function exercised. it may therefore turn the less into the more; and it is reasonable to attribute to it an _increment_ to known and secured effects; but not new and unknown effects, for which else there is no provision. it gives but a partial and superficial account of the phenomena with which it has concern; of their degree; of their incidence here or there; of their occurrence now or then: of themselves in their characteristics it pre-supposes, and does not supply, the cause. to that cause, then, let us turn. let us consider what must be upon the field, before competition can arise. ( ) it cannot act except in the presence of some _possibility of a better or worse_. a struggle out of relative disadvantage implies that a relative advantage is within grasp,--that there is a prize of promotion offered for the contest. the rivalry of beings eager for it is but an instrument for _making the best of things_; and only when flung into the midst of an indeterminate variety of alternative conditions can it find any scope. when it gets there and falls to work, what does it help us to account for? it accounts certainly for the triumph and _survivorship of the better_, but not for there _being a better to survive_. _given_, the slow and the swift upon the same course, it makes it clear that the race will be to the swift; but it does not provide the fleeter feet by which the standard of speed is raised. nay more; even for the prevalence of the better ("or fitter to live") it would not account, except on the assumption that whatever is _better_ is _stronger_ too; and a universe in which this rule holds already indicates its divine constitution, and is pervaded by an ideal power unapproached by the forces of necessity. thus the law of "natural selection," instead of dispensing with anterior causation and enabling the animal races to be their own providence and do all their own work, distinctly testifies to a constitution of the world pre-arranged for progress, externally spread with large choice of conditions, and with internal provisions for seizing and realizing the best. on such a world, rich in open possibilities, of beauty, strength, affection, intellect, and character, they are planted and set free; charged with instincts eagerly urging them to secure the preferable line of each alternative; and disposing themselves, by the very conditions of equilibrium, into a natural hierarchy, in which the worthiest to live are in the ascendant, and the standard of life is for ever rising. what can look more like the field of a directing will intent upon the good? indeed, the doctrine of "natural selection" owes a large part of its verisimilitude to its skilful imitation of the conditions and method of free-will;--the indeterminate varieties of possible movement; the presentation of these before a selective power; the determination of the problem by fitness for preference,--all these are features that would belong no less to the administration of a presiding mind; and that, instead of resorting for the last solution to this high arbitrament, men of science should suppose it to be blindly fought out by the competing creatures, as if they were supreme, is one of the marvels which the professional intellect, whatever its department, more often exhibits than explains. ( ) but, before competition can arise, there must be, besides the field of favorable possibility, _desire or instinct_ to lay hold of its opportunities. here it is that we touch the real dynamics of evolution, which rivalry can only bring to a somewhat higher pitch. here, it must be admitted, there is at work a genuine principle of progression, the limits of which it is difficult to fix. every being which is so far individuated as to be a separate centre of sensation, and of the balancing active spontaneity, is endowed with a self-asserting power, capable, on the field already supposed, of becoming a self-advancing power. under its operation, there is no doubt, increasing differentiation of structure and refinement of function may be expected to emerge; nor is there any reason, except such as the facts of natural history may impose, why this process should be arrested at the boundaries of the species recognized in our present classifications. possibly, if the slow increments of complexity in the organs of sentient beings on the globe were all mapped out before us, the whole teeming multitudes now peopling the land, the waters, and the air, might be seen radiating from a common centre in lines of various divergency, and, however remote their existing relations, might group themselves as one family. the speculative critic must here grant without stint all that the scheme of development can ask; and he must leave it to the naturalist and physiologist to break up the picture into sections, if they must. but then, _why_ must he grant it? because here, having crossed the margin of animal life, we have, in its germ of feeling and idea, not merely a persistent, but a self-promoting force, able to turn to account whatever is below it; the mental power, even in its rudiments, dominating the vital, and constraining it to weave a finer organism; and, for that end, to amend its application of the chemical forces, and make them better economize their command of mechanical force. observe, however, that, if here we meet with a truly fruitful agency, capable of accomplishing difficult feats of new combination and delicate equilibrium, we meet with it _here first_; and the moment we fall back from the line of sentient life, and quit the scene of this eager, aggressive, and competing power, we part company with all principle of progress; and consequently lose the tendency to that increasing complexity of structure and subtlety of combination which distinguish the organic from the inorganic compounds. below the level of life, there is no room for the operation of "natural selection." its place is there occupied by another principle, for which no such wonders of constructive adaptation can be claimed;--i mean, the dynamic rule of _action on the line of least resistance_,--a rule, the working of which is quite in the opposite direction. for evidently it goes against the establishment of unstable conditions of equilibrium, and must therefore be the enemy rather than the patron of the complex ingredients, the precarious tissues, and the multiplied relations, of sentient bodies; and on its own theatre must prevent the permanent formation of any but the simpler unions among the material elements. accordingly, all the great enduring masses that form and fill the architecture of inorganic nature,--its limestone and clay, its oxides and salts, its water and air,--are compounds, or a mixture, of few and direct constituents. and the moment that life retreats and surrenders the organism it has built and held, the same antagonist principle enters on possession, and sets to work to destroy the intricate structure of "proximate principles" with their "compound radicals." with life and mind therefore there begins, whether by modified affinities or by removal of waste, a _tension_ against these lower powers, carrying the being up to a greater or less height upon the wing; but with life it ends, leaving him then to the perpetual gravitation that completes the loftiest flight upon the ground. within the limits of her physics and chemistry alone, nature discloses no principle of progression, but only provisions for periodicity; and out of this realm, without further resources, she could never rise. the downward tendency which sets in with any relaxation of the differentiating forces of life is evinced, not only in the extreme case of dissolution in death, but in the well-known relapse of organs which have been artificially developed into exceptional perfection back into their earlier state, when relieved of the strain and left to themselves. under the tension of a directing mental interest, whether supplied by the animal's own instincts or by the controlling care of man, the organism yields itself to be moulded into more special and highly finished forms; and a series of ascending variations withdraws the nature from its original or first-known type. but wherever we can lift the tension off, the too skilful balance proves unstable, and the law of reversion reinstates the simpler conditions. only on the higher levels of life do we find a self-working principle of progression: and, till we reach them, development wants its dynamics; and, though there may be evolution, it cannot be self-evolution. these considerations appear to me to break the back of this formidable argument in the middle; and to show the impossibility of dispensing with the presence of mind in any scene of ascending being, where the little is becoming great, and the dead alive, and the shapeless beautiful, and the sentient moral, and the moral spiritual. is it not in truth a strange choice, to set up "_evolution_," of all things, as the negation of _purpose_ pre-disposing what is to come? for what does the word mean, and whence is it borrowed? it means, to unfold from within; and it is taken from the history of the seed or embryo of living natures. and what is the seed but a casket of pre-arranged futurities, with its whole contents _prospective_, settled to be what they are by reference to ends still in the distance. if a grain of wheat be folded in a mummy-cloth and put into a catacomb, its germ for growing and its albumen for feeding sleep side by side, and never find each other out. but no sooner does it drop, thousands of years after, on the warm and moistened field, than their mutual play begins, and the plumule rises and lives upon its store till it is able to win its own maintenance from the ground. not only are its two parts therefore relative to each other, but both are relative to conditions lying in another department of the world,--the clouds, the atmosphere, the soil; in the absence of which they remain barren and functionless:--and _this_, from a cause that has no sense of relation! the human ear, moulded in the silent matrix of nature, is formed with a nerve susceptible to one influence alone, and that an absent one, the undulations of a medium into which it is not yet born; and, in anticipation of the whole musical scale with all its harmonies, furnishes itself with a microscopic grand-piano of three thousand stretched strings, each ready to respond to a different and definite number of aerial vibrations:--and _this_, from a cause that never meant to bring together the inner organ and the outer medium, now hidden from each other! the eye, shaped in the dark, selects an exclusive sensibility to movements propagated from distant skies; and so weaves its tissues, and disposes its contents, and hangs its curtains, and adjusts its range of motion, as to meet every exigency of refraction and dispersion of the untried light, and be ready to paint in its interior the whole perspective of the undreamed world without:--and _this_, from a cause incapable of having an end in view! surely, nothing can be evolved that is not first involved; and if there be any thing which not only carries a definite future in it, but has the whole _rationale_ of its present constitution grounded in that future, it is the embryo, whence, by a strange humor, this denial of final causes has chosen to borrow its name. not more certainly is the statue that has yet to be, already potentially contained in the pre-conception and sketches of the artist, than the stately tree of the next century in the beech-mast that drops upon the ground; or the whole class of birds, if you give them a common descent, in the eggs to which you choose to go back as first; or the entire system of nature in any germinal cell or other prolific _minimum_ whence you suppose its organism to have been brought out. evolution and prospection are inseparable conceptions. go back as you will, and try to propel the movement from behind instead of drawing it from before, development in a definite direction towards the realization of a dominant scheme of ascending relations is the sway of an overruling end. to take away the ideal basis of nature, yet construe it by the analogy of organic growth, will be for ever felt as a contradiction. it is to put out the eyes of the past, in order to show us with what secure precision, amid distracting paths, and over chasms bridged by a hair, it selects its way into the future. if the divine idea will not retire at the bidding of our speculative science, but retains its place, it is natural to ask, what is its relation to the series of so-called forces in the world? but the question is too large and deep to be answered here. let it suffice to say, that there need not be any _overruling_ of these forces by the will of god, so that the supernatural should disturb the natural; or any _supplementing_ of them, so that he should fill up their deficiencies. rather is his thought related to them as, in man, the mental force is related to all below it; turning them all to account for ideal ends, and sustaining the higher equilibrium which else would lapse into lower forms. more truly, yet equivalently, might we say, these supposed forces, which are only our intellectual interpretation of classes of perceived phenomena, are but varieties of his will, the rules and methods of his determinate and legislated agency, in which, to keep faith with the universe of beings, he abnegates all change; but beyond which, in his transcendent relations with dependent and responsible minds, he has left a glorious margin for the free spiritual life, open to the sacredness of personal communion, and the hope of growing similitude. the relations of ethics and theology. by andrew p. peabody. my subject is the mutual relations of ethics and theology. ethics is the science of the right; and we would first inquire whether this science is a mere department of theology, or whether it has its own independent existence, sphere, and office. our opening question then is: what is the ground of right? why are certain acts right, and certain other acts wrong? are these characteristics incidental, arbitrary, created by circumstances; variable with time or place, or the intelligence of the agent; contingent on legislation, human or divine? or are they intrinsic, essential, independent of command, even of the divine command? we can best answer this question by considering what is implied in existence. existence implies properties, and properties are fitnesses. every object, by virtue of its existence, has its place, purpose, uses, relations. at every moment, each specific object is either in or out of its place, fulfilling or not fulfilling its purpose, subservient to or alienated from its uses, in accordance or out of harmony with its relations, and therefore in a state of fitness or of unfitness as regards other objects. every object is at every moment under the control of the intelligent will either of the supreme being or of some finite being, and is by that will maintained either in or out of its place, purpose, uses, and relations, and thus in a state of fitness or unfitness as regards other objects. every intelligent being, by virtue of his existence, bears certain definite relations to outward objects, his fellow-beings, and his creator. at every moment each intelligent being is either faithful or unfaithful to these relations, and thus in a state of fitness or unfitness as regards outward objects and other beings. thus fitness or unfitness may be predicated at every moment of every object in existence, of the volitions by which each object is controlled, and of every intelligent being with regard to his voluntary position in the universe. fitness and unfitness are the ultimate ideas that underlie the terms _right_ and _wrong_. these last are metaphorical terms: right, _rectus_, straight, upright, according to rule, and therefore _fit_; wrong, _wrung_, distorted, twisted out of place, abnormal, and therefore _unfit_. we are so constituted that we cannot help regarding fitness with esteem and complacency; unfitness, with disesteem and disapproval, even though we ourselves create it or impersonate it. fitness is the law by which alone we have the knowledge of sin, by which alone we justify or condemn ourselves. duty has fitness for its only aim and end. to whatever object comes under our control its fit place or use is due; and our perception of that _due_ constitutes our _duty_, and awakens in us a sense of obligation. to ourselves and to other beings and objects, our fidelity to our relations has in it an intrinsic fitness; that fitness is their and our due; and the perception of that _due_ constitutes our _duty_, and awakens in us a sense of obligation. conscience is the faculty by which we perceive fitness or unfitness. its functions are not cognitive, but judicial. its decisions are based upon our knowledge, real or imagined, from whatever source derived. it judges according to such law and evidence as it has; and its verdict is always, relatively, a genuine _verdict_ (_verum dictum_), though potentially false and wrong by defect of our knowledge,--even as in a court of law an infallibly wise and incorruptibly just judge may pronounce an utterly erroneous and unjust decision, if he have before him a false statement of facts, or if the law which he is compelled to administer be unrighteous. what we call the education of conscience is merely the accumulation and verification of the materials on which conscience is to act; in fine, the discovery of fitnesses. permit me to illustrate the function of conscience by reference to a question now mooted in our community,--the question as to the moral fitness of the temperate use of fermented liquors. among the aborigines of congo and dahomey, there being no settled industry, no mental activity, and no hygienic knowledge as to either body or mind, it seems fitting, and therefore right, to swallow all the strong drink that they can lay their hands upon; for it is fitted to produce immediate animal enjoyment,--the only good of which they have cognizance. among civilized men, on the contrary, intoxication is universally known to be opposed to the fitnesses of body and mind, an abuse of alcoholic liquors, and an abuse of the drinker's own personality; and it is therefore condemned by all consciences, by none more heartily than by those of its victims. but there still remains open the question as to the moderate use of fermented liquors; and this is not, as it is commonly called, a question of conscience, but a mere question of fact,--of fitness or unfitness. says one party, "alcohol, in every form, and in the least quantity, is a virulent poison, and therefore unfit for body and mind." says the other party, "wine, moderately used, is healthful, salutary, restorative, and therefore fitted to body and mind." change the opinion of the latter party, their consciences would at once take the other side; and, if they retained in precept and practice their present position, they would retain it self-condemned. change the opinion of the former party, their consciences would assume the ground which they now assail. demonstrate to the whole community--which physiology may one day do--the precise truth in this matter, there would remain no differences of conscientious judgment, whatever difference of practice might still continue. from what has been said, it is necessarily inferred that right and wrong are not contingent on the knowledge of the moral agent. unfitness, misuse, abuse, is none the less wrong because the result of ignorance. if the result of inevitable ignorance, it does not indeed imply an unfitness or derangement of the agent's own moral powers. yet it is none the less out of harmony with the fitness of things. it deprives an object of its due use. it perverts to pernicious results what is salutary in its purpose. it lessens for the agent his aggregate of good and of happiness, and increases for him his aggregate of evil and of misery. in this sense--far more significant than that of arbitrary infliction--the maxim of jurisprudence, _ignorantia legis neminem excusat_ ("ignorance of the law excuses no one"), is a fundamental principle of human nature. * * * * * we are now prepared to consider the relation of moral distinctions to theology. in the first place, if the ground which i have maintained be tenable, ethical science rests on a basis of its own, wholly independent of theology. right and wrong, as moral distinctions, in no wise depend on the divine will and law; nay, not even on the divine existence. the atheist cannot escape or disown them. they are inseparable from existence. for whatever exists, no matter how it came into being, must needs have its due place, affinities, adaptations, uses; and an intelligent dweller among the things that are cannot but know something of their fitnesses and harmonies, and, so far as he acts upon them, cannot but feel the obligation to recognize their fitnesses, and thus to create or restore their harmonies. even to the atheist, vice is a violation of fitnesses which he knows or may know. it is opposed to his conscientious judgment. he has with regard to it an inevitable sense of wrong. i can therefore conceive of an atheist's being--though i should have little hope that he would be--a rigidly virtuous man, and that on principle. but while atheism does not obliterate moral distinctions, or cancel moral obligation, these distinctions are a refutation of atheism; and from the very fitness of things, which we have seen to be the ground of right, we draw demonstrative evidence of the being, unity, and moral perfectness of the creator: so that the fundamental truths of theology rest on the same basis with the fundamental principles of ethics. let me ask you to pursue this argument with me. every object, as i have said, must, by virtue of its existence, have its fit place and use; but, in a world that was the dice-work of chance, there would be myriads of probabilities to one against any specific object's attaining to its fit place and use. this must be the work of will alone. if chance can create, it cannot combine, co-ordinate, organize. if it can throw letters on the ground by the handful, it cannot arrange them into the iliad or the paradise lost. if it can stain the sky or the earth with gorgeous tints, it cannot group them into a madonna or a landscape. its universe would be peopled by straylings, full of disjointed halves of pairs,--of objects thrown together in such chaotic heaps that seldom could any one object find its counterpart or subserve its end. the opposite is the case in the actual world. the first discoveries which the first human being made were of the fitnesses of the objects around him to himself and to one another. with every added year his microcosm enlarged, so that, before he left the world, he had within his cognizance a range of fitnesses and uses sufficient to guide his own activity, and to enable him to predict its results, together with numerous other results not contingent on his own agency. beyond this microcosm, indeed, lay a vast universe impenetrable to his search, in which he could trace no relations, no filaments of order; in which all seemed to him a medley of chaotic confusion, mutually intruding systems, clashing and jarring forces. on this realm of the unknown man has ever since been making perpetual aggressions; and every step of his progress has been the discovery of fitnesses, relations, reciprocal uses, among the most remote, diverse, and at first sight mutually hostile objects, classes, and systems. natural history, physics, and chemistry, are the science of mutual fitnesses and uses among terrestrial objects. astronomy is the science of harmonies among all the worlds,--of fitnesses in their relations and courses to the condition of things in our own planet, approximately to other bodies in the solar system, and, by ascertained analogies, to those distant orbs of which we know only that they stand and move ever in their order. geology is the science of mutual fitnesses in former epochs and conditions of our own planet, and of prospective fitnesses in them to the needs and uses of the present epoch; so that by harmonies which run through unnumbered æons we are the heirs, and sustain our industries by the usufruct, of the ages, the great moments of whose history we are just beginning to read. mathematical science reveals geometrical and numerical fitnesses, proportions, and harmonies, which are traced alike in the courses of the stars and in the collocation of the foliage on the tree, and which promise one day to give us the equation of the curve of the sea-shell, of the contour of the geranium-leaf, of the crest of the wave. there is still around us the realm of the unknown; yet not only are daily aggressions made upon it, but science has advanced so far as to render it certain that there is no department or object in the universe, which is not comprehended in this system of mutual fitnesses, harmonies, and uses. now consider the relation of organized being to this system. what is an organ? it is the capacity of perceiving, choosing, and utilizing a fitness. the rootlets of the tree by the river-side perceive the adjacent water, elongate themselves toward it, in a drought make convulsive and successful efforts to reach it; while the corolla of the heliotrope perceives the calorific rays, and turns toward their source in the heavens. the organs of the plant select from the elements around it such substances as are fitted to feed its growth, and appropriate them to its use, even though they be found in infinitesimal proportions, in masses of alien substance. in all this there is a semi-self-consciousness, corresponding, not indeed to the action of mind, but to that of the spontaneous life-processes in intelligent beings. the animal carries us a step higher. his instincts are an unerring knowledge of fitnesses and uses within his sphere. he seeks what is fitted, shuns what is unfitted to his sustenance and growth, is never deceived when left to his own sagacity, and fails only when brought into anomalous relations with the superior knowledge of man. he lives, merely because he is conscious of the fitnesses of nature, and yields up his life to a stronger beast, in accordance with those same fitnesses--beneficent still--by which all realms of nature are kept fully stocked, yet never overstocked, with healthy and rejoicing life. the fitness which thus pervades and unifies the entire creation, man as an animal perceives, as a living soul recognizes and comprehends; and to his consciousness it is an imperative law, obeyed always with self-approval, disobeyed only with self-condemnation. of disobedience he alone is capable, yet he but partially. in order to live, he must obey in the vast majority of instances; still more must he obey, if he would have society, physical comfort, transient enjoyment of however low a type; and the most depraved wretch that walks the earth purchases his continued being by a thousand acts of unintended yet inevitable obedience to one of voluntary guilt. man's law--the law which, in violating or scorning it, he cannot ignore or evade--is the very same fitness which runs through all inorganic nature, and which the semi-conscious tree, shrub, or flower, the imperfectly self-conscious bird, fish, or beast uniformly obeys. now can chance have evolved this universal fitness, and the souls that own their allegiance to it? is it not the clear self-revelation of a god, one, all-wise, omnipotent? has it any other possible solution? bears it not, in inscriptions that girdle the universe in letters of light, the declarations of the hebrew seer, "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth," and "the lord our god is one lord"? i am not disposed to cavil at the argument from design in the structure and adaptations of any one organized being; but immeasurably more cogent is this argument from a consenting universe, in which filaments of fitness, relation, and use cross and recross one another from bound to bound, from sun to star, from star to earth, from the greatest to the least, from the order of the heavens to the zoöphyte and the microscopic animalcule. in the human conscience i recognize at once the revelation and the perpetual witness of this all-pervading adaptation, this universal harmony. conscience is the god within, not in figure, but in fact. it is the mode in which he who is enshrined in all being, who lives in all life, takes up his abode, holds his perpetual court, erects his eternal judgment-seat, within the human soul. we pass to the consideration of the moral attributes of the creator. i have spoken of moral distinctions as logically separable from and independent of the divine nature. from this position alone can we establish the holiness, justice, and mercy of the divine being. in order to show this, let me ask your attention to the distinction between necessary and contingent truths; that is, between truths which have an intrinsic validity, which always were and cannot by any possibility be otherwise than true, and truths which were made true, which began to be, and the opposite of which might have been. mathematical truth is necessary and absolute truth,--not made truth even by the ordinance of the supreme being, but truth from the very nature of things, truth co-eternal with god. omnipotence cannot make two and two five, or render the sum of the angles of a triangle more or less than two right angles, or construct a square and a circle of both equal perimeter and equal surface. in our conception of mathematical truth we are conscious that it must have been true before all worlds, and would be equally true had no substance that could be measured or calculated ever been created. every mathematical proposition is an inherent property or condition of the infinite space identical with the divine omnipresence, or of the infinite duration identical with the divine eternity. moral truth is of the same order, not contingent, but necessary, absolute. this is distinctly declared in one of the most sublime bursts of inspiration in the hebrew scriptures. if you will trace in the book of proverbs the traits of wisdom as personified throughout the first nine chapters, you will find that it is no other than a name for the inherent, immutable, eternal distinction between right and wrong. it is this wisdom, who, so far from confessing herself as created, ordained, or subject, proclaims, "jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. i was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.... when he prepared the heavens, i was there.... when he appointed the foundations of the earth, then i was by him, as one brought up with him; and i was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him." it is only on the principle thus vividly set forth that we can affirm moral attributes of the supreme being. when we say that he is perfectly just, pure, holy, beneficent, we recognize a standard of judgment logically independent of his nature. we mean that the law of fitness, which he promulgates in the human conscience, and which is our only standard of right, is the self-elected law of his own being. could we conceive of omnipotence and omniscience devoid of moral attributes, the decrees and acts of such a being would not be necessarily right. omnipotence cannot make the wrong right, or the right wrong; nor can it indue either with the tendencies of the other, so that the wrong, that is, the unfitting, should produce ultimate good, or the right, that is, the fitting, should produce ultimate evil. god's decrees and acts are not right because they are his; but they are his because they are right. on no other ground, as i have said, can we affirm moral attributes of him. if his arbitrary sovereignty can indue with the characteristics of right that which has no intrinsic fitness, beauty, or utility, then the affirmation that he is holy, or just, or good, is simply equivalent to the absurd maxim of human despotism, "the king can do no wrong." it is only when we conceive of the abstract right as existing of necessity from a past eternity, and as a category of the divine free-will and perfect prescience, in which the creation had its birth and its archetypes, that holiness, justice, and goodness, as applied to the divine character, have any meaning. we thus see that our ethical conceptions underlie our theology, and that, however explicit the words of revelation may be as to the divine nature, he alone can understand them, who recognizes in his own heart the absoluteness and immutableness of moral distinctions. how many christians have there been in every age since the primitive, who, in using the terms _just_ and _holy_ with reference to the almighty, have employed them in an entirely different sense from that in which they are applied to human conduct, and with regard to supposed dispositions and acts, which in man they would call unjust and cruel! and this simply because they have attached no determinate meaning, but only a conventional and variable sense to ethical terms, and have imagined that arbitrary power could reverse moral distinctions, or that god could impose on man one law of right, and himself recognize another. we have thus seen that theology is indebted to the fundamental principles of ethics for the most luculent demonstration of the being, omnipotence, and omniscience of god, and for the clear conception of his moral attributes. * * * * * we will now consider the reciprocal obligations of ethics to theology; and, in the first place, to natural religion. pure theism attaches the divine sanction to the verdicts of conscience, makes them the will, the voice of god, enforces them by his authority, and elevates the conception of virtue by establishing a close kindred between the virtuous man and the ruler of the universe. and this is much, but not for many. it has raised some elect spirits to a degree of excellence which might put christians to shame. it has conjoined virtue with lofty devotion and earnest piety in a socrates and a marcus antoninus, and refined it into a rare purity, chasteness, and tenderness of spirit in a plutarch and an epictetus. but on the masses of mankind, on the worldly and care-cumbered, on the unphilosophic and illiterate, it has exerted little or no influence. moreover, while among the virtuous men of pre-christian times and beyond the light of the jewish revelation, we recognize some few of surpassing excellence, we find not a single ethical system, or body of moral precepts, which does not contain limitations, deficiencies, or enormities utterly revolting to the moral sense of christendom. thus plato had lofty conceptions of virtue, but there are directions in which his precepts give free license to lust and cruelty; and even socrates sanctioned by his unrebuking intimacy and fondness the leaders and ornaments of the most dissolute society in athens. the acme of extra-christian piety, and consequently of moral excellence, is presented in the writings and lives of the later stoics, whose incorruptible virtue affords the only relief to our weariness and disgust, as we trace the history of rome through the profligacy of the declining commonwealth and the depravity of the empire. we find here the simeons and annas of the pagan world, who, though with the fleshly arm they embraced not the son of god, needed but to see him to adore and love him. yet in nothing was stoicism more faulty than in its exalted sense of virtue. for it had no charity for sin, no tolerance even for the inferior forms of goodness. it was the ethics of the unfallen. it proffered no hope of forgiveness; it let down no helping hand from the heavens; it uttered no voice from the eternal silence; it opened no father's house and arms for the penitent. in moore's "lalla rookh" the peri, promised forgiveness and readmission to paradise on condition of bringing to the eternal gate the gift most dear to heaven, returns in vain with the last drop of the patriot's blood. again, when she brings the expiring sigh of the most faithful human love, the crystal bar moves not. once more she seeks the earth, and bears back the tear of penitence that has fallen from a godless wretch melted into contrition by a child's prayer; and for this alone the golden hinges turn. stoicism could boast in rich profusion the patriot's blood, could feed the torch of a love stronger than death; but it could not start the penitential tear,--it failed of the one gift of earth for which there is joy in heaven. let us rise, then, from the purest philosophy of the old world to christianity in its ethical relations and offices. christianity, as a revelation, covers the entire field of human duty, and gives the knowledge of many fitnesses, recognized when once made known, but undiscoverable by man's unaided insight. the two truths which lie at the foundation of christian ethics are human brotherhood and the immortality of the soul. . _human brotherhood._ the visible differences of race, color, culture, religion, customs, are in themselves dissociating influences. universal charity is hardly possible while these differences occupy the foreground. slavery was a natural and congenial institution under pagan auspices, and the idea of a missionary enterprise transcends the broadest philanthropy of heathenism. we find indeed in the ancient moralists, especially in the writings of cicero and seneca, many precepts of humanity toward slaves, but no clear recognition of the injustice inseparable from the state of slavery; nor have we in all ancient literature, unless it be in seneca (in whom such sentiments might have had more or less directly a christian origin), a single expression of a fellowship broad enough to embrace all diversities of condition, much less of race.[ ] even socrates, while he expects himself to enter at death into the society of good men, and says that those who live philosophically will approach the nature of the gods, expresses the belief that worthy, industrious men who are not philosophers will, on dying, migrate into the bodies of ants, bees, or other hard-working members of the lower orders of animals. [footnote : the verse so often quoted from terence, "homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto," will probably occur to many as inconsistent with my statement. the sentiment of this verse is, indeed, as it stands by itself, truly christian; but in the comedy from which it is quoted, so far from having a philanthropic significance, it is merely a busy-body's apology for impertinent interference with the concerns of his neighbor.] the fraternity of our entire race--even without involving the mooted question of a common human parentage--is through christianity established, not only by the divine fatherhood so constantly proclaimed and so luculently manifested by jesus, but equally by the unifying ministry of his death as a sacrifice for all, and by his parting commitment of "all the world" and "every creature" to the propagandism of his disciples. though the spirit of this revelation has not yet been embodied in any community, it has inspired the life-work of many in every age; it has moulded reform and guided progress in social ethics throughout christendom; it has twice swept the civilized world clean from domestic slavery; it has shaken every throne, is condemning every form of despotism, monopoly, and exclusiveness, and gives clear presage of a condition in which the old pre-christian division of society into the preying and the preyed-upon will be totally obliterated. . _the immortality of the soul_, also, casts a light, at once broad and penetrating, upon and into every department of duty; for it is obvious, without detailed statement, that the fitnesses, needs, and obligations of a terrestrial being of brief duration, and those of a being in the nursery and initial stage of an endless existence, are very wide apart,--that the latter may find it fitting to do, seek, shun, omit, endure, resign, many things which to the former are very properly matters of indifference. immortality was, indeed, in a certain sense believed before christ, but with feeble assurance, and with the utmost vagueness of conception; so that this belief can hardly be said to have existed either as a criterion of duty or as a motive power. how small a part it bore in the ethics of the stoic school may be seen, when we remember that epictetus, than whom there was no better man, denied the life beyond death; and in marcus antoninus immortality was rather a devout aspiration than a fixed belief. in the christian revelation, on the other hand, the eternal life is so placed in the most intimate connection with the life and character in this world as to cast its reflex lights and shadows on all earthly scenes and experiences. christianity, in the next place, makes to us an ethical revelation in the person and character of its founder, exhibiting in him the very fitnesses which it prescribes, showing us, as it could not by mere precepts, the proportions and harmonies of the virtues, and manifesting the unapproached beauty, nay, majesty, of the gentler virtues,--_virtutes leniores_, as cicero calls them,--which in pre-christian ages were sometimes made secondary, sometimes repudiated with contempt and derision. it is, i know, among the commonplaces of the rationalism and secularism of our time, that the moral precepts of the gospel were not original, but had all been anticipated by greek or eastern sages. this is not literally and wholly true; for in some of the most striking of the alleged instances there is precisely the same difference between the heathen and the christian precept that there is between the old testament and the new. the former says, "thou shalt not;" the latter, "thou shalt." the former forbids; the latter commands. the former prescribes abstinence from overt evil; the latter has for its sum of duty, "be thou perfect, as thy father in heaven is perfect." but the statement which i have quoted has more of truth in it than has been usually conceded by zealous champions of the christian faith; and i would gladly admit its full and entire truth, could i see sufficient evidence of it. the unqualified admission does not in the least detract from the pre-eminent worth of him who alone has been the living law. so far is this anticipation of his precepts by wise and good men before him from casting doubts on the divinity of his mission upon earth, that it only confirms his claims upon our confidence. for the great laws of morality are, as we have seen, as old as the throne of god; and strange indeed were it, had there been no intimation of them till the era of their perfect embodiment and full promulgation. the divine spirit, breathing always and everywhere, could not have remained, without witness of right, duty, and obligation in the outward universe and in the human conscience. so, struggling through the mists of weltering chaos, were many errant light-beams; yet none the less glorious and benignant was the sun, when in the clear firmament he first shone, all-illumining and all-guiding. but in practical ethics a revelation of duty is but a small part of man's need. according to a chinese legend, the founders of the three principal religious sects in the celestial empire, lamenting in the spirit-land the imperfect success which had attended the promulgation of their doctrines, agreed to return to the earth, and see if they could not find some right-minded person by whose agency they might convert mankind to the integrity and purity which they had taught. they came in their wanderings to an old man, sitting by a fountain as its guardian. he recalled to them the high moral tone of their several systems, and reproached them for the unworthy lives of their adherents. they agreed that he was the very apostle they sought. but when they made the proposal to him, he replied, "it is the upper part of me only that is flesh and blood: the lower part is stone. i can talk about virtue, but cannot follow its teachings." the sages saw in this man, half of stone, the type of their race, and returned in despair to the spirit-land. there is profound truth in this legend. it indicates at once the mental receptivity and the moral inability of man, as to mere precepts of virtue. it is not enough that we know the right. we know much better than we do. the words which ovid puts into the mouth of medea, _video meliora, proboque, deteriora sequor_ ("i see and approve the better, i pursue the worse"), are the formula of universal experience. we, most of all, need enabling power. this we have through christianity alone. we have it: . in the divine fatherhood, as exhibited in those genial, winning traits, in which jesus verifies his saying, "he that hath seen me hath seen the father,"--a fatherhood to feel which is to render glad and loving obedience to the father's will and word; . in the adaptation of the love, sacrifice, and death of christ to awaken the whole power of loving in the heart, and thus by the most cogent of motives to urge man to live no longer for himself, but for him who died for him; . in the assurance of forgiveness for past wrongs and omissions, without which there could be little courage for future well-doing; . in the promise and realization of divine aid in every right purpose and worthy endeavor; . in institutions and observances designed and adapted to perpetuate the memory of the salient facts, and to renew at frequent intervals the recognition of the essential truths, which give to our religion its name, character, and efficacy. * * * * * thus, while right and obligation exist independently of revelation, and even of natural religion, christianity alone enables us to discern the right in its entireness and its due proportions; and it alone supplies the strength which we need, to make and keep us true to our obligations, under the stress of appetite and passion, cupidity and selfishness, human fear and favor. morality and religion, potentially separable, are yet inseparable in the will of god, under the culture of christ. it used to be common to place the legal and the evangelical element in mutual antagonism. nothing can be more profane or absurd than this. that which is not legal is evangelical only in name and pretence. that which is not evangelical is legal to no purpose. the religious belief or teaching, which lays not supreme stress on the whole moral law, is an outrage on the gospel and the saviour. the morality, which rests on any other foundation than jesus christ and his religion, is built on the sand, the prey of the first onrush or inrush of wind or wave. "what therefore god hath joined together, let not man put asunder." christianity: what it is not, and what it is. by g. vance smith. i. in looking back upon the past history of christianity, it is easy to trace the existence of two very different ideas of the nature of that religion. their influence is discernible in what may be termed its incipient form, in perhaps the earliest period to which we can ascend, while it has been especially felt during the last three hundred years, as also it materially affects the position and relations of churches and sects at the present moment. from obvious characteristics of each, these ideas may be respectively designated as the _ritualistic_, or sacerdotal, and the _dogmatic_, or doctrinal. it is scarcely necessary to add, that the two have been constantly intermingled and blended together, acting and reacting upon each other, and either supporting or else thwarting each other with singular pertinacity. neither of them is found, in any instance of importance, existing wholly apart from the other, so as to be the sole animating principle of a great religious organization. the nature of the case renders this impossible. ritualistic observances cannot be rationally followed without dogmatic beliefs. the former are the natural exponents of the latter, which indeed they are supposed to represent and to symbolize. nor can doctrinal creeds, again, wholly dispense with outward rites and forms. even the most spiritual religion requires some outward medium of expression, if it is to influence strongly either communities or individuals. it must, therefore, tacitly or avowedly adopt something of the dogmatic, if not of the ritualistic, idea, although this may not be put into express words, much less formed into a definite creed or test of orthodoxy. a common factor of the greatest importance enters into the two conceptions of christianity just referred to, though not perhaps in equal measure. i allude to the moral element, which may also be denoted as the sense of duty,--duty towards god and towards man. it may, indeed, be said to be a distinguishing glory of christianity, that it can hardly exist at all, under whatever outward form, without being more or less strongly pervaded by the moral spirit of which the ministry of christ affords so rich and varied an expression. it is true, however, that the ritualistic idea has constantly a tendency to degenerate into a mere care for church observances, devoid of any high tone of uprightness and purity in the practical concerns of ordinary life. it is a common thing, in that great religious communion of western and southern europe which is so strongly animated by this idea, to see people in the churches ceremoniously kneeling in the act of prayer, while all the time they are busy, with eager eyes, to follow every movement in the crowd around them. in certain countries, many of the ritualistically devout, it is well known, have no scruple in practising the grossest impositions upon strangers; a statement which is especially true of those lands that in modern times have been governed and demoralized beyond others by the influence of the priestly class, with their religion of material externalities. a greek or an italian brigand, it is said, will rob and murder his captive with a peaceful conscience, provided only that he duly confesses to the priest, and obtains his absolution. this last is a gross and, happily, a rare case. but, equally with the more innocent acts, it illustrates the natural tendencies of ritualistic christianity among various classes of persons. in ordinary civilized society, such tendencies are kept powerfully in check by other influences. hence it is not to be denied that, throughout the christian world, devotional feeling and the sense of duty are usually deep and active in their influence, and that the practical teachings of christ, directly or indirectly, exercise a potent control, whatever may be the ritualistic or the dogmatic idea with which they are associated. the ritualistic conception now spoken of offers us a christianity which secures "salvation," by the intervention of a priest,--a man who, though, to all outward appearance, but a human being among human beings, yet alleges, and finds people to believe, that he can exercise supernatural functions, and has the power of opening or closing the gates of heaven to his fellow-men. it is needless to say how large a portion of christendom is still under the influence of this kind of superstition, or how pertinaciously the same unspiritual form of religion is, at this moment, struggling to establish itself, even in the midst of the most enlightened modern nations. nor is it necessary here to argue, with any detail, against the notion of its being either inculcated upon us within the pages of the new testament, or enforced by any legitimate authority whatever. probably no one who cares to hear or to read these words would seriously maintain that the gospel of christ consists, in any essential way, in submission to a priesthood, fallible or infallible, in the observance of rites and ceremonies or times and seasons, or in a particular mode or form of church government, whatever doctrines these may be supposed to embody or to symbolize. such things have, indeed, variously prevailed among the christian communities from the beginning. generation after generation has seen priests, and popes, and patriarchs, and presbyters, without number. these personages have decked themselves out in sacred garments, assumed ecclesiastical dignities and powers, and sought, many of them, to heighten the charm and the efficacy of their worship by the aid of altars and sacrifices, so called, of prostrations, incense, lamps and candles, and many other such outward accessories. but are such things to be reckoned among the essentials of christian faith or christian righteousness? does the presence or the blessing of the spirit of god, to the humble, penitent, waiting soul of man, depend upon any thing which one calling himself a priest can do or say for us? will any one, whose opinion is worth listening to, say that it does? the teaching of christ and his apostles is, in truth, remarkably devoid of every idea of this kind. so much is this the case, that it may well be matter of astonishment to find men who profess to follow and to speak for them holding that in such matters there can be only one just and adequate christian course,--that, namely, which commends itself to _their_ judgment! it is evident, on the contrary,--too evident to be in need of serious argument,--that the very diversities of opinion and practice which prevail in the world--as expressed by such names as catholic and protestant, greek church and latin church, church of england and church of scotland, episcopalian, presbyterian, congregational--prove conclusively that nothing imperative has been transmitted to us. the great christian brotherhood, in its various sections and diverse conditions, has manifestly been left, in these things, to its own sense of what it is good and right to follow. thus, too, if we will not close our eyes to the plainest lessons of his providence, the almighty father gives us to understand that he only asks from us the service of heart and life that is "in spirit and in truth;" and, consequently, that we may each give utterance to our thoughts of praise and thanksgiving, to penitence for sin, to our prayer for the divine help and blessing, in whatever form of words, through whatever personal agency, and with whatever accompaniment of outward rite and ceremony we may ourselves deem it most becoming to employ. the second, or dogmatic, conception of the gospel has been less generally prevalent than that of which i have been speaking. yet, ever since the days of luther, not to recall the older times of nicene or athanasian controversy, it has been possessed of great influence in some of the most important christian nations. protestant christianity is predominantly dogmatic. under various forms of expression, it makes the gospel to consist in a very definite system of _doctrines_ to be believed; or, if not actually to consist in this, at least to include it, as its most prominent and indispensable element. we are informed, accordingly, that a man is not a christian, cannot be a christian, and perhaps it will be added, cannot be "saved," unless he receives certain long established doctrines, or reputed doctrines, of christian faith. what these are, it is not necessary here minutely to inquire. it is well, however, to note with care that there would be considerable differences of opinion in regard to them, among those who would yet be agreed as to the necessity of holding firmly to the dogmatic idea referred to. a roman catholic, of competent intelligence, would not by any means agree with an ordinary member of the anglican church equally qualified. both of these would differ in essential points from a member of the greek church; and the three would be almost equally at variance with an average representative of scotch presbyterian calvinism, as also with one whose standard of orthodoxy is contained in the sermons, and the notes on the new testament, of the founder of methodism. nay, it is well known, even within the limits of the same ecclesiastical communion, differences so serious may be found as are denoted, in common phrase, by the terms _ritualistic_ and _evangelical_, and by other familiar words of kindred import. among the great protestant sects the want of harmony under notice is, doubtless, confined within comparatively narrow limits. but there is diversity, not to say discord, even here. no one will dispute the fact who has any knowledge of the history of protestant theology, or who is even acquainted with certain discussions, a few years ago, among well-known members of the english episcopal church, or with others, of more recent date, among english independents,--in both cases on so weighty a subject as the nature of the atonement.[ ] moreover, in the same quarters, varieties of opinion are notorious on such topics as baptismal regeneration, the authority of the priesthood, the inspiration of scripture, eternal punishment,--all of them questions of the most vital importance, in one or other of the popular schemes of the doctrine. [footnote : between archbishop thomson, in _aids to faith_, and some of the writers of _tracts for priests and people_; also between several eminent independent ministers, in the _english independent_ newspaper (august, ).] now the indisputable fact referred to--the existence of this most serious diversity and opposition of opinion and statement--affords the strongest reason for considering it an error of the first magnitude to regard christianity as essentially consisting in a definite system of theological dogmas. for is it possible to believe that a divine revelation of doctrine, such as the gospel has been so commonly supposed to be, would have been left to be a matter of doubt and debate to its recipients? admitting, for a moment, the idea that the almighty providence had designed to offer to men a scheme of faith, the right reception of which should, in some way, be necessary for their "salvation," must we not also hold that this would have been clearly made known to them? so clearly, plainly stated as to preclude the differences just alluded to, as to what it _is_ that has been revealed? it is impossible, in short, on such an assumption, to conceive of christianity, as having been left in so doubtful a position that its disciples should have found occasion, from age to age, in councils and assemblies and conferences, in books and in newspapers, to discuss and dispute among themselves, often amidst anger and bitterness of spirit, upon the question of the nature or the number of its most essential doctrines. of all possible suppositions, surely this is the least admissible, the most extravagantly inconsistent with the nature of the case. to this consideration must be added another, of even greater weight. we gain our knowledge of christianity, and of the author of christianity, from the new testament. and, in this collection of gospels and epistles, it nowhere appears that it was the intention of christ or of the early disciples, to offer to the acceptance of the future ages of the world a new and peculiar creed, a confession of faith, a series of articles of belief in facts or in dogmas, such as the speculative theologian of ancient and of modern times has usually delighted to deal with. this is nowhere to be seen in the new testament, although it speedily made its appearance when the gospel had passed from the keeping of the primitive church into that of greek and hellenistic converts. the only thing that can be supposed to approach this character, within the sacred books themselves, occurs in such phrases as speak of faith in jesus christ, or also of "believing" in the abstract, without any expressed object. but in none of these instances can a dogmatic creed be reasonably held to be the object implied or intended. what is meant, is simply belief in jesus as the christ,[ ] as may be at once understood from the circumstances of the case, and may easily be gathered from a comparison of passages. in the early days of the gospel, the great question between the christians and their opponents was simply this, whether jesus of nazareth was the christ or not. one who admitted this, and received him in this character, had _faith_ in him, and might be an accepted disciple. one who denied and rejected him, as the multitudes did, was not, and could not be, so accepted. a man could not, in a word, be a christian disciple, without recognizing and believing in the founder of christianity. [footnote : comp. matt. xvi. - ; acts ix. , xvi. ; rom. iii. , viii. , .] this explanation of the nature of the faith of the gospel will be found to apply throughout the new testament books. an illustration may be seen in one of the most remarkable passages, the last twelve verses of st. mark's gospel,--a passage, it should be noted, usually admitted to be of later origin than the rest of the book. here (v. ) we read, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned" (condemned). the meaning is explained by a reference to the related passage, in chapter xxv. of the first gospel. here we learn that at the second advent, shortly to come to pass, those who, having received jesus as lord, had approved themselves by their works obedient and faithful disciples, would by him be recognized as his, and admitted to share in the blessings of the promised kingdom of heaven: those who had not done so should be rejected and driven from his presence. it is clear that there is, in such ideas, no sufficient ground for supposing faith or belief in a creed or a dogma to have been intended by the writer of either gospel. let me further illustrate my meaning by a brief reference to an ancient and, by many persons, still accepted formula of orthodox doctrine. this professes to tell us very precisely what is the true christian faith. in plain terms it says, believe this, and this, and this: believe it and keep it "whole and undefiled;" unless you do so, "without doubt" you shall "perish everlastingly." now my proposition is, that this kind of statement, or any thing like it, is not to be met with in the teaching of christ, or in any other part of the new testament. had it been otherwise,--had he plainly said that the form of doctrine now referred to, or any other, was so essential, there could have been no room for hesitation among those who acknowledged him as teacher and lord. but he has manifestly not done this, or any thing like this. hence, as before, we are not justified in thinking that the religion which takes its name from him, and professes to represent his teaching, consists, in any essential degree, in the acceptance, or the profession, of any such creed or system of doctrine, exactly defined in words, after the manner of the churches,--whether it may have come down to us from the remotest times of ante-nicene speculation, or only from the days of protestant dictators like calvin or wesley; whether it may have been sanctioned by the authority of an [oe]cumenical council, so called, or by that of an imperial parliament, or only by some little body of nonconformist chapel-builders, who, by putting their creed into a schedule at the foot of a trust-deed, show their distrust of the spirit of truth, and their readiness to bind their own personal belief, if possible, upon their successors and descendants of future generations. we may then be very sure that, if the christian master had intended to make the "salvation" of his followers dependent upon the reception of dogmas, whether about himself or about him who is "to us invisible or dimly seen" in his "lower works," he would not have left it to be a question for debate, a fertile source of angry contention or of heartless persecutions, as it has often virtually been, _what_ the true creed, the distinctive element of his religion, really is. the very fact that this _has_ been so much disputed, that such differences do now so largely exist before our eyes, forms the strongest possible testimony to the non-dogmatic character of the primitive or genuine christianity. the same fact ought to rebuke and warn us against the narrow sectarian spirit in which existing divisions originate, and which is so manifestly out of harmony with "the spirit of christ." ii. this absence from the christian records of all express instruction, on the subjects above noticed, clearly warrants us in turning away from any merely dogmatic or ecclesiastical system, if it be urged upon us as constituting the substance, or the distinctive element of christianity. we are thus of necessity led to look for this in something else. but to what else shall we turn? in what shall we find an answer to our inquiry, as to the true idea of the christian gospel? the reply to this question is not difficult. the true idea of christ's religion can only be found in the life and words of the master himself. and these it may well be believed, in their simple, rational, spiritual, practical form, are destined to assume a commanding position among christian men which they have never yet held, and, in short, to suppress and supersede the extravagancies alike of ritualism and its related dogmatism, whatever the form in which these may now prevail among the churches and sects of christendom. this conclusion is readily suggested, or it is imperatively dictated, by various expressions in the new testament itself. "lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life:"--such is the sentiment attributed to the apostle peter by the fourth evangelist. paul has more than one instance in which he is equally explicit: "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is jesus christ;" while in another place he writes, "if any man have not the spirit of christ, he is none of his." jesus himself speaks in terms which are even more decided, when he declares, "_i_ am the way, the truth, and the life."[ ] [footnote : john vi. ; cor. iii. ; rom. viii. ; john xiv. .] in such expressions as these we may, at the least, plainly see the surpassing importance, to the judgment of the earliest christian authorities, of the personal christ, of his teaching and example. we are thus emphatically taught, in effect, that we must look to christ, and take him, in his life, his words, his devout and holy spirit, as the impersonation of his religion. when it is asked, then, what is the true idea of christianity, no better answer can be given than by saying, it is christ himself; that it is _in_ christ himself, in what he was and says and does, in all that made him well pleasing in the sight of god, as the beloved son of the almighty father. what jesus was, in his visible life among men, we learn from the gospel records. we learn it from them alone; for nowhere else have we information respecting him that deserves to be compared with theirs in originality or fulness of detail. it is not necessary to our present purpose to enter at length into the particulars which they have preserved for us, or into the differences between the three synoptical gospels and the fourth, in regard to the idea which they respectively convey of the ministry of christ. the latter gospel, it may, however, be observed, is usually admitted to be the last of the four in order of time. it is also, without doubt, the production of a single mind; and cannot be supposed, like the others, simply to incorporate, with little change, the traditions handed down among the disciples, for perhaps a long series of years before being committed to writing. but whatever accidental characteristics of this kind may be thought to belong to the respective gospels, they all agree in the resulting impression which they convey, as to the high character of jesus. and, it will be observed, they do this very artlessly, without any thing of the nature of intentional effort or elaborate description. they state facts, and report words, in the most simple manner, often with extreme vagueness and want of detail. it thus, however, results, that the image of christ which the evangelists, and especially the first three, unite to give us is, above all things, a moral image only; in other words, it has been providentially ordered that the impression left upon the reader is almost entirely one of moral qualities and of character. it may even be true, as some will tell us, that we have in each of the first three gospels, not simply the productions of as many individual writers, but rather a growth or a compilation of incidents, discourses and sayings from various sources, and drawn especially from the oral accounts which had long circulated among the people, before they were put together in their present form. but even so, the result is all the more striking. the identity and self-consistency of the central object, the person of christ, is the more remarkable. such qualities lead us safely to the conclusion that one and the same original, one great and commanding personality, was the true source from which all were more or less remotely derived. hence, even the imperfect or fragmentary character of the gospel history becomes of itself a positive evidence for the reality of the life, and the peculiar nature of the influence, of him whose career it so rapidly, and it may be inadequately, places before us. it is, however, to be distinctly remembered that we reach the mind of christ only through the medium of other minds. so far as can now be known, no words of his writing have been transmitted to our time, or were ever in the possession of his disciples. to some extent, therefore, it would appear, the thoughts of the teacher[ ] may have been affected, colored and modified, by the peculiar medium through which they have come down to us. under all the circumstances of the case, this inference is natural and justifiable. it is one too of some importance, inasmuch as it directly suggests that, in all probability, the actual person whose portraiture is preserved for us by the evangelists must have surpassed, in his characteristic excellences, the impression which the narratives in fact convey. the first generation of disciples were evidently men who were by no means exempt from the influence of the national feelings of their people, or of the peculiar modes of thought belonging to their class. in the same degree in which this is true, they would be unable rightly to understand, and worthily to appreciate the teaching and the mind of christ. this remark applies perhaps more especially to the first three gospels, but it is not wholly inapplicable to the fourth. indeed, the fact referred to comes prominently out to view at several points in the evangelical narrative,--as in the case of peter rebuking his master for saying that he must suffer and die at jerusalem; in that of the request made by the mother of zebedee's children; and in the anticipations ascribed by the first three evangelists to jesus himself, of his own speedy return to the earth,--anticipations which are recorded very simply, and without any corrective observation on the part of the writer.[ ] [footnote : the term _teacher_ is constantly used of christ in the gospels, though usually disguised in our english version under the rendering "master." comp. e.g. mark ix. , ; luke x. .] [footnote : matt. xvi. , xx. , xxiv. - ; mark viii. - , x. - , xiii. - ; luke xviii. - .] but, whatever the hindrances of this kind in the way of a perfectly just estimation by the modern disciple, the portrait of christ preserved for us by the evangelists is, in a remarkable degree, that of a great religious character. the christ of the gospels is, before all things, a spiritual being, unpossessed, it may even be said, of the personal qualities which might mark him off as the product of a particular age or people. he is, in large measure, the opposite of what the disciples were themselves, free from the feelings and prejudices of his jewish birth and religion. this he evidently is, without any express design of theirs, and by the mere force of his own individuality. he is thus, in effect, the christ[ ] not merely of his immediate adherents, or his own nation, but of all devout men for all ages. he stands before us, in short, so wise, and just, and elevated in his teaching, so upright and pure in the spirit of his life, so engaging in his own more positive example of submission to the overruling will, and touching forbearance towards sinful men, that innumerable generations of disciples, since his death, have been drawn to him and led to look up to him even as their best and highest human representative of the invisible god himself. [footnote : that is to say, "anointed," or _king_,--in other words, leader, teacher, saviour from sin, as the gospels also expressly term him.] it is very probable, however, that all this was not so fully seen by those who stood nearest to jesus during his brief and rapid career, as it has been since. at least many, even the vast majority of his day, failed to perceive it. and yet, to a hebrew reader of the gospels, the greatness of his character could be summed up in no more expressive terms than by claiming for him that he was the christ; that he embodied in himself the moral and intellectual pre-eminence associated with that office. in this light he is especially represented in the first three gospels. in john, too, we have substantially the same thing, though very differently expressed. in that gospel, he is also the christ, but he is so by the indwelling of the divine word. "the word became flesh and dwelt among us," and the glory which had been seen among men, "full of grace and truth," was the glory even "as of the only-begotten of the father." probably no language could have been used that would have conveyed to a reader of the time a higher idea of the moral and spiritual qualities of any human being. and this corresponds entirely with the impression given by other writers of the new testament, to some of whom jesus was personally known,--by peter, for example, by james, by paul, and by the writer to the hebrews. they evidently looked back to their departed master, and up to the risen christ, as a person of commanding dignity and spiritual power, and this not merely on account of the official title of messiah which, rightly or wrongly, they applied to him, but for the lofty moral virtues with which his name was to them synonymous.[ ] he "who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth," was, without doubt, the most perfect example which they could cite of all that was acceptable in the sight of god. "the spirit of christ," without which we are "none of his," could be nothing else, and nothing less, than a participation in christ-like goodness; nor can it therefore possibly be wrong, if we too lay the main emphasis of the christian profession precisely _here_, where it is laid by the apostles; if, in other words, we pass over, or leave out of sight, as altogether of secondary importance, or of none, those various and often conflicting dogmas and forms and "diversities of administration," about which the christian world is so sorely, and for the present, so irreparably divided. [footnote : pet. ii. , seq.; iv. - , - ; james ii. , seq.; gal. vi. - ; eph. iv. - and _passim_; phil. i. , seq.; ii. - ; rom. xiii. ; cor. iv.] the character of christ stands in very intimate relations with the miraculous powers attributed to him by the gospels. those powers, it is needless to say, have been seriously called in question, as actual facts of history, by the critical investigations of recent times. many persons, it may be, cannot see, and will not admit, that their value has been affected by the inquiries alluded to. to such persons the miracles will naturally retain whatever efficacy they may be conceived to possess as evidence of the divine, that is, supernatural, claims of him who is recorded to have wrought them. they are entitled to their own judgment in the case, as well as to whatever support to christian faith they think they can derive from such a quarter. at the same time other inquirers may be permitted to think differently. if the lapse of time and the increasing grasp and penetration of critical knowledge necessarily tend to lessen the certainty of the miraculous element of the evangelical history, may not this too be a part of the providential plan--contemplated and brought about for great and wise ends? may it not be that now the spiritual man shall be left more entirely free to discern for himself the simple excellence of the christian teaching and example? left increasingly without that support from the witness of outward miracle which has usually been deemed so important, and which is unquestionably found to be the more commonly thus estimated, in proportion as we descend into the lower grades of intelligence and moral sensibility.[ ] [footnote : in illustration of this remark, it is scarcely necessary to mention the "miracles" of the roman catholic church in all ages.] but, on the other hand, if this be true, one who may thus think need not of necessity also hold that the miracles of the gospels did not take place, but that the history relating to them is the mere product of weak and credulous exaggeration. for, in truth, the ends which might be subserved by such manifestations are easily understood. occurrences so unwonted and remarkable could not fail both to secure the attention of the spectator, and make him ponder well upon the words of the miracle-worker, and also to awaken in him new feelings of reverence towards the mysterious being who had given such power to men. thus it is readily conceivable, that a miracle might be a thing of the highest utility to those who witnessed it and to their generation. but then, on the other hand, it is not to be alleged that such occurrences are needed now to show us that god is a living spirit in the world; or, consequently, that religious love and veneration are in any way dependent upon them, either as facts beheld by ourselves, or as incidents recorded to have been seen by others who lived many centuries ago. and, if this be so, surely we may look with indifference upon the most destructive operations of literary or scientific criticism, being anxious only, and above all things, for the simple truth, whatever it may be. again, however, it is not to be denied that the possession of miraculous power may have been for christ himself, not less than for those who saw his works, of the deepest spiritual import. the formation of a character like his would seem peculiarly to require the training that would be afforded by such an endowment. we know how, with ordinary men, the command of unlimited power is, in fact, a test of rectitude, self-government, unselfishness, of the most trying and, it may be, most elevating, kind. the temptations which necessarily accompany it are proverbial. was christ exempt from that kind of moral discipline, that supreme proof of fidelity to god? allowing, for a moment, what the narratives directly intimate, that he felt within himself the force of miraculous gifts, and the capacity to use them, if he had so willed, for purposes either of personal safety or of political ambition;[ ] in this, we may see at once, there would be an end to be served of the greatest moment both to himself and to the future instruction of his disciples. by such an experience, the moral greatness of his example might be doubly assured. it would be made possible to him to deny and humble himself,--even, in apostolical phrase, to "empty" himself of his messianic prerogatives, in order the better to do the heavenly father's will, and, preferring even the cross to a disobedient refusal of the cup which could not pass from him, to be "made perfect through suffering," thus showing himself worthy to be raised up at last to be, as he has been, the spiritual lord of the church. [footnote : matt. iv. , seq.] this idea was, in fact, a familiar one to paul, as to others of the christian writers.[ ] its literal truth is enforced by the consideration of the strange improbability that one by birth a galilean peasant, without any special gifts or powers to recommend him to the notice of his people, should yet be acknowledged by many of them as the promised messiah; should, in spite of an ignominious death, be accepted in that character by multitudes; and finally, in the same or a still higher character, should acquire the love and reverential homage of half the world. [footnote : cor. viii. ; eph. i. - ; phil. ii. - ; heb. ii. , , ; pet. ii. .] and yet it may remain true that, as time passes, this consideration shall lose much of its weight, in the judgment of increasing numbers of earnest inquirers. they, accordingly, will cease to place reliance on the outward material sign. jesus, nevertheless, may still be to them as an honored master and friend, whose name they would gladly cherish, for what he is in himself. to those who thus think his character and words will appeal by their own intrinsic worth. he will be teacher, saviour, spiritual lord, simply by the inherent grace and truth spoken of by the evangelist of old. if this be the destined end, we may gladly acknowledge the providential guiding even in this; and we shall certainly guard ourselves against judging harsh or uncharitable judgment in reference to those who on this subject may not see as we see, or feel as we feel;--who, nevertheless, in thought and deed and aspiration, may not be less faithful to truth and right, or less loyally obedient to all that is seen to be highest and best in christ himself. iii. christ, then, i repeat, thus standing before us in the evangelical records of his ministry, is the impersonation of his religion. what we see in him is christianity. or, if it be not so, where else shall we look with the hope to find it? who else has ever had a true _authority_ to place before us a more perfect idea, or to tell us more exactly what the gospel is? the _church_, indeed, some will interpose, has such authority! but examine this statement, and its untenable character speedily appears. the church at any given moment is, and has been, simply a body of fallible mortals, like ourselves. if the christian men of this present day cannot suppose themselves to be preserved from intellectual error in matters of religion, neither can we think the christian men of the past to have been more highly privileged. in fact, it must be added, as we ascend into the darker periods of church history, we come upon the most undeniable traces of ignorance, misunderstanding, worldliness and folly, on the part of the ecclesiastics of the early and the middle ages, such as deprive their judgments on the subject before us of all right or claim to unquestioned acceptance. let any one read, for example, the accounts given by trustworthy historians[ ] of that great assembly of the church which produced the nicene creed. will any one allege that in the passion and prejudice, the smallness of knowledge, the subtlety of speculation, and narrowness of heart, pervading the majority of that assembly, the divine spirit was peculiarly present to dictate or guide the decision arrived at, and make it worthy of the blind adhesion of future christian generations? and, if we cannot thus admit the peculiar idea of christianity _there_ approved, it will surely be in vain to look to any similar quarter, either of the past or of the present, for what shall supersede the living "grace and truth," seen in christ himself. [footnote : e.g., in dean stanley's _history of the eastern church_.] this conclusion is greatly strengthened by the briefest reference to the negative results of unbelief and irreligion, so prevalent in those countries which have been the longest under the influence of the old ritualistic idea of the church and the priesthood. positively speaking, this idea, it is needless to add, has largely failed in almost every thing except the encouragement among the people of the grossest superstitions[ ]--superstitions of which there is no trace whatever in immediate connection with the christian master. not, however, to dwell in detail on this unpromising theme, let us rather turn to the considerations by which our leading position may be confirmed; from which too we may learn that a better future is yet in store for us. [footnote : a good authority has recently observed, "catholicism, substituted for christ, has turned the thought of southern europe to simple infidelity, if not to atheism; let us take heed that protestantism does not bring about the same thing in another way in the north."--bishop ewing, in a _letter_ to the spectator newspaper, april , . the remark here quoted is of much wider application than the bishop himself would probably admit!] the experience of past ages, the existing sectarian divisions of christendom, the errors and superstitions involved in the grosser assumptions of church authority, all unite to compel us to the conclusion of the essentially erroneous character of the old ritualistic and dogmatic conceptions of the nature of the gospel. they show us not only that dogmas and rites about which the most earnest men are so utterly at variance cannot possibly be of the essence of christianity, but further that the latter is nowhere to be found except in him whom in spite of diversities all alike agree to hold in honor. and, in truth, his life, brief and fleeting as it was, may well be said to constitute the christian revelation. that it does so, and was intended to do so, may, as already observed, be seen better in our day, than it was by the earliest disciples. their thoughts were preoccupied, their vision obscured, by various influences which prevented them from clearly discerning the one thing needful. the temporal kingdom of their master for which they were, many of them, so eagerly looking; his speedy return to judge the world,--an expectation of which there are so many traces in gospels and epistles alike; the great and urgent question of the law and its claims, with that of the admission of the gentiles to the faith of christ without the previous adoption of judaism;--such thoughts and such cares as these largely engaged and filled the minds of the disciples, within the limits of the period to which the origin of the principal new testament books must be assigned. after the close of that period, fresh subjects of controversial interest continually arose, until these were gradually overshadowed by the rising authority of the church and the later growth of sacerdotal power, followed in due course of time by the grosser corruptions of the primitive gospel which marked the christianity of the darker ages, and which have by no means as yet spent their power. thus has it pleased the great disposer that men should be led forward to truth and light through error and darkness. even as the hebrews of old were gradually brought by many centuries of experience, and in the midst of imperfections and backslidings innumerable, to their final recognition of the one jehovah, so have the christian generations been slowly learning and unlearning according as their own condition and capacities allowed. thus the great development has been running its destined course, and will doubtless conduct us eventually to yet better and truer ideas of what the almighty purposes had, in christ, really designed to give to the world. to vary the form of expression, the life of christ itself constitutes the revelation of his will which the almighty father has given to man by his son. and that life does constitute a revelation, in the most full and various import of this term. it shows us, in a clear and engaging light, the one god and father of all, the just and holy one, who will render to every man according to his deeds. it shows us the high powers and capacities of man himself; for, while and because it tells him to be perfect even as the father in heaven is perfect, it not only recognizes in him the capability to be so, but also abundantly affords the spiritual nutriment by which the higher faculties of his nature may be nurtured and strengthened within him. it shows us how to live a life of religious trust and obedience to the commands of duty, and, amidst many sorrows and trials, still to preserve a soul unstained by guilt. it shows us that this high devotion to the sacred law of truth and right is that which is well pleasing to god; and that his will is that man should thus, by the discipline of his spirit, join the moral strength and sensibility in this world which shall fit him, if he will, to enter upon the higher life of the world to come. all this we see plainly expressed and announced in christ, constituting him the _revealer_ in the best sense of this term. all this we do see, even though it may be very hard to find any doctrinal creed laid down in definite words, or any system of rites and ceremonies of worship, of church government, or of priestly functions and dignities, placed before us as constituting an indispensable part of our common christianity. and it is here an obvious remark that, while christian men have so often questioned and disputed with one another about the essentials of their religion; while they have sometimes, again, been forgetful of its spirit, in their controversies as to its verbal and written forms,--all this time they have been substantially agreed as to the matters which are the greatest and weightiest of all. about the gospel as embodying and expressing man's faith in god and in heaven, and as setting forth the highest moral law with its exemplification in an actual human life; about the gospel in these, which are surely its most serious and interesting aspects, there has been no dispute. the great spiritual principles taught by christ, and the power of his practical exhibition of human duty, have been constantly admitted and--may it not be added?--constantly felt in the world, among all the sects and parties of christendom, in spite of the differences of forms and creeds which have separated men from each other. this fact suggests a further consideration of obvious interest. regarded as a dogmatic or an ecclesiastical system, the gospel is one of the greatest failures which the world has seen, no two sects or churches, scarcely any two congregations, being agreed as to some one or other of what are deemed its most essential elements. regarded as a moral and spiritual energy and instructor among men, it is and always has been a quickening power,--tending directly, in its genuine influences, to support and to guide aright, and, even amidst the worst distractions or perversions of human passion and error, whispering thoughts of hope, comfort, and peace, to many troubled hearts. this should not be forgotten in our estimates of the part played by christianity in past times, or in the judgments sometimes so lightly uttered by a certain class of its critics, who show themselves so ready to confound the religion with its corruptions, and to include it and them in one indiscriminate condemnation. it should help to call us back to juster views of the nature and the function of christ's religion, and lead us the better to see that these consist, not in its capacity or its success as an imposer of dogmas or of ceremonial acts to be received and carefully performed by either priests or people, but in its power to strengthen with moral strength, to guide in the path of duty, to save us from our sins, to breathe into us the spirit of christ, and so to bring us nearer to god. such is the true function and the real power of the gospel, even though it may constantly have had to act in the midst of gross ignorance, or of false and exaggerated dogmatic conception; nor is it too much to say that this its highest character has not been altogether wanting to it, even in the darkest periods of man's intellectual experience, during the last eighteen centuries. and not only is this so; but, further, it is evidently not through the _peculiar_ doctrines of his church or sect that a man is most truly entitled to the name of christian, but rather by his participation in what is _common_ to all the churches and sects which are themselves worthy of that name. for let us call to mind, for a moment, some of the more eminent christian men and women of modern times, to whatever sectarian fold they may have owned themselves to belong. recall the names of a fénelon, an oberlin, a vincent de paul, a xavier, a melancthon, a milton, a locke, a chalmers, a clarkson, a wilberforce, a mrs. fry, a keble, a heber, a wesley, a lardner, a priestley, a channing, a tuckerman, with innumerable other true-hearted followers of him who both bear witness to the truth, and "went about doing good." in such persons we have representatives of nearly all the churches, with their various peculiarities of doctrinal confession. and must we not believe that such men and women were true christians? if so, will it not follow that in every one of their differing communions true christians are to be found? probably no man, unless it be one of the most bigoted adherents of evangelical or high anglican orthodoxy, would venture to deny this. there are, then, good christians, let us gladly admit, in all the various sects and parties of christendom; men whom christ himself, if he were here, would acknowledge and welcome as true disciples. but what is it that entitles such persons all alike to the christian character and name? it cannot be any thing in which each _differs_ from the rest, but rather something which they all have in common. it cannot be any thing that is peculiar to the roman catholic alone, for then the protestant would not have it; nor any thing that is peculiar to the protestant alone, for then the roman catholic would not have it; nor any thing that is peculiar to the trinitarian alone, for then the unitarian would not have it. it must be something apart from the distinctive creed of each. it is then something which all must possess, otherwise they would not be truly christian; which they must have in _addition_ to their several distinguishing doctrines,--in company with which the latter may indeed be held, but which is not the exclusive property of any single church, or sect, or individual, whatever. what then do all the christian sects and parties, of every name, hold in common, and never differ about? is it not simply in this, that they receive and reverence jesus as the beloved son in whom god was well pleased? that they hold the christian faith in the father in heaven, with all that this involves of love to god and love to man? that they accept the law of righteousness, placed before us in the "living characters" of christ's own deeds and words, and strive to obey it in their conduct? that they hold the same common faith as to the presence and the providence of god, the future life and the judgment to come? this christian allegiance, it is true, is expressed under the most different forms of statement, and in many a case it may hardly be definitely expressed at all; but yet even this, and such as this, is, by belief and practice, the common property of every christian man; and so far as he lives in the spirit of this high faith is he truly a disciple and no further whatever may be the church or sect, or forms of doctrine and worship, to which he may attach himself. and all this, i repeat, is most plainly revealed to us in the spirit and the life of christ,--insomuch that we feel the statement to be incontrovertibly sure, that he is the truest christian of all whose practical daily spirit and conduct are the most closely and constantly animated and governed by the spirit and precepts and example of the master christ. it seems strange, when we think about it, that men should have gone so far astray, in times past, from the more simple and obvious idea of christianity thus laid before us. we may have difficulty in explaining how this has come to pass; how it is that so much of the weight and stress, as it were, of the christian religion should have been laid upon obscure metaphysical creeds and dogmas, the obvious tendency of which is, and always has been, to divide men from each other, to degenerate into gross superstition, and destroy the liberty "wherewith christ has made us free," and which, moreover, are nowhere contained in the scriptures, and cannot even be stated in the language of the scriptures; how it is, again, that so little emphasis should be laid in these dogmatic formulas upon that obedience which is better than sacrifice, even that doing the heavenly father's will, which--strange to tell!--is the only condition prescribed by christ for entering into the kingdom. truly this question is not without its perplexities. but some explanation may be found. it is the obvious law of divine providence, it is and has been a great law of human progress, that truth shall not be flashed upon the mind at once, either in religion or in any other of the great fields of interest and occupation to man; but that it shall be conquered and won through the medium of slow and gradual approach, even in the midst and by the help of misunderstanding and error. it is thus, doubtless, that men are trained to appreciate rightly the value of the truths and principles which they ultimately gain. in other words, past experience goes far to show us that moral excellence and the apprehension of truth, by such a being as man, can only be acquired by means of previous conflict with evil and untruth, in some one or other of their manifold forms; or, if not by an actual personal conflict for each of us individually, at least by means of the observed or recorded experience of others, more severely tried than ourselves. thus it has doubtless been with the reception and gradual prevalence of christian truths and principles. men have had slowly, by a varied and sometimes painful experience, to learn that it is not by saying, lord, lord, by confessing some formal creed, or being included within the limits of some visible church; not by forms and ceremonies of any kind, such as baptism at the hands of a priest, or the confession of sin into his ear, that we may become truly recipients of the light and strength of the gospel of christ; but much rather by personal communion with the spirit of god, by doing the things which the lord hath said, by striving to be like christ, in heart and in life, active in goodness, submissive to the heavenly father's will, and ready to the work of duty which he has given us to do. in proportion as this conception of christianity comes forward into view, and assumes the pre-eminence to which it is entitled, and which is either implied or expressly declared in the principal writings of the new testament, in the same degree must the merely dogmatic and sacerdotal idea sink into insignificance. it will be seen that moral and spiritual likeness to the christian head is what is all-important; and, consequently, that within the limits of the same communion, bound together by the common principle of christian faith,--the principle of love and reverence for the one master, christ,--there may exist the most complete mental freedom, and even, to a very large extent, the most diverse theological beliefs. iv. but here i may be met by certain objections which will hardly fail to occur to different classes of readers. in the first place, it may be said, the idea of the gospel above presented is itself dogmatic; and indeed that the conception of christianity as involving definite forms of doctrine is not to be got rid of. this remark i am by no means concerned wholly to escape. doubtless the gospel, as it is given in the words of christ, includes various clearly stated truths respecting the divine providence and will, and the retributions of this world and the next,--truths, i may add, which are not only level to the apprehension of the human faculties, but also in harmony with the highest dictates of the natural conscience and reason of man. but these great truths are not dogmatically laid before us in the gospel. the mind of each reader is left free to gather them for itself. they are so stated as to quicken and elevate, not to stupefy or render useless, the religious and moral sense of the disciple. they serve thus, in the result, to arouse in him the strength of deep individual conviction, without which they could have little practical value. the teaching function of the gospel is of _this_ kind, rather than dogmatic and denunciatory, in the manner of the creeds. it does not attempt to put before us a ready-made body of doctrine, in such a way as to save the disciple the trouble of inquiry and reflection for himself, as though it would make him the mere recipient of what is imposed upon him from without. not in this mechanical way, either in the world of outward nature, or in the gospel of his son, does the great parent speak to the hearts of his children; but chiefly by awakening their higher, devouter sensibilities, and letting them feel the force of truth and right within their own secret spirits. no imposition from without could fitly accomplish this divine work; and we may be well assured that no man living, and no church or sect on earth, has a legitimate authority to define exactly the limits within which christian belief shall confine itself, or beyond which belief shall not extend, without ceasing to be christian. obviously and unquestionably christ himself has nowhere attempted to dictate his religion in such a way; neither has any of his apostles, not even the ardent and impetuous paul. on the contrary, the latter, like his master, constantly attaches the greatest importance to the practical virtues, and to a devout spirit,--in no case making his appeal to a dogmatic statement, or giving us to understand that he had the least idea of any dogmatic system whatever, similar, in spirit or in form, to the creeds of modern orthodoxy. a second objection may be urged by a defender of the prevailing forms and dogmas of the churches. such a person may say that, in taking christ as the measure and representative of his own religion, we leave out of sight all that may have been contributed to its development by the apostles, to say nothing of their successors, and that the epistles of the new testament contain much that is not met with in connection with him. in reply, let it be observed in what terms the apostles speak of their master, and of the obedience, the faith, and veneration due to him. paul, for example, in various forms, tells them to "put on the lord jesus christ;" to let his mind be in them, his word dwell in them richly, to acquire his spirit, to follow him in love and self-sacrifice. he will know nothing, he says, "save jesus christ, and him crucified;" and we know how closely he treads in his master's steps, in the absolute preference which he gives to the love which, he declares, is greater than faith, and the very fulfilling of the law itself. the same strain is held by others of the apostles; and there can be no doubt that christ, under god, was constantly looked up to by them as the great object of the faith, the love, and the imitation of every disciple. it is true, indeed, that there are many things in the apostolical writings other than we find in connection with christ's personal life; but these will be found to belong, almost exclusively, to the peculiar circumstances and controversies of the times succeeding his death. in truth, they belong so entirely to them as to have little of practical reference, or utility, beyond. paul's epistles, for instance, are full of the long debated question as to the claims of the law upon gentiles, and the mystery which, he says, had been hidden "from the foundation of the world," that the messiah should be preached even to those who were not of the fold of israel. but these are only temporary incidents of the early career of christianity. they have no intimate connection with the permanent influence of christ; and we of modern times have little concern with them, except only to be on our guard against letting them unduly sway our judgment and turn us away from subjects of greater consequence,--as too often has happened to the ingenious framers of theological systems. christianity, in a word, has been only perplexed and impeded in its course, by those thoughtless or over-zealous expounders who have insisted upon constructing schemes of orthodoxy out of the antiquated disputes of jews and gentiles.[ ] [footnote : see, e.g., the essay on the death of christ, in _aids to faith_.] in all his epistles st. paul, in the true spirit of his master, gives us clearly to know what is of chief importance. after treating, as he usually does, of the local and passing concerns and disputes which engaged many of his correspondents, he never fails to turn at last to speak of the practical goodness, the purity of heart and life, the kindly affections towards one another, the reasonable service of love and duty, by which the christian disciple may be known, by which alone he can present himself as a "living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto god." in such qualities as these, the attainment or the practice of which he so earnestly urges upon his friends, we have precisely what constitute the most marked features in the life and the teachings of christ. thus we are brought once more to the old conclusion that in faithful loyalty to christ, to the highest ideal presented to us of his spirit and character, are to be found the true light and joy and peace of the christian gospel. a third objection is of a different character. there are some things, it will be said, in immediate connection with him whom we term teacher and lord, some things in his words and ideas, if not in his actions, which are far from being in perfect harmony with the highest truth, as known to men in these later times. for example, when he speaks as though he believed diseases and insanity to be caused by the presence of a devil, or demon, in the afflicted person, are we to attach importance to this, so as ourselves to think that such disorders are (or were) so produced?--or shall we not rather follow the guidance of modern science, and believe that the various infirmities which, in ancient times, were attributed to evil spirits arose from natural causes, and that the manner in which such things are spoken of in the new testament is a product simply of the imperfect knowledge of those days? in reply, there need be no hesitation in saying that we are bound, as beings of thought and reason, to follow the best guidance which god has given us, in these and all other subjects; and by the term _best_ can only be understood that which commends itself most forcibly to our rational intelligence. it can in no way be claimed for christ that he was intellectually perfect; that he did not share in the prevailing beliefs of his countrymen, and partake even of their ignorance. such a claim as this is certainly nowhere advanced in the new testament, but the _contrary_; and those who, in our time, would bring it forward should ask themselves whether, by so doing, they are most likely to benefit, or to injure, the cause which doubtless they would desire to support. jesus himself makes no pretension to intellectual infallibility, but lets us see, in no uncertain way, that he was not unconscious of the limitation of his own knowledge.[ ] [footnote : mark xiii. .] in general terms it may be added, the gospel, when first preached in the world, was necessarily adapted to the people to whom it was addressed. it conformed, in many respects, to their ideas and modes of expression, and also made use of these for its own ends. had it not done so, how could it have touched and moved them as it did, and as, through them, it has touched and moved the world ever since? jesus, therefore, himself, and those who took up his work after him, were, in a large degree, men of their own day, imbued with prevailing ideas and feelings, and employing these in their speaking and preaching in the most natural manner. is it not even so with ourselves at the present moment? for how, indeed, can it be otherwise? and if many of the primitive christian ideas were more or less erroneous and ill-founded, it is easy to understand that, while the overruling providence made them its instruments for leading men on by degrees to something better, still it can have been no part of the great design of god that misunderstanding and ignorance should be removed by any other process than by the natural growth of knowledge among men. they were not to be supernaturally refuted, but left to be corrected in due course of time; and the needed correction was and is to come even as men grow wiser and more thoughtful and able to bear it. hence, it is not to be questioned, many errors, chiefly of the intellectual kind, attached to the early preaching of the gospel, and some certainly did to the words of christ himself; just as very much of human ignorance and prejudice has since and continually been involved in the ideas prevailing as to the character and purposes of his religion. as before observed, man has been made by his creator to find his way up to light and truth from the most imperfect beginnings, and by a prolonged conflict against and amidst darkness and manifold error. such is our human nature, and the position which the divine will has assigned to us. and so in the early ages after christ there sprung up the idolatrous worship of the virgin mary and of innumerable saints; nor is the world yet free, though it is slowly freeing itself, from the influence of these superstitions and their related errors of thought. successive generations inherit much of the evil as well as the good, the ignorance as well as the knowledge, of those who have been before them. thus does the almighty father exercise and discipline his human family in patience, in self-control, in the search after truth, even by letting us suffer and work for the good fruits of knowledge and righteousness, instead of giving them to the world at once without thought or effort of our own. this is eminently true in connection with the whole course of christian development. in christ's own teachings and those of the apostles, as time has amply shown, erroneous ideas were not wanting. peter denied his master, and thought at first that only jews could be disciples. both he and paul, as well as james, with probably all the early christians, long cherished the hope of their master's return to the earth within that generation; a belief which is to be traced also, equally with that in demoniacal possessions, in the recorded words of jesus himself. other instances of a similar kind might easily be mentioned. but, while all this seems perfectly undeniable, has not divine providence so ordered that what is really wrong and false in men's ideas of christian truth shall sooner or later be seen in its real character, in the advancing progress of human knowledge?--and therefore, if we are ourselves only patient and faithful, each of us, to what we see, or think we see, to be right and good, that the untrue in our ideas shall be eventually separated from the true, however close may be the connection which at any time may subsist between them? such is, doubtless, the almighty purpose, such the all-sufficient process provided in his wisdom for securing the training and growth of the races and generations of men in the knowledge of divine things. it follows, again, that whatever in the christian teaching, as in other teaching, shall stand the test of advancing knowledge, and still approve itself as true and honest and just and pure and lovely and of good report[ ] to the purified conscience and practised intellect of man, that shall be god's everlasting truth; that too he must have designed not only by the word of christ, but through the living souls of his rational children, to proclaim to the world with the mark of his divine approval. [footnote : philip. iv. .] it is not necessary here to ask in detail what it is in existing schemes of christian theology, or in the outward forms and arrangements of priesthoods and of churches, that will bear this test of advancing knowledge, and this scrutiny of the educated intellect and conscience. doubtless much in the popular creeds of our day will do so; but much more will only be as chaff before the wind, or stubble before the devouring flame. among the perishable things will surely be the ecclesiastical systems which vary with every different country and church, and along with these the claims to priestly and papal authority and infallibility, about which we again hear such angry contention. truly, none of these will bear the test and strain of time and knowledge; but only those great and unchangeable principles of spiritual truth, and those deep-lying sentiments of moral right, which are _common_ to _all_ the different sects and parties of christendom. these will retain their place among the great motive forces of the world, even because their roots are firmly planted by the divine hand itself in the very nature of man, and made to be a part of the constitution of his mind; while, also, it is true, and the christian disciple will ever gratefully acknowledge, they owe their best and highest expression and exemplification to jesus the christ, the "beloved son," in whom god was "well pleased." we may conclude then, as before, that in the mind and life of christ,--in his unshaken trust in the heavenly father, and in the heaven to be revealed hereafter,--in his readiness to obey the call of duty, wherever it might lead him, even though it might be to the shame and the agony of the cross,--in his faithful adherence to the right, and earnest denunciation of falsehood, hypocrisy, and wrong-doing,--in his gentle spirit of forgiveness and filial submission even unto death,--we have the lessons of christian truth and virtue which it most of all concerns us to receive and to obey. in this high "faith of christ" we have the true revelation of god's will for man; the gospel speaking to us in its most touching and impressive tones,--either reproaching us for our indifference and calling us to repentance, or else aiding and encouraging us onward in the good path of righteousness. so long as christianity shall be thus capable of speaking to the world, so long will it, amidst all the varieties of outward profession, be a living power for good; and vain will be the representation which would tell us that it is now only a thing of the past, unfitted for the better knowledge and higher philosophy of these modern times. surely not so!--but, rather, until we have each individually attained the moral elevation even of christ himself, and can say that we too, in character and conduct, in motive and aspiration, are well pleasing in the sight of heaven, until we _are_ this, and can feel and say this with truth, the religion of christ will be no antiquated thing of the past to _us_; but from its teaching and its spirit--the teaching and the spirit of christ--we shall still have wisdom and truth to learn. may the time speedily come, which shall see christ's spirit ruling the individual lives of all around us,--more truly inspiring the thoughts and efforts of our lawgivers,--teaching men everywhere to be just and merciful towards each other; and thus making christianity, in deed and in truth, the "established religion," the guiding and triumphant power of this and all other lands! then, indeed, will the daily prayer of all christian hearts be answered, and the "kingdom of heaven" on earth be truly come. the aim and hope of jesus. by oliver stearns. a learned historian of the christian theology of the apostolic age observes that what most distinguishes the jewish religion, at least in its last centuries, is not so much monotheism as faith in the future. while elsewhere we see the imagination of men complacently retracing the picture of a golden age irrecoverably lost, israel, guided by its prophets, persisted in turning its eyes towards the future, and attached itself the more firmly to a felicity yet to come, the more the actual situation seemed to give the lie to its hopes.[ ] [footnote : reuss, history of the christian theology of the apostolic age.] what these hopes were in relation to the future of that people and of the world, what the messianic ideas and expectations were, we learn from the new testament, particularly from the gospels. and we find our impressions from this source made more clear in some points, and in all confirmed, by a study of the apocalyptic literature,--of those writings of which it was the object to give both shape and expression to the hebrew thought of the kingdom of heaven, and of the brilliant and miraculous events which would introduce and establish it. jewish theology in the age of jesus christ divided the whole course of time into two grand periods; one, comprehending the past and the present, was that of suffering and sin; the other, embracing the future, a period of virtue and happiness. the last years of the former period formed the most important epoch in the history of humanity, the transition to a new order of things, and was designated by a peculiar phrase,--the consummation of the age and the last days. it would be introduced by the appearance of the great restorer or deliverer of the people of god, and of the world, whom the prophets predicted; and who was called the messiah, the anointed of the lord,--_i.e._, the king by eminence, the king of israel. he was to be the successor and the son of david. the precise moment of his appearance was not known. the jewish theologians tried to determine the precursive signs of the near approach of his advent. the first of these was the period of great wickedness and suffering, marked by a particular name, the anguish, and compared to the pangs of child-birth. immediately preceding the advent of the king, a prophet of the old covenant would be restored to life to announce it,--a part in the miraculous drama commonly assigned to elijah. the messiah himself would come on the clouds of heaven, with a retinue of angels, and with a pomp and splendor which would leave no doubt of the fact of his advent. he would come to found the kingdom of god. this implied the political, moral, and religious regeneration of the people. a series of most imposing scenes would follow the advent. at the sound of a trumpet, the dead would arise and appear for the judgment of the last day. the just would take part in the judgment of the reprobate, who would be thrown into the lake of fire, prepared for the devil and his angels to suffer eternal torture. and the kingdom of god or of the messiah would be established immediately on the earth, which, with the whole of the universe of which it was the centre, would be gloriously transformed to fit it to be the abode of the elect of god. into the circle of these ideas and expectations jesus was born. in it he passed his life, acted and suffered; and claimed to found the kingdom of god. he claimed in some sense to be the messiah; and, though rejected by his people and put to death, he has borne the name in history, and now bears it. he is jesus, the christ. how did he regard these ideas and expectations? did he adopt them? and, if at all, how far? did he claim to be such a messiah as the jews expected? if so, then christianity may be what it has been called, "a natural development of judaism." it is not essentially a new religion. it is not an evolution of a perfect universal, from an imperfect and partial, religion. it is essentially judaism still; and "the kingdom of god, which jesus preached in both a temporal and spiritual sense, developed naturally and logically into the popedom, which is the nearest approximation to the fulfilment of the claim of jesus. judaism is germinal christianity, and christianity is fructified judaism." christianity is only what is weakest and most fantastic in judaism gone to seed. _the fruit_ is the roman hierarchy and ritual. that which is alone characteristic of it is limited and perishable. jesus himself, though his ambition was a lofty one, was mistaken in an essential point of his self-assertion; and the gospel is not destined to be an universal religion, but only to make some moderate contributions thereto. it is an important question, then,--one which concerns his worth and position as a man, as well as his wisdom as a founder of a religion,--what did jesus aim at? and what did he expect as the result of his movement? the answers that have been given may be reduced to three principal forms: . he expected to found a political empire; . he expected to introduce a vast theocracy, to which believers of other nations should be admitted, and which was to be established on the renovated earth, after his death, at his return to take possession of it as king, to reward his followers, and to put all opposition under his feet; . he expected to found a purely spiritual communion or society in which he should continue to exercise for ages, by his spirit, word, and life, a power of truth and love over the minds and hearts of men, filling them with the most exalted sense of god. the first view has been presented by some able adversaries of christianity, among whom reimarus led the way in a fragment "on the aim of jesus," published with others anonymously in . he charged jesus with using religious motives as merely a means to a political end; but supposed that, after he found death impending, he renounced the political aim, and pretended that his purpose was only a moral one. a few able scholars have been disposed to blend the last view with the others. they suppose an original theocratic purpose to have been entertained by jesus, in which the moral and religious principle predominated, but which was not at first exclusive of the political element. they suppose, however, a progress in his aim; that after his rejection by the people, "which he regarded as god's rejection of any national limitation of his work," he inferred that his mission was to found a spiritual kingdom. though the direct imputation of a political aim has not been a favorite expedient with ultra-rationalist critics since reimarus was answered by reinhard and others, it ought not to be passed without consideration. it is continually reappearing in modified forms. and this happens, because it is impossible to present the hypothesis that jesus intended to be a jewish messiah without involving the supposition of something political in his object, and in his means of accomplishing it. accordingly a very recent critic[ ] of christianity, writing in the interest of "free religion," and representing jesus as claiming to be a jewish messiah, after saying very truly that "the popular hope of a priest-king transformed itself in the soul of jesus into the sublime idea of a spiritual christ ruling by love," is constrained to say, inconsistently, in another place, that, if jesus had assumed the office, he would not have hesitated to discharge its political duties, and to exercise political sway. here, then, is a revival of the imputation to jesus of a political aim. but i am not aware that it is anywhere in recent criticism enforced with any new strength of argument. it is obviously contradicted by the general bearing of his actions, and by the whole tone of his teachings when rightly apprehended. it is contradicted by his utter neglect of political measures. he could not be induced or forced to take the position of a political ruler. admirers wished to proclaim him king: he sent them away, tore his disciples from them, and went himself into the mountain to commune with god. asked to settle a dispute about property, he says he has never been constituted an administrator of civil justice. when shown the tribute-money, and inquired of if it were lawful to pay tribute unto cæsar, he makes the memorable reply in which he at once acknowledges the rights of the government _de facto_; and the rights of conscience and religion, which to deny would be usurpation. he was the first to distinguish the spheres of the church and of the state so intimately related, but never to be blended. and this is just what the political messiah, the priest-king, could not have conceived. the outlines of his church may serve as the model of a free church to-day. there was no political motive to enter it. it had no officer who could exercise political power. there was no authority but in the congregation. it was amenable to no political head. its fundamental truths were the equal relation of all men with god as his children, and the common relation of all men with one another as brethren. the only end of his church was the moral and spiritual development of its members and of all men; the only condition of membership, the recognition of this end; and, with it, of the providential gift of truth and life given in jesus christ's consciousness of god, and an appropriating and co-operative sympathy with his character and purpose. its method was free conference and prayer in the spirit of unity, and in devotion to the regeneration of the human family; a method, the results of which, he assured them, would be the reaching of decisions which would be in essential harmony with his own spirit, the spirit of god. he drew more from the synagogue than from the temple. worship might ascend anywhere from the heart. one need not go to jerusalem. no political messiah could have thought of any centre of the restored theocracy but the holy city, to which the tribes should repair with their sacrifices, and the converted heathen bring their votive offerings to jehovah, the god of jews; but the temple must be destroyed, and not one stone of it left upon another, according to jesus, in order to prepare for that worship of the father by men in spirit and in truth, which he, as the christ, would inaugurate. [footnote : see "the index," toledo, jan. and jan. , .] we thus come naturally to another point in the discussion. the theories which recognize the political aim of jesus commonly suppose that he regarded it as his personal mission to restore mosaism to its primitive purity. and, if he shared in the hope of the restoration of the theocracy, he would probably take the most conservative ground in regard to the levitical institutions and the mosaic precepts. he would believe the jewish people must be made independent, in order to give supremacy to those institutions. the roman yoke must be broken, and the coming kingdom be inaugurated with war. nothing of this, however, is found in the ministry of jesus christ. when he preached "the kingdom of heaven is at hand," it was no summons to war. the characteristic qualities of those who belonged to this kingdom were opposed to the theocratic spirit. and the sermon on the mount taught, as clearly as the formal declaration before pilate, that it was not of this world. why should his followers be ready to suffer social persecution, if his aim tended in the direction regarded with social favor? what mean the non-resistant exhortations, instructing his followers to waive their rights for the sake of the higher interests they were living for, if he and his adherents are charged with the political duty of driving the invader from the sacred soil? the rise and progress of this kingdom, jesus said, on another occasion, could not be observed like those of an empire founded by force: it would not "come with observation." it had already come unobserved. it began to come with john the baptist, until whose work the law was in the ascendant; but since whom men had been pressing into the kingdom of heaven, which was tending to supplant the law. and, on still another occasion, if he expected his movement to leave the jewish ritual intact, how could he say, with pregnant significance, that new wine must not be put into old wineskins, lest they break, and the wine be lost. i know great stress is laid upon his saying, "think not that i have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: i have not come to destroy, but to fulfil. for truly do i say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." but, if taken literally, they prove too much; for, according to other passages, his teaching on some points--as, for instance, divorce, and, as many think, the sabbath--directly conflicted with that of moses. he threw doubt directly upon the tradition that god rested on the seventh day. god, he said, had been always working up to that hour, and in his own acts of healing done on the sabbath he had been co-operating with god. we must therefore interpret freely this language, and understand by it the everlasting law. the smallest requirement of the true law, however overlooked and despised it may have been in the popular exegesis, would have its emphasis in the new teachings; and whoever slighted it would be the least in the kingdom of heaven. there is not a word which can be fairly construed into commendation of the levitical priesthood. he gives to the mosaic precepts cited the most spiritual interpretation, or sets them aside when they cannot be wrought into a more profound system of natural morality. he implies his superiority to all preceding teachers, including moses. "it was said to the ancients, but _i_ say unto you." indeed, his tone in this discourse is any thing but that of a jewish rabbi of his period. it is that of the most human and universal teaching. it asserts, when we penetrate beyond the immediate occasion of it to its principle, that which is true in all times and places. those affirmations with which it opens, what are they but declarations, the substantial verity of which it is possible for every man, if he know not now, yet sometime to know in himself. "blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." the spirit of those who can set a limit to their wants and curb ambition, who do not live blinded by interests to the demands of a pure soul,--the spirit of such is always blessed. happy he who imbibes it from the circumstances of his life; and happy he who, amidst the blandishments of riches, is taught it by the discipline of heaven. these are they to whom has come the kingdom of heaven from jesus' day until now. then, "blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see god." and is not a pure mind the very moral atmosphere in which man sees god as he is, and rejoices in the sight? a man's moral sentiments are the medium through which comes to him the thought of god. let those sentiments be perverted, and he imagines either that god is not or that he is different from what he is. his wrong mind either obstructs entirely the beam which darts from the divine essence, or scatters the spotless white of that sun, the pure aggregate of divine perfections, into the particolored tints of the earthly and sensual soul itself. again, "blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." it is even so. those who sympathize with human wants will feel the sympathy of god flowing into their souls, and can never lack assurance of the divine mercy so long as they keep in themselves that pledge of it,--the merciful spirit. and so it is a grand caution, which every one who has wantonly condemned others knows he ought to keep in memory,--"condemn not, lest ye be condemned." for the undeserved, heavy sentence of condemnation which a man lifts high to hurl with malignant intent at his brother is arrested by an interposing law of providence, and falls from his weak hand with its full weight upon his own head. and at length we come to what might be thought a studied satire upon the boasted maxims of human wisdom: "blessed are ye when men shall speak evil of you falsely for my sake." is this the sober truth? is not christ, so true elsewhere, mistaken here? it is a verity as certain as the laws of god. do not minds advance unequally in truth, in all the successive phases of a soul's spiritual growth? whoever goes before others in thought and life will find men laying this to his charge. but, if by following the command of christian truth to his conscience he has opened upon himself the battery of human censoriousness, he may exult; for every unjust word or groundless suspicion will but remind him of his unbribed devotion, and be changed before it touches his deepest happiness into the benediction of god. were we to go through what was spoken on the mount, we might show its truth commanding unquestionably the assent of our moral natures. it all takes hold of our mind and life. it comes to us to throw light on what we do and suffer, and to borrow confirmation from it in turn. though we fall so far short of it, and could not have conceived it originally and from ourselves, as jesus did, it so accords with the laws of our being as to seem to be the suggestion of our experience, some admonition floating to us by intent of god on that ever-heaving sea of life, of ambition, of passion, of mutual misunderstanding, of strong loves and piercing griefs, of various mingling sympathies, on whose shore we do now stand, and whose tide, for our few seconds here in time, laves our feet and dashes upon us its spray. we might turn over other pages of jesus' instruction beyond that introductory statement of the principles of the kingdom of god, and evolve its sense in terms presenting an undeniable spiritual fact to all our race. for instance, "to him who hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away, even that which he seemeth to have." how true! it is verified in the mental condition of every man at this moment. we only seem to have the faculty we do not use. there is no long, healthy sleep to the mind and the moral will any more than to the body; but the alternative is, live or die. and thus jesus was ever holding up the law of the spiritual life to the light of that day which dawned with his advent. he dwelt on what is inward. although you cannot find that once, in his popular teaching, he laid stress upon observances, times without number he studiously distinguished between every thing of the nature of ceremonial and those everlasting obligations of justice and humanity, of inward and outward purity, which ought to be recognized in the home and in the state, in all the intercourse of man with man, and in watching over the secret heart. we may not infer that he was hostile to religious forms. he observed them. he knew that man needed them, and that souls instinct with life would perpetuate them and adapt them to their own wants. but he saw in the spirit of the scribes the evil of teaching that any arbitrarily imposed outward act can in itself please god; and, in regard to such, the whole emphasis of his teaching was, "these ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone." he quoted from the prophets habitually, "i will have mercy and not sacrifice." such is the genius of christianity,--of christianity as it came from its founder,--the religion which is said to have ripened into the mediæval theology and the roman hierarchy. too little, indeed, has this genius of christianity been regarded! the old judaic spirit which brought jesus to the cross has, among protestants as well as catholics, too often crucified the christianity of christ. human metaphysics have been put into creeds and catechisms. sects have been founded and built up on the importance attached to the form of a rite as a part of essential christianity. disputes have raged which the traditions of the church and the letter of scripture have failed to settle, and about which jesus, if teaching among us, would not waste a minute's breath. if further proof were wanting of the breadth and spirituality of jesus' view, it might be found in the fact that he was brought to the cross by the pro-judaism party. his friends would interpret him differently from his enemies. the universality and spirituality of his aim were not at once apprehended by his followers. their very trust in him would make them slow to perceive his radical meaning; for, to impute to him what was in his mind, would seem to be distrust. they would put a limited construction upon what he said. it would be otherwise with his enemies, who would be sharp and quick to see the full extent to which his words would carry him. the movement of jesus, then, may be called revolutionary, not in the sense of aiming directly at political revolution, but in the sense of his expecting to found a free, spiritual, and universal religion, which would uproot and remove in time the partial religions, judaism included. still he designed to connect himself with the old dispensation. he recognized the divine mission of moses and the providential office of the prophets in preparing for him. in the expectations which they fostered there was something true as well as something false. when they depicted a glorious and happy political condition of the jewish nation under the messiah as an earthly king, jesus must have regarded them as being in error. we find him pronouncing john the baptist the greatest of the prophets of the old order, and declaring that the least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than he; and the reason is shown by the context of the words (matt. xi.) to be that john as a jewish prophet regarded the kingdom of god in part as a political kingdom. but the fundamental idea of the theocracy, that other nations would be united with israel under the dominion of the one true god, was one in harmony with jesus' thought.[ ] this expectation jesus regarded it as his mission to realize and fulfil. he had only to separate from the theocratic predictions of the prophets the partial political element, to bring them into unison with his universal aim. whatever in the hitherto prevailing ideas and hopes was capable of expansion he absorbed into himself, that it might be given out in a wider and higher form, and live for ever. a case somewhat parallel might be found in the changes wrought by our late war. those who took a radical view of the issue of the contest were exposed to the charge of being revolutionary and destroying the constitution. they could reply, "yes: the issue will be revolutionary. there will be a new state of law, and of the relations of the people in important respects, effected by carrying out fundamental principles. but those principles were the essence of the constitution; and to carry them out is only fully to accomplish its purpose, by annihilating transient provisions at war with liberty and social justice, and giving scope to the principles of the declaration of independence. we hold to the constitution. we have come not to destroy, but to fulfil." so jesus christ came not to destroy all that had gone before, but to fulfil whatever in it was fundamental to the divine purpose in relation to man. in this feeling of a real connection between his movement and the hebrew ideas and hopes is to be found the principal explanation of his confining his labors, and those of the apostles when first sent forth, chiefly to judea and galilee. not only must his own work be limited in its local scope,--for he could not go everywhere,--but the historical basis of his movement lay in the hebrew history. among the hebrew people only could he find suitably prepared immediate disciples. salvation was to be from the jews. and, foreseeing that the nation as such would reject him, he saw that it was essential to the extension among the gentiles of the truths and hopes he inherited as a jew, essential to the breaking down of the partition wall which now kept out the true doctrine of god from the heathen world, that he should come to a distinct issue with the jewish authorities, and make it clear and notorious that it was the narrow spirit of pharisaism and legal formality which crucified him. (if he were lifted up, he would draw all men to him.) and from the first the ruling sect, with the acute instinct of self-interest, discerned the revolutionary character of his movement,--that it elevated man above the jew, and struck at the root of the idolized hebrew pre-eminence. [footnote : see noyes's introduction to his translation of the prophets.] i pass now to a more subtle hypothesis, that jesus expected to establish the theocratic empire by angelic assistance on occasion of his return to earth, which would occur at the same time with the great outward change of the world. it is founded on such passages as this: "for the son of man is to come in the glory of his father, with his angels; and then he will render to every one according to his works." (matt. xvi. . comp. matt. xiii. , and xxvi. - .) it is thus stated by strauss:[ ] "he waited for a signal from his heavenly father, who alone knew the time of this catastrophe; and he was not disconcerted when his end approached without his having received the expected intimation." his messianic hope was not political or even earthly. he referred its fulfilment to a supermundane theatre. [footnote : life of jesus, part ii. § . the charge of enthusiasm is retained, but not discussed, in his life of christ for the german people.] strauss speaks of jesus' hope as corresponding with the messianic ideas of the jews. it took its form from those ideas. scherer also represents jesus' idea of the kingdom as wholly apocalyptic. the _first_ criticism to be made upon this hypothesis is, that a theocratic idea arising out of the jewish expectations and conformed to them could not dispense with all thought of earthly conflict. the struggle could not have been altogether upon a supermundane theatre, nor the triumph of the messiah achieved without common warlike agencies. the common jewish idea was founded on the language of some hebrew prophets, and appears in the apocalyptic writings of christ's age; and his own mind in cherishing the hope attributed to him must have quite surrendered itself to the popular expectation. this expectation supposed some outward conflict as the occasion of supernatural interference. nor do i know any ground for thinking that in christ's time the jews expected the messiah to prevail with angelic aid without a conflict of arms. whoever will read ezekiel and daniel will see that those prophets expected a contest on earth with earthly weapons, as the occasion for the intervention of jehovah. and whoever will read the wars of the maccabees will see how jewish courage, fired with the expectation of celestial assistance, never stopped to compare the apparent strength of the respective forces. nor did the apocalyptic seers dismiss this thought of earthly battle. the book of enoch speaks of the unconverted as delivered at the judgment into the hands of the righteous, whose horses shall wade in the blood of sinners, and whom the angels shall come to help.[ ] the apocalypse of the new testament presents the picture of the messiah as mounted on a white horse, and riding forth to judge and make war; and the comment of dr. noyes on this and similar passages is that, in the mind of the writer, there was to be war in heaven and upon earth, before christ should reign in final triumph.[ ] this theory has no distinctive character without supposing the angels acting on the stage of sense and time, and giving the hebrews the victory. with this expectation is probably connected the "sign from heaven" demanded of jesus by the pharisees, a sign which should stimulate hebrew faith to irresistible warlike ardor. the unconverted were to be vanquished by some mysterious exercise of messianic power. hence many were not satisfied with christ's miracles; not that they disputed their reality, but as being not decisive of his messianic character. now, if this had been the thought of jesus, he would have been disposed to seek an occasion for such interference from on high. it is true, in saying this, we say he must have given himself up to the enthusiasm which so often fanatically manifested itself in his age, and was always ready to break forth. but the idea supposed, when one's whole being was yielded to it,--as jesus did yield his whole being to the ideas which possessed him,--could not have stopped short of practical action. he must have been prepared in his thought to act with fanaticism. strauss says, "he did not try to bring about all this by his own will; but awaited a signal from his heavenly father." the actual jesus did undoubtedly as strauss says; but the supposed jesus would have at some time believed the signal to be given. the idea, and the sort of faith in supernatural aid which accompanied it, would lead him to think the moment had come for this demonstration. "if such were the ideal of jesus in fact, why did he not seek to realize it at once? why did he prefer the way of renunciation and self-sacrifice to the possession of the kingdoms of the world? why, in the place of the son of man, have we not a mahomet six hundred years in advance." the logical and necessary result of belief in his messiahship, and of faith in this sort of supernatural aid in realizing it, was that he should bring about an occasion for this demonstration. it was an encounter with the romans, in the hope that jehovah and the angels would fight for god's people, and be more than strong enough against all odds. "the messianic theocracy could not exist as a roman province."[ ] but jesus studiously avoids conflict with rome. besides, the second part of the temptation of christ sets aside at once this ideal. his early consciousness of wonderful power had not the effect of disposing his mind favorably toward such jewish messianic ideas. that consciousness tended rather to spiritualize his thought: we may say, it subdued him. it made his whole feeling moderate, and his whole thought wise and temperate. this is a very remarkable part of the representation of him by the evangelists. [footnote : book of enoch, dillman, ch. .] [footnote : rev. xix. ; comp. christian examiner, may, , p. .] [footnote : hase's life of jesus.] but, secondly, i will now suppose the expectation of jesus to have been purified from every notion of warlike action. the regeneration (palingenesia) was to be not a political revolution, but a renovation of the earth and the heavens, attended by a resurrection of the dead, of whom the accepted were to dwell with christ in the renovated world,--not the present earth, but the earth restored,--and that his presence and return were to be visible. this is his coming with the angels to set up his kingdom and to reign. i. the very language which this hypothesis is adopted to explain, taken in its proper sense, proves too much. jesus was to be a king on the renewed earth, yet his kingdom was to be different from those of this world. "it is not," he says, "of this world." it is a real kingdom as much as that of david; but it is not to be a worldly rule on the one hand, nor a purely spiritual rule on the other. it is political, and not political. according to the writer of the apocalypse, whose views are supposed to have been sanctioned by jesus, this king must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. when the kingdom is consummated, he is to surrender it to his father. the hypothesis under consideration represents the kingdom as to be consummated at the time of the world-catastrophe which, with the second or real coming of jesus as messiah, will occur, according to the alleged words of christ himself, immediately after the destruction of the city. why shall not the kingdom be given up immediately to the father? this king in "the proper sense," and in no purely spiritual sense, who comes visibly, will have no occasion for a reign in the proper sense of the word. strauss says, "jesus expected to restore the throne of david, and with his disciples to govern a liberated people. but in no degree did he rest his hopes on the sword of his adherents, but on the legions of angels which the father would send him. he was not disconcerted when his end approached without the kingdom having come. it would come with his return." but how when he returned was the throne of david to be restored, and a proper, literal reign to exist, and not a mere spiritual reign? this king has no business to perform: his work is all accomplished immediately by a stupendous miracle. and he and his apostles have nothing to do but to sit on idle thrones, or to feast at tables loaded with luxuries which are at the same time mundane and supermundane; to enjoy a sensual paradise, which differs from a mohammedan paradise only in that it does not consist of the coarsest forms of sensual life. they are to partake of an actual wine, a fruit of the vine,--a new kind of wine; to observe the passover with supermundane food, but food pleasurable to the taste. this jesus is thought to have expected and promised.[ ] i sometimes think this attempt to find a half-way doctrine of jesus' expectation concerning the future ascribes to him an apocalypticism more inept and fatuous than that of the jews themselves. it attempts to unite the contradictory. it cannot be stated by strauss in any thing like the literal sense of the passages on which it is founded, without supposing something of that political element which it is designed to exclude; or else entirely dropping that relation to jewish hopes to which it is believed to owe its origin, and thus leaving it unexplained. for, if jesus gave up all expectation whatever of a kingdom of this world, we have no occasion for a visible return. [footnote : see renan's life of jesus, first edition.] ii. the second objection to this view is that it is incompatible with the most important expressions and opinions of jesus. . the kingdom is to come with the world-catastrophe; and the king is then to come in some mysterious manner on the clouds of heaven. how, then, could jesus say the kingdom of god cometh not with _observation_? could any political kingdom arise in a more outwardly striking manner? how does that saying of christ comport with his promising a literal miraculous light in the heaven (matt. xxiv. ) which shall betoken his own coming and the great world-change? that form of coming with a precursive sign in the heaven is just what he contradicted. such a kingdom would come with a sign which could be watched for,--a sign very different from those signs of the time, the moral indications, which a spiritual insight might discern. how could he say the kingdom of god was among them _already_, if it were yet to come at the time of the great world-change? how could he say to caiaphas: "yes, i am the messiah; and moreover _from this moment_ you shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven"? it was equivalent to saying, "you have arrested me, you have already doomed me to death. but i am the anointed of god to introduce the new spiritual kingdom of humanity; and, from this moment in which you decree my death, my cause takes a divine impulse, and my purpose strides on to the triumph god has destined for it." . this expectation is incompatible with what he says on other topics related to the kingdom, the resurrection, and the future life. this expectation implies the apocalyptic view of the resurrection. the messiah was to come to raise the dead. (the christian world has generally entertained the same view.) the visible return and the resurrection coexisted, probably, in jesus' mind. if he held the one, he held the other. the two opinions were siamese twins, connected by a vital bond; separate them and you would kill them both. but jesus gave a view of the resurrection and the future life totally different from the apocalyptic one. he taught the _continuance_ of life. his argument with the sadducees proves that doctrine, or it amounts to nothing. god is the god not of the dead, but of the living. the rich man and lazarus, of the parable, are already in a future state of retribution. he who believes on him has "already passed from death unto life." jesus could not suppose that one who had received from him the quickening of spiritual life could pass into the under-world, and grope as a shade in the intermediate state. "whosoever liveth and believeth in him shall never die." now, to one who is satisfied that jesus was emancipated from the doctrine of an intermediate state, it must be evident that he could not have held the apocalyptic notion resting on it of a raising of the dead at the coming of the messiah, and could not have held to the visible coming of the messiah who was to come to do that very thing. the same observation is to be made of the judgment. jesus shows himself emancipated from the common notion of the judgment, and of a future simultaneous judgment-day. he that believeth on him is not judged. he that believeth not is judged already, in that he has not believed in the only-begotten son of god. god sent him not to judge or to punish the world, but to save it. the judgment of the world is not to be exclusively at a remote day. it has begun. it is _now_. christ says, now is the judgment of this world; now is the prince of this world to be cast out; now, when jesus is about to consummate by dying the moral means of that result. jesus is not to be a personal judge of men at a remote time. his principles are for ever to judge men, to judge them finally. not himself as the personal logos, or as the reappearing messiah, is to judge men, but "the word he has spoken." these thoughts in the fourth gospel must have come from jesus, not from the writer, who shows himself in places not emancipated from the view of his time. . the doctrine of christ's expectation which i am considering is not congruous with the means which he contemplates for accomplishing his work, and with the view he took of the progress of his kingdom, and of the moral duties and retributions of humanity. nothing is clearer than that his kingdom of god was to be a communion of men on earth bound together by the same consciousness of the heavenly father. it was to extend into another life. but it was to spread more and more widely, and subdue the world to his spiritual dominion. by moral influence he is to be king. this communion is to be the salt of the earth, the light of the world. it is to extend its influence by holy example, by good works. he will be in spirit with the apostles and with his church. he trains them to carry on his work, and tells them to preach the good news to all nations. he does this as if founding a work which shall go on indefinitely. he declares early, in a discourse designed to explain his kingdom, that the law shall not pass away; that it shall in its moral requirements be all realized. heaven and earth shall not pass away until all shall _be_. and he directs his disciples to pray as much as for daily bread that god's kingdom may come, and that god's will may be done _on earth_ as it is done in heaven. is it possible that this teacher expects all this to be closed in thirty or forty years, by a violent catastrophe, and by the substituting of a universal miracle for this moral instrumentality? he says it is not the father's will that one of the lowliest shall perish. did he mean to limit the opportunity of salvation for the race to forty years, and to consign to the torment of gehenna all who did not accept the new truth in that time? and all this impossibility is heightened by the nature of some of those parables in which he treated of his kingdom. "if the kingdom of god were to be established by an irresistible miracle, on a fixed day, in a manner so splendid, what signify those admirable parables of the mustard-seed, of the leaven, of the net, of the grain growing from itself, which suppose a development, slow, regular, organic, proceeding from an imperceptible point, but endowed with a divine vitality, and displaying successively its latent energies?"[ ] besides, no one ever more strictly enjoined the duties of life, the everlasting obligations. he contemplates such duties as are to be done in such a world as ours was then and is now, as the essential sphere in which the heavenly spirit must be formed in man. his principle of final judgment is, "inasmuch as ye have done the duties of humanity unto your fellow-men, ye have done them unto me. come, ye blessed of my father." could that teacher suppose that the opportunity for performing such duties would cease for ever before the last of his apostles should have died? could he think that within that time the destinies of humanity as he knew it would be closed? [footnote : réville, review of renan's life of jesus.] these are the principal reasons which determine me to believe that jesus did not expect to return visibly to raise the dead, judge the world, and be the head of an external theocratic kingdom on the renewed earth. what, then, shall be said of the language which appears to express that opinion? "ye shall drink the wine new with me in my father's kingdom." "ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of israel," &c. two considerations are to be kept in sight in establishing the views and expectations of jesus: first, that he used this language--so far as he used it--in a figurative sense, to represent spiritual and providential facts as he conceived them; second, that the evangelists may have sometimes given to his language a precision and a connection which did not belong to it, as delivered. that he could not have employed this language as it is reported to us, in its literal and proper sense, is to my mind a necessary conviction in the premises. this would suppose that he entertained two orders of conceptions, which were opposed to one another, with a clear profound conviction, and gave them as revelations of god: one his spiritual and rational beliefs; the other his apocalyptic beliefs. this supposition is the vice of renan's seventeenth chapter. the language of the apocalyptic beliefs jesus might use to some extent as a vehicle for conveying the spiritual and rational to others; and the most explicit language in which he conveyed his spiritual beliefs, so far as it was retained in their feebler minds, might be forced into harmony with their traditional opinions. but that in jesus' mind, so original, so manifestly filled with fresh thought on every theme of providence and man, these spiritual apprehensions of a kingdom or communion of god which should act under and within the state, renovating human life and society; of a messiah who by such a kingdom should fulfil the missionary function of israel to the race of man; of a resurrection which should be the uninterrupted continuance of the blessed life, or an immediate renewal of the sense of wasted opportunity and law violated on earth; of a judgment both immediate and continual of every soul despising the truth revealed to it; of a retribution to civil societies according to divine law,--should arise as original conceptions, be held with firm decisive grasp, be of the essence of his instruction, and so pronounced in him that our most advanced modern thought is but the distant echo of his profound and distinct enunciations; and that at the same time he should hold those apocalyptic traditions, of a visible coming, of a theocratic throne before whose splendor that of cæsar would fade away, of a simultaneous resurrection and judgment,--hold them in unimpaired conviction, as truths to be solemnly insisted upon as a part of his revelation,--this, it seems to me, comes as near a psychological contradiction as we can well conceive. and besides, if jesus had clung to those beliefs as divine convictions, the language ascribed to him would have had the unity of that of the epistles and the apocalypse on this subject. we should not be perplexed with apparent contradictions. as it is, we are obliged to use those words which inculcate his spiritual thought for explaining that part of his language which is conformed to jewish conceptions. but, it is said, this language would naturally create misunderstanding, and that it is too bold to be taken in a figurative sense. in regard to the misunderstanding of it, let it be said, if we suppose a mind inspired by god to see far deeper and further than its contemporaries, it must be liable to be misunderstood in proportion to the poverty of the vernacular language. jesus' inspiration and insight gave his speech a character such as the highest poetic endowment always gives, and made it bold. it is not to be forgotten that he belonged to the east and to the people who have given us the old testament prophecies. the boldest tropes were natural to him. in moments of strong moral excitement, they fly from him as sparks from the flint or lightning from the charged cloud. it exposes him to the charge of mysticism. we forget that he was not a lecturer, a systematic teacher; but a prophet, a converser in the streets, a popular teacher, a poet sent from god to re-create humanity. necessity concurred with inspiration to make his speech tropical and often liable to be misapprehended. he was obliged to use images and terms which the people and the schools applied to the messiah in order to claim, as he meant to claim, a predetermined, providential connection with hebrew history and hope. when he said to pilate, "i am a king," it was a truth; but it was a trope. "i am the bread of life,"--a truth, but a trope. "i am come to send a sword on the earth, not peace;" "this cup of wine is my blood sealing the new covenant,"--truths, but compact with the boldest tropes. when he said, "i am the messiah," it was a truth, but a trope. it was liable to be misunderstood; but, without it, it was impossible that he should be understood. he saw satan, after the seventy returned from their mission and related their success, "falling like lightning from heaven." if he foresaw political revolutions which would occur within a generation, and believed they would be employed by providence to further the establishment of his principles or kingdom, which would then reach a point from which it would be evident, to a sympathizing mind quick to catch the glimpses of a new day, that they would become dominant in humanity, would it be too bold a figure for him to say, "the coming of the son of man will be as the lightning which shoots from horizon to horizon," or too bold a figure to describe those precursive overturns and downfalls of the old in language borrowed from isaiah and joel, the prophets whom he loved and knew by heart? might he not believe, identifying his religion and the divine spirit which would spread it, that at the time of these changes, conspiring providentially with the labors of apostles and evangelists, his voice would call the chosen, those prepared by mental and moral affinity, to the new life-work, to the new order of things; that his call to his own would be like the supposed call of the last trumpet summoning them to come into a spiritual communion of blessed work, and blessed hope? these figures were naturally, almost inevitably, formed in these circumstances. he used the language given him in the speech of his time in a figurative sense, partly because of the want of proper terms suited to his purpose, and partly because as a popular teacher, desirous to impress the common mind, he could not sacrifice all the associations connected with that. but we often find in proximity with it words of his own, or something in the occasion, which he might expect to constrain the listeners to reflect that he was speaking figuratively; as john vi., "my words, they are spirit and they are life," and the reply luke xxii. , to the information, here are two swords, "it is enough." were the accounts more full, it is fair to suppose we might have more such expressions. they would not be so likely to be remembered as the striking, figurative words. there are words of christ at the last supper which seem to me to have occasioned quite unnecessary perplexity. "i say unto you i will not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when i drink it new with you in my father's kingdom." they were the spontaneous outflow of mingled sadness, affection, and hope. he might expect them to be interpreted to his disciples by his situation, by all he had said of leaving them, and by his habit of conveying spiritual thought under the sensuous images suggested by the moment. they referred to the kingdom he died to establish. they were as natural as to say, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am i in the midst of them." but they have been a stumbling-block to students whom we should have expected to be able better to _orient_ themselves in the master's genius and style. colani has spent a page to ridicule it, and show that it is not fit for its place.[ ] yet a similar figure is used by occidental preachers, who would not expect to be reproached for coarseness. a young minister on an occasion not unlike that on which jesus sat with his disciples--occurring as did that passover in the midst of sacrifice and revolution, the thanksgiving day celebrated after the close of our great war, in our land at once so afflicted and so blessed--addressed his hearers, some of whom had lost sons or brothers in camp or field, in figurative but very appropriate and touching language, in which we may suppose he felt the inspiration of his master's words at the last meal. it was to the effect that, although those who had fallen in the strife could no more partake with us in the bounty with which the thanksgiving table would be spread, they would in all future festivals be with us in spirit, and rejoice in the blessings ever more and more to be realized which had been purchased by their sacrifices for our disinthralled country. [footnote : jesus christ and the messianic beliefs of his time.] nor do i see any better cause of the offence which is taken at the language ascribed to jesus in matt. xix. , in the offer of thrones: "in the regeneration, when the son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of israel." let us think how jesus must have longed to communicate his thought and his hope to those chosen ones; how he would not be willing to drive them away by his very greatness as he sometimes drove away the careless and cavilling; how his mind, if he were a human being and not an automaton, would alternate between the sternest truth-speaking and the necessity of coming closer to them, and giving them hope, and lifting them a little nearer to himself; how like the mother bird, enticing her brood to their first flight, and finding he had at one moment gone beyond them, he would come back, and alight on a point nearer to their apprehension, that he might tempt them to use the untried pinions of their thought,--and we need have no difficulty in seeing that he meant thrones of moral power. i do not know how those men received it; but i do not believe they thought then of political power. if, after jesus left them, they recalled this and every other such expression as a means of nourishing the hope of an apocalyptic return and kingdom, the great teacher and comforter was not accountable for that perversion. jesus' language, then, can be explained without supposing him to have expected visibly to return after death to erect a kingdom of god of which he should be the visible head. the result of our inquiries is, that jesus did not aim at any political sovereignty, that he rose by the force of the special endowment of his nature above the apocalyptic superstition of his age, and that he looked and labored immediately for the moral and spiritual renovation of humanity on this earth. he claimed to be a messiah; not a messiah after the jewish conceptions, but a man anointed and endowed of god, to perfect by the manifestation of the divine in the human, the means of this moral renovation of humanity. he regarded the spiritual messiahship as a divinely appointed means to this end. he aspired to spiritual rule for no end but this, and his aspiration was disinterested, godlike. it has been said that he was ambitious, though it is allowed that his ambition was the most elevated. and he has been compared with disadvantage to socrates, whose ambition, it is said, was "_to serve without reigning_," while that of jesus was "_to reign by serving_," and the former is justly thought to be the nobler purpose. it is no time to institute a comparison between jesus and socrates. i have no wish to disparage the great pagan. i will allow grote's estimate, that the apology as given by plato is the speech of one who deliberately foregoes the immediate purpose of a defence, the persuasion of his judges; who speaks for posterity without regard to his own life. the aim of socrates was disinterested, but not so elevated as that of jesus. the aim of socrates belonged to the realm of the understanding; the aim of jesus, to the realm of the spirit. they both took delight in the exercise of their gift: this is innocent, when not an exclusive motive; but socrates more consciously sought this delight than jesus. no self-abnegation can be conceived more entire than that of the christ as represented by the evangelists with every mark of truth. he sought to reign only as all seek to reign who put forth their powers to assist the development of other minds. he would reign only so, and so far, as this might be to serve his race. he had no ambition. his purpose was not _to reign by serving_, but _to reign that he might serve_. he respected the freedom of the mind. he appealed to reason and conscience. he claimed authority in the name of reason and conscience, and believed that he thus claimed it in the name of god. and if his reign has been more extensive, more durable, and more beneficent than that of others, it is because he has acted by the highest kind and with the largest measure of truth and life, on the highest powers and tendencies of man. cambridge: press of john wilson and son. transcriber's notes: obvious punctuation errors were repaired. phrases in italics are indicated by _italics_. words in the text which were in small-caps were converted to all-caps. greek text is transliterated and surrounded by [greek: ]. the "oe" ligature is indicated by "[oe]" (e.g. [oe]cumenical). on pg. , the latin phrase for "altar of heaven" is transcribed as "ara c[oe]li" (it might be "ara cæli"). typo corrected: "phenonema" changed to "phenomena" (pg. , "classes of perceived phenomena") our unitarian gospel b m. j. savage "the good news of the blessed god" boston geo. ii. ews, franklin street . dedication to those who believe that the message of god to his children must be one of life and hope instead of a theology which teaches death and despair. note. the sermons which make up this volume were spoken in the church of the messiah during the season of - . they are printed as delivered, not as literature, but for the sake of preaching to a larger congregation than can be reached on sunday morning. contents. unitarianism "what do you in place of what you take away?" are there any creeds which it is wicked for us to question? why have unitarians no creed? the real significance of the present religious discussion doubt and faith - both is life a probation ended by death? sin and atonement prayer, and communion with god the worship of god morality natural, not statutory reward and punishment things which doubt cannot destroy evolution loses nothing of value to man why are not all educated people unitarians? where is the evangelical church? unitarianism. through the lack of having made themselves familiar with the matter, there is a common and, i think, a widespread impression among people generally that unitarianism is a new-fangled notion, a modern fad, a belief held only by a few, who are one side of the main currents of religious life and advance. even if it were new, even if it were confined to the modern world, this would not necessarily be anything against it. the copernican theory of the universe is new, is modern. so are most of the great discoveries that characterize and glorify the present age. but in the case of unitarianism this cannot be said. it is not new: it is very old. and, before i come to discuss and outline a few of its great principles, it seems to me well that we should get in our minds a background of historic thought, that we may see a little what are the sources and origins of this unitarianism, and may understand why it is that there is a new and modern birth of it in the modern world. all races start very far away from any monotheistic or unitarian belief. the hebrews are no exception to that rule. the early part of the bible shows very plain traces of the fact that the jews were polytheists and nature-worshippers. if i should translate literally the first verse of the bible, it would read in this way: in the beginning the strong ones created the heavens and the earth. "the word that we have translated god is in the plural; and i have already given you its meaning. this is only a survival, a trace, of that primeval belief which the jews shared with all the rest of the world." from this polytheistic position the people took a step forward to a state of mind which professor max muller calls henotheism; that is, they believed in the real existence of many gods, but that they were under allegiance to only one, their national deity, and that him only they must serve. i suppose this state of thought was maintained throughout the larger part of the history of the hebrew nation. you will find traces constantly, in the early part of the old testament, at any rate, of the belief of the people in the other gods, and their constant tendency to fall away to the worship of these other gods. but by and by all this was outgrown, and left behind; and the hebrew people came to occupy a position of monotheism, spiritual monotheism, that is, they were passionate unitarians, so far as the meaning of that word is concerned. though, of course, i would not have you understand that many, perhaps most, of the principles which are held today under the name of unitarian were known to them at that time, or would have been accepted, had they been known. in the sense, however, of believing in the oneness of god, they were unitarians. now, when christianity comes into the world, what shall we say? it is the assumption on the part of most of the old- time churches that jesus made it perfectly plain to his disciples that he was a divine being, that he claimed to be one himself, and that the claim was recognized. so far, however, as any authentic record with which we are familiar goes, jesus himself was a unitarian. all the disciples were unitarians. paul was a unitarian. the new testament is a unitarian book from beginning to end. the finest critics of the world will tell you that there is no trace of any other teaching there. and so, for the first three hundred years of the history of the church, unitarianism was its prevailing doctrine. i have no very good memory for names. so i have brought here a little leaflet which contains some that i wish to speak of. among the church fathers, clement, polycarp, irenaeus, tertullian, origen, and lactantius, all of them in their writings make it perfectly clear and unquestioned that the belief of the church, the majority belief for the first three centuries, was unitarian. of course, the process of thought here and there was going on which finally culminated in the doctrine of the trinity. that is, people were beginning more and more to exalt, as they supposed, the character, the office, the mission of jesus; coming more and more to believe that he was something other than a man, that he was above and beyond humanity. but one other among the fathers, justin martyr, one of the best known of all, takes care to point out explicitly his belief. i will read you just two or three words from it. he says: "there is a lord of the lord jesus, being his father and god, and the cause of his existence." this belief, then, was universal, practically universal, throughout the first three centuries. but the process of growth was going on which finally culminated in the controversy which was settled by the council of nicaea, held in the early part of the fourth century; that is, the year . the leaders of this controversy, as you know, were arius, on the unitarian side, and athanasius, fighting hard for the doctrine then new in the church, of the trinity. the majority of the bishops and leading men of the church at that time were on the side of arius; but at last the emperor constantine settled the dispute. now you know that the sceptre of a despotic emperor may not reason, may not think; but it is weightier than either reason or thought in the settlement of a controversy like this at such a period in the history of the world. so constantine settled the controversy in favor of the trinitarians; and henceforth you need not wonder that unitarianism did not grow, for it was mercilessly repressed and crushed out for the next thousand years. unitarianism, however, is not alone in this. let me call your attention to a fact of immense significance in this matter. all this time the study of science and philosophy, that dared to think beyond the limits of the church's doctrine, were crushed out. there was no free philosophy, there was no free study of science, there was no free anything for a thousand years. the secular armed forces of europe, with penalties of imprisonment, of the rack, of the fagot, of torture of every kind, were enlisted against anything like liberty of thinking. so you need not wonder, then, that there was neither any science nor any unitarianism to be heard of until the renaissance. what was the renaissance? it was the rising again of human liberty, the possibility once more of man's freedom to think and study. though the armed forces of europe were for a long time against it, the rising tide could not be entirely rolled back, and so it gained on human thought and human life more and more. and out of this the renaissance came, the new birth of science, on the one hand, and on the other, issuing in the reformation's assertion of the right of thought and of private judgment in matters of religion; and along with this latter the rebirth of unitarianism, its reappearance again as a force in the history of the world. during this reformation period there are many names of light and power, among them being servetus, whom calvin burned because he was a unitarian; laelius and faustus socinus, bernardino ochino, blandrata, and francis david; and, more noted in some ways than any of them, giordano bruno, the man who represents the dawn of the modern world more significantly than any other man of his age, not entirely a unitarian, but fighting a battle out of which unitarianism sprung, freedom of thought, the right of private judgment, the scientific study of the universe, the attempt, unhampered by the church's dogma or power, to understand the world in which we live. as a result of this renaissance, what happened? let me run over very rapidly the condition of things in europe at the present time, with some glances back, that you may see that unitarianism has played just as large a part as you could expect it to play, larger and grander than you could expect it, considering the conditions. in hungary, one of the few countries where freedom of thought in religion has been permitted, there has been a grand organization of the unitarian church for more than three hundred years, not only churches, but a unitarianism that has controlled colleges and universities and directed the growth of learning. let us look to the north. in sweden and norway it is still a crime to organize a church that teaches that jesus is not god. so we may expect to find no unitarian churches there; though there are many and noble unitarian men, thinkers and teachers. come to germany. there are no organized unitarian churches under that name here; but there is a condition of things that is encouraging for us to note. there is a union of the protestant organizations, in which the liberals, or unitarians, are free, and have their part without any question as to their doctrine. there are hundreds and thousands of unitarians in south germany. in the city of bremen i called on a clergyman who had translated one of my books, and found out from him the condition of things there. the cathedral of bremen has half a dozen different preachers attached to it. some of them are orthodox, and some are unitarian, all perfectly free; living happily together in this way, and the people at liberty to come and listen to which one of them they choose. this is not an uncommon thing in germany. that is the condition of things, then, there. in holland there are no unitarian churches, no churches going by that name; but there are thousands of unitarians particularly among the educated and leading men, and one university, that of leyden, entirely in control of the liberal religious leaders of the country. when you come to france, which you know is dominantly catholic, you still find a large body of protestants; but one wing of their great organization is virtually if not out and out unitarian. and a few of the most noted preachers of the modern time in france have been unitarians. i have had correspondence with men there which showed that they were perfectly in sympathy with our aims, our purposes, our work. in transylvania and poland there were large numbers of unitarian churches which were afterwards crushed out. you find, then, all over europe, all over civilization, just as much unitarianism as you would expect to find, when you consider the questions as to whether the law permits it and as to whether the people are educated and free. i should like, not for the sake of boasting, but simply that you may see that you are in good company, to mention the names of some of those who are foremost in our thought. take mazzini, the great leader of italy; take castelar, one of the greatest men in modern spain; take kossuth, the flaming patriot of hungary, all unitarian men. now let us come a step nearer home: let us consider england, and note that just the moment free thought was allowed, you find unitarianism springing into existence. milton was a unitarian; locke, one of the greatest of english philosophers, a unitarian; dr. lardner, one of its most famous theological scholars, a unitarian; sir isaac newton, one of the few names that belong to the highest order of those which have made the earth glorious, a unitarian. and, then, when we come to later england, we find another great scientist, comparatively modern, dr. priestley, who, coming to this country after he had made the discovery of oxygen which made him famous for all time, established the first unitarian church in our neighbor city of philadelphia. the first unitarian church which took that name in the modern world was organized in london by dr. theophilus lindsey in ; and its establishment coincides with the great outburst of freedom that distinguished the close of the eighteenth century. you must not look for unitarians where there is no liberty; for it is a cardinal principle of their thought and their life. soon after the london movement, the first unitarian church in this country was organized, or rather the first unitarian church came into existence. it was the old king's chapel of boston, an anglican church, which came out and took the name unitarian. there is a very bright saying in connection with this old church, which i will pause long enough to repeat, because there is a principle in it as well as a great deal of wit. they kept there the old english church service, except that it was purged, according to their point of view, from all trinitarian belief. it is said that dr. bellows, who was attending a service there some years ago, had with him an english gentleman as a visitor. this man picked up the service, looked it over, and, turning to dr. bellows, with a sarcastic look on his face, said, "ah i see that you have here the church of england service watered." whereupon dr. bellows, with his power of ready wit, replied, no, my dear sir, not watered, washed. king's chapel, then, was the first unitarian church in this country. but the number grew rapidly, and in a few years perhaps half, or more than half, of the old historic puritan and pilgrim churches in new england had become unitarian, including in that number the old first church of plymouth. now, before i go on to discuss the principles underlying our movement, i wish to call your attention to a few more names; and i trust you will pardon me for this. there is no desire for vain-glory in the enumeration. i simply wish that people should know, what only a few do know, who have been unitarians in the past, and what great names, leading authoritative names in the world's literature and science and art, find here their place. among the fathers of the revolution, all the adamses, dr. franklin, thomas jefferson, and many another were avowed unitarians. and, when we come to modern times, it is worth your noting that all our great poets in this country, bryant, longfellow, whittier, holmes, lowell, and in this city stedman, are unitarian names. then the leading historians, bancroft, motley, prescott, sparks, palfrey, parkman, and john fiske, are unitarians. educators, like horace mann, like the last seven presidents of harvard university, unitarians. great scientists, like agassiz, peirce, bowditch, professor draper, unitarians. statesmen and public men, like webster, calhoun, the adamses, the hoars, curtis. two of our great chief justices, marshall and parsons. supreme court judges, story and miller. literary men, like whipple, hawthorne, ripley, and bayard taylor; and eminent women, such as margaret fuller, lydia maria child, lucretia mott, helen hunt jackson, mrs. mary a. livermore, and mrs. julia ward howe. i mention these, that you may know the kind of men, ethical, scientific, judicial, political, literary, who have been distinguished, as we think from our point of view, by being followers of this grand faith of ours. and now i wish you to note again, what i hinted at a moment ago, that it is not an accident that unitarianism should spring into being in the modern world coincidently with the great movements of liberty in france and england, and the outburst that culminated in our own revolution and the establishment here of a state without a king as well as of a church without a bishop. wherever you have liberty and education, there you have the raw materials out of which to make the free, forward looker in religious thought and life. now what are the three principles out of which unitarianism is born? first, i have already intimated it, but i wish to emphasize it again for a moment with an addition, liberty. humanity at last had come to a time in its history when it had asserted its right to be free; not only to cast off fetters that hampered the body, not only to dethrone the despots that made liberty impossible in the state, but to think in the realm of religion, to believe it more honorable to god to think than to cringe and be afraid in his presence. second, coincident with the birth of unitarianism is an enlargement and a reassertion of the conscience of mankind. a demand for justice. just think for a moment, and take it home to your hearts, that up to the time when this free religious life was born, according to the teaching of all the old creeds, justice and right had been one thing here among men and another thing enthroned in the heavens. the idea has always been that might made right, that god, because he was god, had a right to do anything, though it controverted and contradicted all the ideas of human righteousness; and that we still must bow in the dust, and accept it as true. if i could be absolutely sure that god had done something which contradicted my conscience, i should say that probably my conscience was wrong. i should wait at any rate, and try to find out. but, when i find that the condition of things is simply this, that certain fallible, unjust, uneducated, barbaric people have said that god has done certain things, then it is another matter. i have no direct word from god: i have only the report of men whose authority i have no adequate reason to accept. at any rate, the world came to the point where it demanded that goodness on earth should be goodness up in heaven, too; that god should at least be as just and fair as we expect men to be. and that, if you will think it out a little carefully, is enough to revolutionize the theology of the world; for the picture of the character of god as contained in the old theologies is even horribly unjust, as judged by any human standard. in the third place, unitarianism sprang out of a new elevation of love and tenderness. as men became more and more civilized, they became more tender-hearted; and they found it impossible to believe that the father in, heaven should not be as kind and loving as the best father on earth. and here, again, if you think it out, you will find that this is enough to compel a revolution of all the old theological ideas of the world. just as soon, then, as the civilized modern world became free, there was a new expansion of the sense of the right to think; there was a new expansion of conscience, the insistent demand for justice; there was a new expansion of tenderness and love; and out of these, characterized by these, having these in one sense for its very soul and body, came unitarianism. now another point. it is commonly assumed by those who have not studied the matter that, because unitarians have no printed and published creed, they are all abroad in their thinking. they take this for granted; and so it is assumed by people who speak to me on the subject. they think that there must be just as many views of things as there are individuals. if there are any persons here having this idea, perhaps i shall astonish them by the statement i am going to make. after more than twenty years of experience as a unitarian minister, i have come to the conviction that there is not a body of christians in the world to-day, not catholic or presbyterian or methodist or congregational or any other, that is so united in its purposes, not only, but in its beliefs, as these very unitarians. and the fact is perfectly natural. take the scientific men of the world. they do not expect a policeman after them if they do not hold certain scientific opinions. there is no authority to try them for heresy or to turn them out of your society unless they hold certain scientific ideas. they have no sense of compulsion except to find and accept that which they discover to be true. the one aim of science is the truth. there is no motive for anything else. and truth being one, mark you, and they being free to seek for it, and all of them caring simply for that, they naturally come together, inevitably come together. so that, without any external power or orthodox compulsion, the scientific men of the world are substantially at one as to all the great principles. they discuss minor matters; but, when they discuss, they are simply hunting for a deeper truth, not trying to conquer each other. now unitarians are precisely in this position. the only thing any of us desire is the truth. we are perfectly free to seek for the truth; and, the truth being one, we naturally tend towards it, and, tending towards it, we come together. so there is, as i said, greater unanimity of opinion in regard to the great essential points among unitarians than among any other body in christendom. now, as briefly as i can, i want to analyze what i regard as the fundamental principles of unitarianism. i am not going to give you a creed, i am not going to give you my creed: i am going to give you the great fundamental principles which characterize and distinguish unitarians. first, liberty, freedom of the individual to think, think as he will or think as he must; but not liberty for the sake of itself. liberty for the sake of finding the truth; for we believe that people will be more likely to find the truth if they are free to search for it than they will if they are threatened or frightened, or if they are compelled to come to certain preordained conclusions that have been settled for them. freedom, then, for the sake of finding the truth. second, god. the deep-down conviction that wisdom, power, love, that is, god, is at the heart of the universe. third, that god is not only wisdom and power and love, but that he is the universal father, not merely the father of the elect, not merely the father of christians, not merely the father of civilized people, but the father of all men, equally, lovingly, tenderly the father of all men. in the next place, being the father of all men, he would naturally wish to have them find the truth. so we believe in revelation. not in revelation confined to one book or one epoch in the history of the world, though we do not deny the revelation contained in them. we believe that all truth, through whatever medium it comes to the world, is in so far a revelation of our father; and it is infallible revelation when it is demonstrably true, and not otherwise. the next step, then: in the words of lucretia mott, we believe that truth should be taken for authority, and not authority for truth. the only authority in the world is the truth. the only thing to which intellectually a free unitarian can afford to bow is ascertained and demonstrated truth. we believe, then, in revelation. in the next place, we believe in incarnation. not in the complete incarnation of god in one man, in one country, in one age, in the history of the world. we believe in the incarnation of god progressively in humanity. all that is true, all that is beautiful, all that is good, is so much of god incarnate in his children, and reaching ever forth and forward to higher blossoming and grander fruitage. the difference between jesus and other men, as we hold it, is not a difference in kind: it is a difference in degree. so he is the son of our father, our elder brother, our friend, our leader, our helper, our inspiration. the next principle of unitarianism is that character is salvation. we do not even say that character is a condition of salvation. character is salvation. a man who is right, who is in perfect accord with the law and life of god, is safe, in this world, in all worlds, in this year, in all future time. and, then, lastly, we believe in the eternal and universal hope. we believe that god, just because he is god, is under the highest conceivable obligation, not to me only, but to himself, to see to it that every being whom he has created shall sometime, somewhere, in the long run, find that gift of life a blessing, and not a curse. we believe in retribution, universal, quick, unescapable; for we believe that this is mercy, and that through this is to come salvation. these, then, are the main principles, as i understand them, of unitarianism. there is one point more now that i must touch on. when i was considering the question of giving this series of sermons, one of my best friends raised the question as to whether i had better put the word unitarian? into the title. he was afraid that it might prejudice people who did not like the name, and keep them from listening to what i had to say. this is a common feeling on the part of unitarians. i was trained as a boy, and through all my youth and early manhood in the ministry, to look with aversion, suspicion, on unitarianism, and to hate the name. but to-day, after more than twenty years of experience in the unitarian ministry, i have come to the conviction, which i wish to suggest to you, that it is the most magnificent name in the religious history of the world; and i, for one, wish to hoist it as my flag, to inscribe it on my banner, not because i care for a name, but because of that which it covers and comprehends. now, not in the slightest degree in the way of prejudice against other names or to find fault with them, let me note a few of them, and then compare unitarianism with them. take the word "anglican," for example, the name of the church of england. what does it mean? of course, you know it is simply a geographical name. it defines nothing as to the church's government or belief or anything else. there is the word "episcopal," which simply means a church that is governed by bishops; that is all. take the word "presbyterian," from a greek word which means an elder, a church governed by its old men or its elders. no special significance about that. then "baptist," signifying that the people who wear that name believe that baptism always means immersion, indicating no other doctrine by which that body is known, or its method of government. "congregational," no doctrine significance there. it simply means a church whose power is lodged in the congregation. it is democratic in its methods of government. "methodist,", applied to the members of a particular church because they were considered over-exact or methodical in their ways. there is no governmental significance there. the name catholic? or universal? is chiefly significant from the fact that the claim implied by it is not true. now let us look for a moment at the word unitarian, and see whether it has a right to be placed not only on a level with these, but infinitely above and beyond them in the richness, in the wonder of its meaning. let me lead you to a consideration of it. i want you to note that unity? is the one word of more significance than any other in the history of man; and that it is growing in its depth, its comprehensiveness. what have we discovered? we have discovered in this modern world, only a few years ago, that this which we see, the earth, the stars, and all the wonders of the heavens, is one, a universe. not only that. we have discovered the unity of force. there are not, as primitive man supposed, a thousand different powers in the universe, antagonistic and fighting with each other. we have learned to know that there is just one force in the universe. that light, heat, electricity, magnetism, all these marvellous and diverse varieties of forces, are one force, and can be at the will and skill of man converted into each other. next, we have learned that there is one law in the universe. should we not be unitarians? should we not believe in the unity of god, when we can see, as far as the telescope can reach on the one hand and the microscope on the other, one eternal, changeless order? another point. we have learned the unity of substance. we know how comte, the famous french scientist, advised his followers not to attempt to find out anything about the fixed stars, because, he said, such knowledge was forever beyond the reach of man. how long had comte been dead before we discovered the spectroscope? and now we know all about the fixed stars. we know that the stuff we step on in the street this morning as we go home from church is the same stuff of which the sun is made, the same stuff as that which flamed a few years ago as a comet, the same stuff as that which shines in sirius, in suns so many miles away that it takes millions of years for their light to reach us. one stuff, one substance, throughout the universe; and this poor old, tear-wet earth of ours is a planet shining in the heavens as much as any of them, of the same glorious material of which they are made. then, again, we have discovered the unity of life. from the little tiny globule of protoplasm up to the brain of shakspere, one life throbbing and thrilling with the same divinity which is at the heart of the world. we have discovered not only the unity of life, we have discovered the unity of man. not a hundred different origins, different kinds of creatures, different-natured beings, but one blood to dwell in every country on the face of the earth: the unity of man. we have discovered the unity of ethics, of righteousness, of right and wrong, one right, one wrong. a million applications, but one goal towards which all those who hunger and thirst after righteousness are striving. one religion: for underneath all the diversity of creeds and religions, barbaric, semi-civilized, civilized, enlightened, we find man, the one child of god, hunting for the clearest light he can command, after the one father, that is, the one eternal, universal search of the religious life of the race. religion then one; one unifying purpose; every step that the world takes in its progress leading it towards liberty, towards light, towards truth, towards righteousness, towards peace. one goal, then, for the progress of man. and, then, one destiny. some day, every soul, no matter how belated, shall arrive; some day, somewhere, every soul, however sin stained, shall arrive; every soul, however small, however distorted, however hindered, shall arrive. one destiny. not that we are to be just alike; only that some time we are to unfold all that is possible in us, and stand, full statured, perfect, complete, in the presence of our father. do i not well, then, to say that unity, unitarianism, is a magnificent name, a name to be flung out to the breeze as our banner under which we will fight for god and man; a name beside which all others pale into insignificance; a name that sums up the secret, the centre, the hope, the outcome of the universe? greatest name in the religious history of man, it coincides with that magnificent hope so grandly uttered by tennyson, "one god, one law, one element, and one far-off divine event, to which the whole creation moves." "what do you give in place of what you take away?" my theme is the answer to the question, what do you give in place of what you take away? for my text i have chosen two significant passages of scripture. one is from the seventh chapter of hebrews, the nineteenth verse; and it sets forth, as i look at it, the drift and outcome of the process of which we are a part, the bringing in of a better hope. then from the eleventh chapter of hebrews, the thirty- ninth and fortieth verses, expressing the relation in which we stand to those who have looked for god and his work in the past: and these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise; god having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. what do you give in place of that which you take away? this is a question which is proposed to unitarians over and over and over again. it is looked upon as an unanswerable criticism. we are supposed to be people who tear down, but do not build; people who take away the dear hopes and traditional faiths of the past, and leave the world desolate, without god, without hope. not only is this urged against us, from the other side, but there are a great many unitarians, possibly, who have not thought themselves out with enough clearness to know the relation between the present conditions of human thought and the past; and sometimes even they may look back with a regretful longing towards something which they have outgrown, and left behind. i propose this morning to answer this question, just as simply, as frankly, as i can; to treat it with all reverence, with all seriousness, and try to make clear what it is that the world has lost as the result of the advances of modern knowledge, and what, if anything, it has gained. but while i stand here, on the threshold of my theme, and before i enter upon its somewhat fuller discussion, i wish to urge upon you two or three considerations. it is assumed, by the people who ask this question, that, if we do take away anything, we are under obligation straightway to put something in its place. i wish you to consider carefully as to whether this position is sound. suppose, for example, that i should discover that some belief that has been held in the past is not well founded, not true. must i say nothing about it because, possibly, i may not have discovered just what is true? to illustrate what i mean: prince alphonso of castile used to say, as he studied the ptolemaic theory of the universe, that, if he had been present at creation, he could have suggested a good many very important improvements. in other words, he was keen enough to see that the ptolemaic theory of the universe was not a good working theory. must he keep still about that because, forsooth, he was not able to establish another theory of the universe in its place? do you not see that the criticism, the testing of positions which are held, are the primary steps in the direction of finding some larger and grander truth, provided these positions are not adequate and do not hold? the rev. dr. george a. gordon, of the historic old south church in boston, told us, in an address which he gave in brooklyn the other day, that calvinism was dead; that it was even necessary to clear the face of the earth of it, in order to save our faith in god. at the same time dr. gordon said frankly that he had no other as complete and finished system to put in place of it. was he justified in telling the truth about calvinism because he has not a ready-made scheme to substitute for it? i wish you to note that i do not concede for an instant that i must not tell the truth about anything that i perceive because i have not a ready-made theory of some kind to put in the place of that which is taken away. it is my business to tell what seems to me true in all reverence, seriousness, earnestness and love, and trust the consequences to god. in the next place, another consideration. i have been talking as though i conceded that unitarians, or that i myself, sometimes take away things, beliefs. now i wish to ask you who it is that takes away beliefs. has unitarianism ever taken away any faith or hope or trust from the world? has anybody ever done it? if we pit ourselves against one of god's eternal truths, is that truth going to suffer? rather shall we not beat ourselves to pieces against god's adamant? if a thing is true, nobody is going to take it away from the world; for nobody has the power to uproot or destroy a divine truth. who is it, then, that takes these beliefs away? is it not just this? does it not mean that men have discovered that what they supposed to be true is not true, and it is the old belief that passes away in the presence of a larger and clearer light? is not that the process? when magellan, for instance, demonstrated that this planet of ours was round by circumnavigating it, the ship returning to the port from which it started, did he take away the old flat earth, fixed and anchored, immovable, around which the sun moved? why, there was no old, flat and anchored, stationary earth to take away. there never had been. all magellan did was to demonstrate a new, higher, grander truth. he took away a misconception from the minds of ignorant and uneducated people, and helped put one of god's grand, luminous truths in the place of it. that is all he did. it is modern intelligence, increasing knowledge, larger, clearer light that takes away old beliefs. but, if these old beliefs are not true, it simply means that we are discovering what is true; that is, having a clearer view and vision of god's ways and methods of governing the world. i wish you to note, then, in this second place, that unitarianism does not take away anything. one third consideration: suppose we did. suppose we took away belief in the existence of god. suppose we took away belief in man as a soul, leaving him simply an animal. suppose we took away faith in continued existence after death. suppose we had the power to sweep all of these grand beliefs out of the human mind. then what? if i had my choice, i would do it gladly, with tearful gratitude, rather than keep the old beliefs of the last two thousand years. the late henry ward beecher, in a review article published not long before his death, said frankly this which i am saying now, and which i had said a good many times before mr. beecher's article was written, that no belief at all is infinitely, unspeakably better than those horrible beliefs which have dominated and darkened the world. i would rather believe in no god than in a bad god, such as he has been painted. and, if i had my choice of the future, what would it be? i have, i trust, just over there, father, mother, two brothers, numberless dear ones; and i hope to see them with a hope dearer than any other which i cherish. but, if i were standing on the threshold of heaven itself, and these loved ones were beckoning me to come in, and i had the choice between an eternity of felicity in their presence and eternal sleep, i would take the sleep rather than take this endless joy at the cost of the unceasing and unrelieved torment of the meanest soul that ever lived. and i would have no great respect for any man who would not. i would not care to purchase my joy at the price of endless pangs, the ascending smoke of torment, the wail going up to the sweet heavens forever and ever and ever. so, even if it were a choice between no belief at all and the old beliefs, the darkness would be light to me; and i would embrace it with joy rather than take the selfish felicity of those men who estimate it as a part of their future occupation to be leaning over the battlements of heaven and witnessing the torture of the damned. this, though sounding so terrible to us now, is good old christian doctrine, which has often been avowed. thank god we are outgrowing it. these, then, for preliminary considerations. now let me raise the question as to what has been taken away. you remember i said that i have taken nothing away, unitarianism has taken nothing away. but the advance of modern knowledge, the larger, clearer revelation of god, has taken away no end of things. what are they? let me make two very brief statements right here. i am in the position, this morning, of appearing to repeat myself; that is, i must go over a good many points that i have made from this platform before. but please understand that it is not on account of lapse of memory on my part. i am doing it with a distinct end in view, which can only be attained by these steps. in the next place, my treatment has so much ground to cover that what i say will appear somewhat in the nature of a catalogue; but i see no other way in which to make the definite statement i wish to lay before you. i am going to catalogue, first, a lot of the things that modern knowledge has taken away. then i am going to tell you some of the things that modern knowledge is putting in place of what it has removed. in the first place, the old universe is taken away; that is, that little tiny play-house affair, not so large as our solar system, which in the first chapters of genesis god is reported to have made as a carpenter working from outside makes a house, inside of six days. that little universe, that is, the story of creation as told in the early chapters of genesis, is absolutely gone. i shall tell you pretty soon what has taken the place of it. secondly, the god of the old testament, the god of most of the creeds has been taken away, that god who was jealous, who was partial, who was angry; who built a little world, and called it good, and then inside of a few days saw it slip out of his control into the hands of the devil, either because he could not help it or did not wish to; who watched this world develop for a little while, and then, because it did not go as he wanted it to, had to drown it, and start over again; the god who in the old testament told the people that slavery was right, provided they did not enslave the members of their own nation, but only those outside of it; the god who indorsed polygamy, telling a man that he was at liberty to have just as many wives as he wanted and could obtain, and that he was free to dispose of them by simply giving them a little notice and telling them to quit; the god who indorsed hypocrisy and lying on the part of his people; the god who sent a little light on one little people along one edge of the mediterranean, and left all the rest of the world in darkness; the god who is to damn all of these people who were left in darkness because they did not know that of which they never had any chance to hear; the god who is to cast all his enemies into the pit, trampling them down, as edwards pictures so horribly to us, in his hate for ever and ever. this god has been taken away. in the third place, the story of eden, the creation of man and then immediately the fall of man and the resulting doctrine of total depravity, this has been taken away. that man was made in the image of god, and then, inside of a few days, fell into the hands of the power of evil, and that since that day he has been the legitimate subject here on this earth of the prince of this world, that is, the devil, and that is taught both in the old testament and in the new, that man is this kind of a being, this is forever gone. there is no rational, intelligent, free belief in it left. then the old theory of the bible has been taken away, that theory which makes it a book without error or flaw, and makes us under the highest obligation to receive all its teachings as the veritable word of god, whether they seem to us hideous, blasphemous, immoral, degrading, or not. this is gone. professor goldwin smith, in an article published within a year, treats the belief, the continued holding to this old theory about the bible, under the head of christianity's "millstone." he writes from the point of view of the old belief; but he says, if christianity is going to be saved, this millstone must be taken off from about its neck, and allowed to sink into the sea. if we hold that theory, what? why, then, we must still believe that, in order to help on the slaughter of his enemies on the part of a barbarian general, god stopped the whole machinery of the universe for hours until he got through with his killing. we must believe the literal story of jonah's being swallowed by the whale. we must believe no end of incredibilities; and then, if we dare to read with our eyes open, we must believe immoral things, cruel things, about men and about god, things which our civilization would not endure, were it not for the power of tradition, which hallows that which used to be believed in the past. this conception of the bible, then, is gone. then, in the next place, the blood atonement is gone. what did that mean to the world? it meant that the eternal father either would not or could not forgive and receive back to his heart his own erring, mistaken, wandering children unless the only begotten son of god was slaughtered, and we, as the old awful hymn has it, were plunged beneath this fountain of blood i revolting, terrible, if you stop to think of it for one reasoning moment, that god cannot forgive unless he takes agony out of somebody equal to that from which he releases his own children! that, though embodied still in all the creeds, has been taken away. it is gone, like a long, hideous dream of darkness. belief in the devil has been taken away. what does that mean? it means that christendom has held and taught for nearly two thousand years that god is not really king of the universe; that he holds only a divided power, and that here thousands on thousands of years go by, and the devil controls the destiny of this world, and ruins right and left millions on millions of human souls, and that god either cannot help it or does not wish to, one of the two. this belief is taken away. and then, lastly, that which i have touched on by implication already, the belief in endless punishment is taken away. are you sorry? does anybody wish something put in the place of this? the belief that all those except the elect, church members, those who have been through a special process called conversion, these, including all the millions on millions outside of christendom and from the beginning until to-day, have gone down to the flame that is never quenched, the worm that never dies, to linger on in useless torture forever and ever? simply a monument of what is monstrously called the justice of god! this is gone. now, friends, just ask yourselves, as you go home, as you think over what i have said this morning, as to whether there is anything else lost. is there anything of value taken away? let me run over now in parallel fashion another catalogue to place opposite this one, so that we may see as to what has been our loss and as to whether there has been any gain. in the place of the little, petty universe of hebrew dream, what have we now? this magnificent revelation of the copernican students; a universe infinite in its reach and in its grandeur; a universe fit at last to be the home of an infinite god; a universe grand enough to clothe him and express him, to manifest and reveal him; a universe boundless; a universe that has grown through the ages and is growing still, and is to unfold more and more of the divine beauty and glory forevermore. is there any loss in this exchange? now as to god. i have pictured to you, in very bald outline, some of the conceptions of god that have been held in the past. what is our god to-day? the heart, the life, the soul, of this infinite universe; justice that means justice; power that means power; love that surpasses all our imagination of love; a god who is eternal goodness; who from the beginning has folded his child man to his heart, whispering all of truth that he could understand, breathing into him all of life that he could contain, inspiring him with all love and tenderness that he could appreciate or employ, and so, in this way, leading him and guiding him through the ages, year by year and century by century, still to something better and finer and higher; a god, not off somewhere in the heavens, to whom we must send a messenger; not a god separated from us by some great gulf that we must bridge by some supposed atonement; a god nearer to us than our breath; a god who hears the whisper of our want, who understands the dawning wish or aspiration before it takes form or shape; a god who loves us better than we love ourselves or love those who are dearest to us; a god who knows better what we need than we know ourselves, and is more ready to give us than fathers are to give good gifts to their children. is there any loss here? in the third place, the new man that has come into modern thought. not the broken fragments of a perfect adam; not a man so crippled intellectually that, as they have been telling us for centuries, it was impossible for him to find the truth, or to know it when he did find it; not a being so depraved, morally, that he never desires any good, and never loves anything which is sweet and fine; a being totally depraved, a being who, as one passage in the old testament tells us, is so corrupt his very prayer is a sin; conceived, born, in evil, and all his thoughts tainted, and drifting towards that which is wicked. not this kind of a man. a man who has been on the planet hundreds of thousands of years, who has been learning by experience, who has been animal, who has been cruel, but who at every step has been trying to find the light, has been becoming a little truer and better; a being who has evolved all that is sweetest and finest in the history of the world; who has made no end of mistakes, who has committed no end of crimes, but who has learned through these processes, and at last has given us some specimens of what is possible by way of development in abraham and moses and elijah and david and isaiah, and a long line of prophets and seers of the old testament time; not perfect, but magnificent types of actual men; who has developed in other nations such men as gautama, the heroes and teachers of china, like confucius; then aristotle, plato, socrates; the noble men of rome; who has given us in the modern world the great poets, the great discoverers, the great philanthropists; those devoted to the highest, sweetest things; musicians and artists; who has given us shakspere, who has given us, crowning them all, as i believe, by the moral beauty and grandeur of his love, the nazarene, jesus, our elder brother, son of god, and helper of his fellow-man; this humanity that has never fallen; that has been climbing up from the beginning, and not sinking down. is there any loss here? then let us see what kind of a bible modern science and modern discovery and modern scholarship and modern life have given us. our bible is the sifted truth of the ages. there is not a passage in it or a line for which we need apologize. there is nothing incredible in it, except as it is incredibly sweet and good and true. it is the truth that has come to men in all ages, no matter spoken by whose lips, no matter written by what pen, no matter wrought out under what conditions or in whatever civilization or under whatever sky. all that is true and sweet and fine is a part of god's revelation of himself to his children, and makes up our bible, which is not all written yet. every new truth that shall be discovered in the future will make a new line or a new paragraph or a new chapter. god has been writing it on the rocks, in the stars, in the hearts, on the brains of his children; and his hand does not slacken. he is not tired: he is writing still. he will write to-morrow, and next year, and throughout all the coming time. this is the bible. we believe, for example, that the saying of the old egyptian, god shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, is just as divine and sweet as when said in the new testament. we believe that the golden rule is just as golden when uttered by confucius hundreds of years before jesus as it was afterwards. we believe that the saying about two commandments being the sum and substance of the law was just as holy when hillel spake them as when jesus uttered them after his time. all truth is divine, and part of god's divine revelation to his children. here is our bible, then. now let me speak about jesus, and see if our thought is less precious than the old. in my old days, when i preached in the orthodox church, jesus was never half so dear, so helpful to me, as he is now. if i thought of him at all, i was obliged to think of him as somehow a second god, who stood between me and the first one, and through whom i hoped deliverance from the law and the justice of the first. i had to think of him as a part of a scheme that seemed to me unjust and cruel, involving the torture of some and the loss of most of the race. you cannot pick the old-time jesus out of that scheme of which he is a part. i could not love him then as i love him now. i could not think of him as an example to follow; for how can one take the infinite for an example? how can one follow the absolutely perfect except afar off? but now i think of jesus and his cross as the most natural and at the same time the divinest thing in the history of man. nothing outside of the regular divine order in it. jesus reveals to me to-day the humanness of god and the divineness of man. and he takes his place in the long line of the world's redeemers, those who have wrought atonement, how? through faithfulness even unto death. the way we work out the atonement of the world, that is, the reconciliation of the world to god, is by being true to the vision of the truth as it comes to us, no matter by the pathway of what suffering, true as jesus was true, true even when he thought his father had forsaken him. do you know, friends, i think that is the grandest thing in the world. he verily believed that god had forsaken him; and yet he held fast to his trust, to his truth, to his faithfulness, even when swooning away into the unconsciousness of death. there is faith, and there is faithfulness; and he shares this with thousands of others. there are thousands of men who have suffered more than jesus did dying for his own truth; thousands of martyrs who, with his name on their lips, have gone through greater torture than he did. all these, whoever has been faithful, whoever has suffered for the right, whoever has been true, has helped to work out the atonement, the reconciliation, of the world with god, showing the beauty of truth and bringing men into that admiration of it that helps them to come into accord with the divine life. then one more point. instead of the wail of the damned that is never, through all eternity, for one moment hushed in silence, we place the song of the redeemed, an eternal hope for every child born of the race. we do not believe it is possible for a human soul ultimately to be lost. why? because we believe in god. god either can save all souls or he cannot. if he can and will not, then he is not god. if he would and cannot, then he is not god. let us reverently say it: he is under an infinite obligation to his own self, to his own righteousness, to his own truth, his own power, his own love, his own character, to see to it that all souls, some time, are reconciled to him. this does not mean a poor, cheap, an easy salvation. it means that every broken law must have its consequences so long as it remains broken. it means that in this world and through all worlds the law- breaker is to be followed by the natural and necessary results of his thoughts, of his words, of his deeds; but it means that in this punishment the pain is a part of the divine love. for the love of god makes it absolutely necessary that the object of that love shall be delivered from sin and wrong, and brought into reconciliation with himself; and the pain, the necessary results of wrongdoing, are a part of the divine tenderness, a part of the divine faithfulness, a part of the divine love. so we believe that through darkness or through light, through joy or through sorrow, some time, somewhere, every child of god shall be brought into his presence, ready to sing the song of peace and joy and reconciled love. now, friends, i have gone over all the main points of the theology of our question. i have told you what i think the results of modern study have taken away. i have indicated to you what i believe is to come and take the place of these things that are absolutely gone. ask yourselves seriously, if you are not one of us, is there a single one of these things that modern investigation is threatening that you really care to keep? if you could choose between the two systems and have your choice settle the validity of them, would you not choose the second, and be grateful to bid good-by to the first? remember, however, at the end let me say, as i did at the beginning, that, if these things pass away and the other finer things come in their places, unitarianism is not to be charged by its enemies with destroying the old, neither is it to take the credit on the part of its friends for having created all the new. that distinguishes us as unitarians from any other form of faith is that we believe in the living, loving, leading god of the modern world, and are ready gladly to take the results of modern investigation, believing that they are only a part of the revelation of the divine truth and the father's will. we accept these things, stand for them, proclaim them; but we did not create them. if anything is gone that you did not like, we did not take it away. if anything is come that you do like, give god the glory; and let us share with you the joy and praise. are there any creeds which it is wicked for us to question? any body of people whatsoever has, of course, an undoubted right to organize on the basis of any belief or principles which it may happen to hold. this, always, on the supposition that those principles or beliefs are not antagonistic to human welfare. they have a right to establish the conditions of membership and limit their numbers as much as they please. for example, suppose a set of persons chanced to hold the belief that the so-called shakspere plays were written by bacon. they have a perfect right to organize a society, and to say that nobody shall be a member of that society unless he agrees with them in this belief. if i happen, as i do, to hold some other conviction about the matter, i have no right to blame them because they do not wish me to be a member. i can organize, if i please, another society that shall have for its cardinal doctrinal statement the belief that shakspere was the author of these plays. there is no need that i should quarrel with people holding these other ideas. or, if i am a laboring man, in the technical sense of the word that is commonly used to-day, i have a right to organize a society devoted to the furtherance of the eight- hour movement, or any other specific end or aim which seems to me necessary to the welfare of society as organized in the modern world. all this we concede at the outset. people have a perfect right to organize on the basis of their particular beliefs, and to keep out of their organization those persons who do not happen to agree with them. but, and here is a most important consideration, if these beliefs seem to us who are outside to be vital; if they appear to concern us, to touch our well-being, our future hopes, then we certainly have a right to study those beliefs, to criticise them, to put them to the test to see whether they are well founded, whether they have any adequate basis of support. and, still further, if the people holding a certain set of beliefs tell us that they are inspired of god, that they are spokesmen for god, that they have had committed to them a certain definite deposit of faith for the benefit of the world; if they tell us that, unless we agree with them, unless we accept the conditions and come into their organization, then we are opposed to god, are endangering our own souls, and are enemies of the human race, then it becomes not merely our right to look into these matters: does it not become our most solemn duty? are we not under the highest of all obligations to decide for ourselves one way or the other as to whether these claims are valid? for, if they are, then there is nothing so important for us as that we should accept them and live in accordance with them, join the societies that are organized on them as a basis, do our utmost to extend their acceptance throughout the world. if they are not valid, then we ought to do our very best to prove this also, and help those who are in bondage to these false ideas to attain their liberty, in order that they may join with us in finding out that which is true, in order that together we may work for the discovery of the will of god, and that we may co-operate in helping the world to find and obey that will. you would suppose from the ordinary assumption of those who hold the old creeds, and who have organized their churches on these creeds, as foundation stones, that there had been at the outset a clear, a definite revelation of truth, that it had been unquestioned, that it had come with credentials enough to satisfy the world that the speakers spoke by authority, and that the matter had from the beginning been well understood. it is assumed that we who do not hold these ideas are wilfully wrong, that we are not inclined to accept the divine truth, that it is on account of the hardness and wickedness of our hearts, and that we prefer evil rather than good. we are told that we might know, if we would, that the matter is definite, and has been perfectly well settled from the beginning. this, i say, is the assumption. let us now, then, investigate the matter for a little while, just as calmly, just as simply, just as dispassionately as we are able. i confess to you, at the outset, that i do not like such a task as to- day seems to be imposed upon me. i do not like to be put in the position of seeming to criticise my fellow- citizens, my friends, and neighbors; but it seems to me that it is more than a task, that it is a duty, and one that i cannot readily escape. i mean as little as possible even to seem to criticise people; but i must look into the foundations of their beliefs, and see whether they are valid, whether there is any reason why we should feel ourselves compelled to-day to accept them. let us take our place, then, at the outset of christianity by the side of jesus and the apostles. now let us note one strange fact. for the first two or three hundred years the belief of the church was chaotic, unconfirmed, unsettled. there was dispute and discussion of the most earnest and most bitter kind concerning what are regarded to-day as the very fundamentals of the christian faith. this would hardly seem possible, would it, if jesus had made himself perfectly clear and explicit in regard to these matters? if jesus were really god, and if he came down on to this earth for the one express purpose of telling humanity what kind of moral and spiritual condition it was in, just what it needed in order to be saved, would you not suppose that he would have been so clear that there could have been no honest question about it? if, for example, jesus knew he was god, ought not he to have told it so plainly that no honest man could go astray about it? if he knew that the human race fell in adam and was in a condition of loss under the general wrath and curse of god, ought not he to have said something about adam, something about the garden of eden, something about the fall? yet it never appears anywhere that he did. if he knew it was absolutely necessary for us to hold certain ideas about the bible, ought not he to have told us? if he knew that the great majority of the human race was going to endless and hopeless torment in the future unless they held certain beliefs, ought not he to have made it plain? but take that which i read as a part of our scripture lesson this morning, that magnificent picture of the judgment scene, where he divides the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. who are the sheep, and who are the goats? those who are to be admitted with glad welcome to the presence of the father are simply those that have been morally good; and those who are told they must be shut out are simply those who have bee morally bad. there is no hint of the necessity of any belief at all. nothing said about any bible, about any trinity, about any faith, about anything that is supposed to be essential as a condition of salvation, not a word. only the good receive the welcome, and the bad are shut out. that is all. if this is not true, ought he not to have told us something about it, and made it perfectly clear? now what was the condition of popular belief? let me illustrate it by one or two points. origen, for example, one of the most famous of the church fathers, believed and preached the pre-existence of the human soul and universal salvation. now, if jesus said anything contrary to this belief of universal salvation, either origen did not know anything about it or he did not regard it as of any authority, one or the other. we cannot conceive of his holding a position of this sort if he had known that jesus had pronounced explicitly to the contrary. take another illustration. two weeks ago this morning i had occasion to quote to you a few words from another of the old church fathers, justin martyr, who taught explicitly that jesus was not the equal of the father, but a subordinate and created being. now, if jesus had clearly taught anything approaching the doctrine of the trinity, is it conceivable that justin martyr had not heard of it, or, having heard of it, had not accepted it? at any rate, if these things were true and important, it is inconceivable that the church fathers, the very founders of christianity, should have been all at sea in regard to them, should have held divergent opinions, and should have been discussing these questions one way and the other for three hundred years. let us now see what we have as a basis for belief in regard to what jesus really did say. the gospels grew up in a time when there was no shorthand writing, no reporting. jesus does not say one word about having any record made of his teaching, does not seem to have considered it of the slightest importance. he simply talks and converses as friend with friend, preaches to the crowds wherever they gather, but says nothing whatever about founding any system of doctrine, says nothing about the importance of having a statement of his doctrine kept. the gospels, as a matter of fact, did not come into their present shape for many years after his death. how long? the critics are not at one in regard to it. a book has recently been translated from the german, by a professor in the union theological seminary in this state, which says that not a single one of the gospels was known in its present shape until between the years and a.d. all scholars do not accept this; but they are all at one in the statement that it was a great many years after the death of jesus before they came into the shape in which we know them to-day. there was, then, no clear record at the first in regard to these matters of belief; and, as i said a moment ago, for the first two or three hundred years the condition of the church was chaotic. it was a long time coming to a consciousness of itself. now let us note the time when a few of the creeds were formed, and what are some of their characteristics. although the apostles' creed would seem to take us back to the apostles, we are not to deal with that first, because it was not the first one of the creeds to come into its present shape. the oldest creed that we have to-day is the nicene. when was that formed? it was agreed upon at the council of nicaea, in the early part of the fourth century. now note, if you please, what influences shaped and determined it. did those who proposed that this particular clause or that should enter into it have any proof of their belief? did they even claim to have? why, the idea of evidence, the thought of proof, was absolutely unknown to the mind of christendom at that time. nobody thought of such a thing as proposing to prove that this or that or the other was true. the nicene creed came into existence very much, indeed, as does the platform of a political party at the present time. one man fought for this proposition, another man for that one; and at last it was a sort of compromise decided by a majority. and how was the majority reached? friends, there were bribes, there were threats, there were all kinds of intimidation, there were blows, there was wrangling of every kind, there was banishment, there was murder. there has not been a political platform in the modern world evolved out of such brutal, conflicting, anti-religious conditions as those which prevailed before and in connection with the council of nicaea. anything like evidence? not heard of or thought of. anything like quiet brooding of those who supposed they were, under the influence of the holy ghost, receiving divine and sacred truth? the farthest possible from any conditions that could be suggested by such a thought. and at the last, though undoubtedly the majority of the church at that time was unitarian, as i told you the other day it was the decisive influence of the emperor constantine which settled the controversy. thus came into existence in the fourth century the oldest of the church creeds which is recognized as authoritative in the catholic, the anglican, and the episcopal churches of the present time. and this nicene creed, if i had time to go into it and analyze it, i could show you contains elements which no intelligent man in any of these churches thinks of believing at the present time; and yet nobody dares suggest a change, or the bringing it into accord with what the intelligence of the modern world knows to be true. let us pass on, and consider for a moment the apostles' creed, so called. there was a time in the church when people really supposed that the apostles were its author. there are persons to-day who have not discovered the contrary. i crossed the ocean a few years ago when on board were a bishop of one of the western states and a young candidate for orders who was travelling with him as his pupil. i fell into conversation with this young man, and found that he really believed that the twelve clauses of the apostles' creed were manufactured by the apostles themselves. he had never discovered anything to the contrary. a still more astonishing fact came to my knowledge last year. during that discussion over ian mclaren's creed, in which so many people were interested last winter, chancellor mccracken, of the university of new york, published a letter, in which he referred to the apostles' creed as written eighteen hundred years ago. it took my breath away when i read it. i wondered, could the chancellor of a great university possibly be ignorant of the facts? would he state that which he knew was not true? i could not explain it either way. i was compelled to think, if he was thoughtless and careless about it, that he had no business to be about a matter of such importance. but he said the apostles' creed was written eighteen hundred years ago. now what are the facts? the apostles had nothing whatever to do with the creed, as everybody knows to-day who chooses to look into the matter. it grew, and was four or five hundred years in growth, one phrase in one shape held in a certain part of the church, another phrase in another shape held in another part of the church, people holding nothing so sacred about it but that they were at perfect liberty to change it and add to it and take away from it, until, as we get it to- day, it appeared for the first time in history at about the year . and yet it stands in the church to-day claiming to be the apostles' creed. and this apostles' creed, if it were a part of the purpose i have in mind this morning, i could analyze, and find that it contains elements which nobody accepts to-day; and yet nobody dares to propose touching it, such is the reverence for that which is old. so much more reverence does the world have for that which is old than for that which is true. if you approach a churchman in regard to his belief in the resurrection of the body, he will say, of course, we do not believe in the resurrection of the body: we believe in the resurrection of the soul. but he does not believe in the resurrection of the soul, either. let me make two statements in regard to this. in the first place, if he does not believe in the resurrection of the body, he has no right to say it, because the house of bishops, representing the whole church of the united states, in an authoritative pastoral letter issued within three years, declares that fixity of interpretation is of the essence of the creeds. no man, then, is at liberty to change the interpretation to suit himself. and then, again, nobody, as i say, believes in the resurrection of the soul. why? because that statement, with the authority of the house of bishops that nobody has any business to change or reinterpret, carries with it a world underneath the surface of the earth to which the dead go down; and resurrection means coming up again from that underground world. nobody believes in any underground world to-day. you cannot be resurrected. that is, you cannot rise again unless you have first gone down. it is the ascent of the soul we believe in to-day, and not its resurrection, much less the resurrection of the body. now a word in regard to another of the great historic creeds. the third one to be shaped was the athanasian creed. curiously named most of these are. there was a tradition in the church that athanasius, who was one of the great antagonists of the council of nicaea, wrote this creed called after his name; but, as a matter of fact, the creed was not known in the church in the shape in which we have it now until at least four or five hundred years after athanasius was dead. the athanasian creed dates from the eighth or ninth century; and in this for the first time there is a clear, explicit, definite formulation of the doctrine of the trinity. it never had been shaped in perfection until the time of the athanasian creed; and this creed contains among other things those famous damnatory clauses? which the episcopal church in this country, to their credit be it said, have left out of their prayer book. but this athanasian creed is obliged to be sung thirteen times every year in the church of england; and you can imagine with what grace and joy they must sing the statement that, unless a man believes every single word and sentence of it, he shall no doubt perish everlastingly. the athanasian creed, then, takes us only to the eighth or ninth century. you see, do you not, that, instead of there having been any clear, explicit, definite statement of church beliefs on the part of jesus and his apostles, they are long and slow growths, and not built up on the basis of proof or evidence, simply opinions which people came to hold and fight for and preach, until at last they got a majority to believe in them, and they were accepted by some council. i wish now to ask your attention for a few moments to one or two of the modern statements of beliefs. we are face to face here in this modern world with a very strange condition of affairs. i wish i could see the outcome of it. here are churches printing, publishing, scattering all over america and europe, statements of belief which perhaps hardly one man in ten among their pew-holders or vestrymen believes. they will tell you they do not believe them; they are almost angry with you if you make the statement that these are church beliefs; and at the same time we are in the curious position of finding that the man who proposes himself as a candidate for the ministry in any of these churches dares not question or doubt these horrible statements. and, if it is found that he does question them after he gets into the ministry, he is in danger of a trial for heresy. we have had a perfect storm here in new york in one of our greatest churches over dr. briggs. and what was dr. briggs tried for? simply for raising the question as to whether every part of the old testament was infallible. that was all. another professor in a theological seminary in the west was turned out of his professorship for a similar offence. an episcopal minister, a friend of mine in ohio, was turned out of his church for daring to entertain some of the modern ideas which are in the air, and which intelligent people believe everywhere. one of the best known episcopal ministers in this city to-day has an indictment over his head. it has been there for eight years; and it is only by the good will of his bishop that he is tolerated. his crime is daring to think, and to believe what all the respectable text-books of the modern world teach. and people in the pews are indignant if you say that their church holds these ideas! it is a curious state of affairs. how long is it going to last? what is to be its outcome? i do not know. but let us look for a moment at another. let us note one or two points in the presbyterian confession of faith. it teaches still, with what it claims to be absolute authority, that god, before the foundation of the world, selected just the precise number of people that he was going to save; that he did this, not in view of the fact that they were going to be good people at all, but arbitrarily of his own will, not to be touched or changed by anything in their character or conduct. all the rest he is to "pass by "; and they are to go to everlasting woe. the elect are very few: those who are passed by are the many. and why does he do this? just think for a moment. there is no such colossal egotism, such extreme of selfishness, in all the world as that attributed to god in this confession of faith. the one thing he lives for, cares for, thinks of, labors after, is what? his own glory. he saves a few people to illustrate the glory of his grace and mercy. he damns all the rest purely to illustrate the glory of some monstrous thing called his justice. this kind of doctrine we are expected to believe to-day. and worse yet, if anything can be worse. i wonder how many loving, tender mothers in all these churches know it, how many know that the little babe which they clasp to their bosoms with such infinite tenderness and love, which they think of as a gift from the good god, right out of heaven, is an enemy of god, is under the curse and wrath of god? how many of you know that your creed teaches that god hates this blessed little babe, and that, if he does not happen to be one of the elect, he must suffer torment in darkness forever and ever? that is taught in your confession of faith, which i have right here at my hand. the only mitigation of it that i have ever heard of on the part of consistent believers is the saying of michael wigglesworth, a famous alleged poet of the puritan time in new england, when he states explicitly that none of these non-elect children can be saved, but since they are infants, and not such bad sinners as the grown up ones, their punishment shall be mitigated by their having the easiest room in hell. friends, you smile at this. this poem of michael wigglesworth's was a household treasure in new england for a hundred years. no end of editions was sold. it was earnestly, verily believed; and the doctrine is still taught every time that a new edition of the presbyterian confession of faith? is issued in this country or in europe. shall we escape these things by going into other churches? some of them, yes; but the essentials are there in all of them. take for one moment the episcopal prayer book. i have had friends in the old churches who have become episcopalians for no reason that i could imagine, except that it seemed to them they were escaping some of the sharpest corners of the old beliefs; and yet, if you will read carefully the form of service for the baptism of infants in the episcopal prayer book as held to-day and in constant use in every episcopal church in this country and england and throughout europe, you will find that it is taught there in the plainest and most forcible way that the unbaptized infant is a child of wrath, is under the dominion of the devil, is destined to everlasting death, and is regenerated only by having a little water placed on its forehead and by a priest saying over him certain wonderful words. can you believe, friends, for one moment that a little child this minute belongs to the devil, is under his dominion, hated of god, doomed to eternal death, then the priest puts his fingers in some water, touches its forehead, and says, "i baptize thee," etc., and the child, after this is said, five minutes later, god loves, has taken to his arms as one of his own little children, and is going to receive him to eternal felicity forever? can we believe such things to-day? do people believe them? if they do not, are they sincere in saying they do, in supporting the institutions that proclaim to the world every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year that they do believe them? i have now said all i am going to about these creeds in any special way. i wish now to discuss the general situation for a little. i have heretofore said, i wish to say it again, to make it perfectly plain and emphasize it, that all these old creeds are based on the supposed ruin of the race. they have come into existence for the express purpose of saving as many souls as possible from this ruin. they never would have been heard of but for the belief in this ruin. and yet to-day there is not a intelligent man in christendom that does not know that the doctrine of man's fall and ruin is not only doubtful, but demonstrably untrue. it is not a matter of question: it is settled; and yet these churches go on just as though nothing had happened. is it sincere? is it quite honest? is this the way you use language in wall street, in your banks and your stores? is this the way you maintain your credit as business men? oh, let us purge these statements of outgrown crudities, cruelties, falsities, blasphemies, infamies! let us dare to believe that the light of god to-day is holier than the mistakes about him made by those who walked in darkness. now let me suggest to you. every one of these creeds sprang out of a theory of the universe that nobody any longer holds. they are ptolemaic in their origin, not copernican. they sprang out of a time when it was believed that this was a little tiny world, and god was outside of it, governing it by the arbitrary imposition of his law. every one of these creeds is fitted to that theory of things; and that theory of things has passed away absolutely and forever. consider for just a moment. why should we pay such extravagant deference to the opinions of men who lived in the dark ages, of the old church fathers, of athanasius, of arius, of justin martyr, of origen, of tertullian? why, friends, just think for a moment. there was hardly a single point connected with this world that they knew anything about. how did it happen that the whole modern world should get on its knees in their presence, as though they knew everything about the infinite, when they knew next to nothing about the finite? is there any proof that they knew anything about it? not one single particle. think for a minute. we know to-day unspeakably more about the origin of the bible, how it grew, how it came into its present shape, than any man from the first century until a hundred years ago could by any possibility know. we know a good deal more than paul, though he was one of the writers, unspeakably more. he had no means of knowing. we have sifted every particle of evidence, every source of knowledge that the world has to show. we know unspeakably more about this universe than any man of the olden time had any way of knowing. he had no way of knowing anything. i said something recently about the origin and nature of man. very little was known about this until within the present century. we know something about how religions grow. we have traced them, studied them, not only christianity and judaism, but all the religions of the world back to their origin, and seen them coming into shape. we can judge something about them to-day. you want the antiquity of the world? people are bowing in the presence of what they suppose to be the antiquity, that is, the hoary-headed wisdom, of the world. why, friends, as you go back, you are not going back to the old age of the world: you are going back to its childhood. the world was never so old as it is this morning. humanity was never so old, never had such accumulated experience, such accumulated knowledge, as it has this morning. if you want the results of the world's hoary-headed antiquity, its wisdom, its accumulated experience, its knowledge, then get the very latest results of the very finest modern investigations; for that is where you will find them. then let us note in just a word some other reasons why we cannot hold these old creeds. the statements that are made about god are horrible. the statements that are made in regard to the method by which god is going to deal with his creatures are horrible; and then what they tell us in regard to the outcome of human history is pessimistic and hopeless in the extreme. where do they claim to get the authority for these old beliefs? they tell us they find them on the one hand in the bible. what do you find in the bible? you find almost anything you look for. is it not perfectly natural you should? the bible was written by ever so many different writers during a period covering nearly a thousand years. would you expect to find the same ideas throughout it? the book of ecclesiastes teaches that man dies like a dog. the bible upholds polygamy, slavery, cruelty of almost every kind. you might prove almost any kind of immorality from the bible if you wished to. but take the highest and noblest conception of the bible you can have. i was talking with an eminent and widely known clergyman of the presbyterian church during the present year; and we were speaking about the bible. i tell you this to show how modern ideas are permeating the thoughts of men. he said: i confess that, if god had ever given the world an infallible book, i should be utterly appalled and disheartened; because it is perfectly clear that we have no such book now. and, if god ever gave us such a book, then he has lost control of his universe, and was not able to keep us in possession of it. here are quakers and methodists proving their beliefs, the baptists proving theirs, the episcopalians proving theirs, the presbyterians theirs, all of them different in some particular, and each of them getting their proof from the bible. let us remember that the bible is simply a great body of national literature, and that you can prove anything out of it. then remember that it has been proved over and over again by the facts of the handwriting of god himself to be mistaken and wrong in any number of directions. god is writing his own book in the heavens, in the earth, in the human heart; and we are reading the story there. no creed, then, particularly if it be infamous and unjust and horrible, can prove itself to us so that we are bound to accept it to-day on the basis of an appeal to any book. but the catholic church claims not only that the book is infallible, but that their church tradition is infallible too. is it? how can a church prove that its declarations are infallible? is there any way of proving it? think for a moment. it can make the claim: the only conceivable way of proving it is by never making a mistake. try the catholic church by that test. it has committed itself over and over and over again to things which have been demonstrated beyond question to be mistakes. it has made grave mistakes, not only as to fact, but as to morals as well. on what, then, shall we base any one of these "infallible" creeds? there is no basis for any such claim; and thank god there is not. for now we are free to study, here, there, everywhere; to read god's word in the stars; to read it in the rocks; to read it in the remains of old-time civilizations; to read it in the development of education, the arts, science; to read it in the light of the love we have for each other, the love for our children, and the growing philanthropy and widening benevolence of mankind. we have thus perfect freedom to listen when god speaks, to see when he holds a leaf of his ever-growing book for our inspection, and to believe concerning him the grandest and noblest and finest things that the mind can dream or the heart can love. why have unitarians no creed? for a scripture suggestion touching the principle involved in my subject, i refer you to the words found in the fifth chapter of the gospel according to matthew, the forty-third and the forty-fourth verses, "ye have heard that it hath been said; but i say unto you." i take these phrases simply as containing the principle to which i wish to call your earnest attention at the outset. jesus here recognizes the fact that the religious beliefs of one age are not necessarily adequate to a succeeding age. so he says over and over in this chapter, ye have heard that it hath been said by the fathers, by the teachers, the religious leaders in old times, so and so: but i say unto you something else, something in advance, something beyond. if any one chooses to say that jesus was infallible, inspired, and therefore had a right to modify the teachings of the fathers, still this does not change the principle at all. in any case he recognized the fact that the beliefs of the old time might not be sufficient to the new time. and, even if any one should take the position that jesus was the second person in the trinity, that he was the one who revealed the old-time truth, and also revealed the new, still the principle is not changed: it is conceded, whatever way we look at it. for, even if he were god, he is represented as giving the people in the time of moses, the time of david, certain precepts, certain things to believe, certain things to do, and then, recognizing at a later time that they were not adequate, changing those precepts, and giving them something larger, broader, deeper, to accept and to practise. because this principle is here involved, i have taken these words as my scripture point of departure. now to come to the question as to why unitarians have no creed. of course, the answer, though it sounds like an hibernicism, is to say that they do have a creed. not a creed in the sense in which some of the older churches use the word. if by creed you mean a written or published statement of belief, one that is supposed to be fixed and final, one that is a test of religious fellowship, which is placed at the door of the church so that no one not accepting it is able to enter, why, then, we have no creed. but, in the broader sense of the word, it means belief; and unitarians believe quite as much, and, in my judgment, things far nobler and grander, than those which have been believed in the past. we are ready, if any one wishes it, to write out our creed. we are perfectly willing that it should be printed. we can put it into twelve clauses, like the apostles' creed; we can make thirty-nine clauses or articles, like the creed of the anglican church; we can arrange it any way that is satisfactory to the questioner. only we will not promise to believe all of it to-morrow; we will not say that we will never learn anything new; we will not make it a test of fellowship; we will admit not only to our meeting-house, but to our church organization, if they wish to come, people who do not believe all the articles of the creed that we shall write. perhaps we will admit people who do not believe any of it; for our conception of a church is not the old conception. what was that? that it was a sort of ark in which the saved were taken, to be carried over the stormy sea of this life and into the haven of eternal felicity beyond. as opposed to that, our conception of the church is that it is a school, it is a place where souls are to be trained, to be educated; and so we would as soon refuse to admit an ignorant pupil to a school as to refuse to admit a person on account of his belief to our church. we welcome all who wish to come and learn; and if, after they have studied with us for a year, they do not then accept all the points which some of us believe, and hold to be very important, we do not turn them out even on that account. unitarians, then, do have a creed, only it is not fixed, it is not final, and it is not the condition of religious fellowship. now i wish to give you some of the reasons, as they lie in my mind, for the attitude which we hold in regard to this matter. i do not believe in having a fixed and final statement of belief which we are not at liberty to criticise or question or change. why? because i love the truth, because i am anxious to find the truth, because i wish to be perfectly free to seek for the truth. our first reason, then, is for the sake of the truth. now let me present this to you under three or four minor heads. the universe is infinite, god is infinite, truth is infinite. if, then, on the background of the infinite you draw a circle, no matter how large it may be, no matter how wide its diameter, do you not see that you necessarily shut out more than you shut in? do you not see that you limit the range of thought, set bounds to investigation, and that you pledge yourselves beforehand that the larger part of truth, of god, of the universe, you will never study, you will never investigate? there is another point bearing on this matter. if a man pledges himself to accept and abide by a fixed and final creed, he does it either for a reason or without a reason. if he does it without a reason, then there is, of course, no reason why we should follow his example. if he has a reason, then two things: either that reason is adequate, sound, conclusive, or it is not. if it is not adequate, then we ought to study and criticise and find that out, and be free to discover some reason that is adequate. if the reason for his holding the creed is an adequate one, then, certainly, no harm can be done by investigation of it, by asking questions. if the men who hold these old creeds and defend them can give in the court of reason a perfectly good account of themselves, if they can bring satisfactory credentials, then all our questioning, all our criticism, all our investigation, cannot possibly do the creeds any harm. it will only mean that we shall end by being convinced ourselves, and shall accept the creeds freely and rationally. it has always seemed to me a very strange attitude of mind for a man to feel perfectly convinced that a certain position is sound and true, and to be angry when anybody asks a question about it. if there are good reasons for holding it, instead of calling names, why not show us the reasons? he who is afraid to have his opinions questioned, he who is angry when you ask him for evidence, to give a reason for the position that he holds, shows that he is not at all certain of it. he admits by implication that it is weak. he shows an attitude of infidelity instead of an attitude of faith, of trust. there is no position which i hold to-day that i consider so sacred that people are not at liberty to ask any questions about it they please; and, if they do not see a good reason for accepting it, i am certainly not going to be angry with them for declining to accept. the attitude of truth is that of welcome to all inquiry. it rejoices in daylight, it does not care to be protected from investigation. then there is another reason still, another point to be made in regard to this matter. people are not very likely to find the truth if they are frightened, if they are warned off, if they are told that this or that or another thing is too sacred to be investigated. i have known people over and over again in my past experience who long wished they might be free to accept some grander, nobler, more helpful view of truth, and yet have been trained and taught so long that it was wicked to doubt, that it was wicked to ask questions, that they did not dare to open their minds freely to the incoming of any grander hope. if you tell people that they may study just as widely as they please, but, when they get through, they must come back and settle down within the limits of certain pre-determined opinions, what is the use of their wider excursion? and, if you tell them that, unless they accept these final conclusions, god is going to be angry with them, they are going to injure their own immortal souls, they are threatening the welfare of the people on every hand whom they influence, how can you expect them to study and come to conclusions which are entitled to the respect of thoughtful people? i venture the truth of the statement that, if you should inquire over this country to-day, you would find that the large majority of people who have been trained in the old faith are in an attitude of fear towards modern thought. thousands of them would come to us to-day if they were not kept back by this inherited and ingrained fear as to the danger of asking questions. do i not remember my own experience of three years' agonizing battle over the great problems that were involved in these questions, afraid that i was being tempted of the devil, afraid that i was risking the salvation of my soul, afraid that i might be endangering other people whom i might influence, never free to study the bible, to study religious questions as i would study any other matter on the face of the earth on account of being haunted by this terrible dread? and, then, there is one other point. i must touch on these very briefly. the acceptance of these creeds on the part of those who do hold to them does not, after all, prevent the growth of modern thought. it does hinder it, so far as they are concerned; but the point i wish to make is this, that these creeds do not answer the purpose for which they were constructed. they are supposed to be fixed and final statements of divine truth, which are not to be questioned and not to be changed. dr. richard s. storrs, of brooklyn, the famous congregational minister, said a few years ago that the idea of progress in theology was absurd, because the truth had once for all been given to the saints in the past, and there was no possibility of progress, because progress implied change. and yet, in spite of the effort that has been made to keep the faith of the world as it was in the past, the change is coming, the change does come every day; and it puts the people who are trying to prevent the change coming in an attitude of what shall i say i do not wish to make a charge against my brethren, it puts them in a very curious attitude indeed towards the truth. they must not accept a new idea if it conflicts with the old creed, however much they may be convinced it is true. if they do accept it, then what? they must either leave the church or they must keep still about it, and remain in an attitude of appearing to believe what they really do not believe. or else they must do violence to the creed, reinterpreting it in such a way as to make it to them what the framers of it had never dreamed of. do you not see the danger that there is here of a person's disingenuous attitude towards the truth, danger to the moral fibre, danger to the progress of man? take as a hint of it the way the bible has been treated. people have said that the bible was absolutely infallible: they have taken that as a foregone conclusion; and then, when they found out beyond question that the world was not created in six days, what have they done? frankly accepted the truth? no, they have tried to twist the bible into meaning something different from what it plainly says. it expressly says days, bounded by morning and evening; but no, it must mean long periods of time. why? because science and the bible must somehow be reconciled, no matter if the bible is wrenched and twisted from its real meaning. and so with regard to the creeds. the creeds say that christ descended into hell; that is, the underworld. people come to know that there is no underworld; and, instead of frankly admitting that that statement in the creed is not correct, they must torture it out of its meaning, and make it stand for something that the framers of it had never heard of. i think it would greatly astonish the writers of the bible and the church fathers if they could wake up to-day, and find out that they meant something when they wrote those things which had never occurred to them at the time. is this quite honest? is it wise for us to put ourselves in this attitude? i wish to speak a little further in this matter as to not preventing the coming in of modern thought, and to take one illustration. look at andover seminary to-day. the andover creed was arranged for the express purpose of keeping fixed and unchangeable the belief of the church.. its founders declared that to be their purpose. they were going to establish the statement of belief, so that it should not be open to this modern criticism, which had resulted in the birth of unitarianism in new england; and, in order to make perfectly certain of it, they said that the professors who came there to teach the creed must not only be sound when they were settled, but they must be re-examined every five years. this was to prevent their changing their minds during the five years and remaining on there, teaching some false doctrine while the overseers and managers were not aware of it. so every five years the professors and teachers of andover have to reaffirm solemnly their belief in the old creed. it is not for me to make charges against them; but it is for me to make the statement that so suspicious have the overseers and managers come to be of some of the professors in the seminary that they have been tried more than once for heresy; and everybody knows that the leading professors there to-day do not believe the creed in the sense in which it was framed. and, to illustrate how this is looked upon by some of the students, let me tell you this. my brother was a graduate of andover; and not long ago he said to me that when the time came around for the professors to reaffirm their allegiance to the creed, one of the other students came into his room one day, and said, "savage, let's go up and see the professors perjure themselves." this was the attitude of mind of one of the students. this is the way he looked at it. i am not responsible for his opinion; but is it quite wise, is it best for the truth, is it for the interests of religion, to have theological students in this state of mind towards their professor? modern thought does come into the minds of men: they cannot escape it. what does it mean? it means simply a new, higher, grander revelation of god. is it wise for us to put ourselves into such a position that it shall seem criminal and evil for us to accept it? if we pledge ourselves not to learn the things we can know, then we stunt ourselves intellectually. if, after we have pledged ourselves, we accept these things and remain as we are, i leave somebody else to characterize such action, action which, in my judgment, and so far as my observation goes, is not at all uncommon. we then propose to hold ourselves free so far as a fixed and final creed is concerned, because we wish to be able to study, to find and accept the truth. there is another reason. for the sake of god, because we wish to find and come into sympathy with him, and love him and serve him, we refuse to be bound by the thoughts of the past. what do we mean by coming into a knowledge of god? let me illustrate a moment by the relation which we may sustain to another man. you do not necessarily come close to a man because you touch his elbow on the street. the people who lived in shakspere's london might not have been so near to shakspere as is mr. furness, the great shakspere critic to- day, or mr. rolfe, of cambridge. physical proximity does not bring us close to a person. we may be near to a friend who is half-way round the world: there may be sympathetic heart-beats that shall make us conscious of his presence night and day. we may be close alongside of a person, but alienated from him, misunderstanding him, and really farther away from him than the diameter of the solar system. if, then, we wish to get near to god, and to know him, we must become like him. there must be love, tenderness, unselfishness. we must have the divine characteristics and qualities; and then we shall feel his presence, know and be near him. people may find god, and still have very wrong theories about him; just as a farmer may raise a good crop without understanding much about theories of sunshine or of soil. but the man who does understand about them will be more likely to raise a good crop, because he goes about it intelligently; while the other simply blunders into it. so, if we have right thoughts about god, it is easier for us to get into sympathy with him. if we think about him as noble and sweet and grand and true and loving, we shall be more likely to respond to these qualities that call out the best and the finest feelings in ourselves. i do not say that it is absolutely necessary to have correct theories of god. there have been good men in all ages, there have been noble women in all ages, in all religions, in all the different sects of christendom. there are lovely characters among the agnostics. i have known sweet and true and fine people who thought themselves atheists. a man may be grand in spite of his theological opinions one way or the other. he may have a horrible picture of god set forth in his creed, and carry a loving and tender one in his heart. so he may be better than the god of his creed. all this is true; but, if we have, i say, right thoughts about him, high and fine ideals, we are more likely to come into close touch and sympathy with him. and, then, and here is a point i wish to emphasize and make perfectly clear, this arbitrary assumption of infallibility cultivates qualities and characteristics which are un and anti-divine. let us see what jesus had to say about this. the people of his time who represented more than any others this infallibility idea were the pharisees. they felt perfectly sure that they were right. they felt perfectly certain that they were the chosen favorites of god. there was on their part, then, growing out of this conception of the infallibility of their position, the conceit of being the chosen and special favorites of the almighty. they looked with contempt, not only upon the gentiles, who were outside of the peculiarly chosen people, but upon the publicans, upon all of their own nation who were not pharisees, and who were not scrupulously exact concerning the things which they held to be so important. what did jesus think and say about them? you remember the parable of the pharisee and the publican. jesus said that this poor sinning publican, who smote upon his breast, and said, "god be merciful to me a sinner," was the one that god looked upon with favor, not the pharisee, who thanked god that he was not as the other people were. and, if there is any class in the new testament that jesus scathes and withers with the hot lightning of his scorn and his wrath, it is these infallible people, who are perfectly right in their ideas, and who look with contempt upon people who are outside of the pale of their own inherited infallible creeds and opinions. we believe, then, that the people who are free to study the splendors of god in the universe, in human history, in human life, and free to accept all new and higher and finer ideas, are more likely to find god, and come into sympathetic and tender relations with him, than those who are bound to opinions by the supposed fixed and revealed truths of the past. we reject, then, these old-time creeds for another reason, for the sake of man. a long vista of thought and illustration stretches out before me as i pronounce these words; but i can only touch upon a point here or there. one of the most disastrous things that have happened in the history of the past and it has happened over and over again is this blocking and hindering of human advance, until by and by the tide, the growing current, becomes too strong to be held back any more; and it has swept away all barriers and devastated society, politically, socially, religiously, morally, and in every other way. and why? simply because the natural flow of human thought, the natural growth of human opinion, has been hindered artificially by the assumption of an infallibility on the part of those who have tried to keep the world from growth. suppose you teach men that certain theological opinions are identical with religion, until they believe it. the time comes when they cannot hold those opinions any more, and they break away; and they give up religion, and perhaps the sanctities of life, which they are accustomed to associate with religion. take the time of the french revolution. people went mad. they were opposed not only to the state: they were opposed to the church. they tried to abolish god, they tried to abolish the ten commandments; they tried to abolish everything that had been so long established and associated with the old regime. were the people really enemies of god? were they enemies of religion? were they enemies of truth? no: it was a caricature of god that they were fighting, it was a caricature of religion that they were opposed to. when voltaire declared that the church was infamous, it was not religion that he wished to overthrow: it was this tyranny that had been associated with the dominance of the church for so many ages. this is the result in one direction of attempting to hold back the natural growth and progress of the world. if you read the history of the church for the last fifteen hundred years until within a century or two, and by the church i mean that organization that has claimed to speak infallibly for god, you will find that it has been associated with almost everything that has hindered the growth of the world. i cannot go into details to illustrate it. it has interfered with the world's education. there is only one nation in europe to-day where education has not been wrenched out of the hands of the priesthood in the interests of man, and that even by catholics themselves; and that country is spain. it pronounced its ban on the study of the universe under the name of science. it made it a sin for galileo to discover the moons of jupiter. and catholic and protestant infallibility alike denounced newton, one of the noblest men and the grandest scientists that the world has ever seen, because in proclaiming the law of gravity, they said, he was taking the universe out of the hands of god and establishing practical atheism. so almost everything that has made the education, the political, the industrial, the social growth of the world, this infallibility idea has stood square in the way of, and done its best to hinder. take, for example, an illustration. when chloroform was discovered, the church in scotland opposed its use in cases of childbirth, because it said it was a wicked interference with the judgment god pronounced on eve after the fall. so, in almost every direction, whatever has been for the benefit of the world has been opposed in the interests of old-time ideas, until the whole thing culminated at last in this: here is this nineteenth century of ours, which has done more for the advancement of man than the preceding fifteen centuries all put together. political liberty, religious liberty, universal education, the enfranchisement and elevation of women, the abolition of slavery, temperance, almost everything has been achieved, until the world, the face of it, has been transformed. and yet pope pius ix., in an encyclical which he issued a little while before his death, pronounced, ex-cathedra and infallibly, the opinion that this whole modern society was godless. and yet, as i said, this godless modern world has done more for man and for the glory of god than the fifteen hundred years of church dominance that preceded it. for the sake of man, then, that intellectually, politically, socially, industrially, every other way, he may be free to grow, to expand, to adopt all the new ideas that promise higher help, hope, and freedom, for the sake of man, we refuse to be bound by the inherited and fixed opinions of the past. now two or three points i wish to speak of briefly, as i near the close. we are charged sometimes, because we have no creed, with having no bond of union whatever. as i said a few sundays ago, they say that we are all at loose ends because we are not fixed and bound by a definite creed. what is god's method of keeping a system like this solar one of ours together? does he fence it in? does he exert any pressure from outside? or does he rather place at the centre a luminous and attractive body, capable of holding all the swinging and singing members of the system in their orbits, as they play around this great source of life and of light? god's method is the method of illumination and attraction. that is the method which we have adopted. instead of fencing men in and telling them to climb over that fence at their peril, we have placed a great, luminous, attractive truth at the centre, the pursuit of truth, the love of truth, the search for god, the desire to benefit and help on mankind. and we trust to the power of these great central truths to attract and keep in their orbits all the free activities of the thousands of minds and hearts that make up our organization. then there is one more point. suppose we wanted an infallible creed; suppose it was ever so important; suppose the experience of the world had proved that it was very desirable indeed that we should have one. what are we going to do about it? i suppose that men in other departments of life than the ecclesiastical would like an infallible guide. men engaged in business would like an infallible handbook that would point them the way to success. the gold hunters would like an infallible guide to the richest ores. navigators on the sea would like infallible methods of manning and sailing their ships. the farmer would like to know that he was following an infallible method to success. it would be very desirable in many respects; it would save us no end of trouble. but it is admitted that in these other departments of life, whether we want infallible guides or not, we do not have them. and i think, if you will look at the matter a little deeply and carefully, you will become persuaded that it would not be the best for us if we could. men not only wish to gain certain ends, but, if they are wise, they wish more than that, to cultivate and develop and unfold themselves, which they can only do by study, by mistakes, by correcting mistakes, by finding out through experience what is true and what is false. in this process of study and experience they find themselves, something infinitely more important than any external fact or success which they may discover or achieve. so i believe that a similar thing is true in the religious life. it might be a great saving of trouble if we were sure we had an infallible guide. i am inclined to think that a great many persons who go into the roman catholic church, in this modern time, go there because they are tired of thinking, and wish to shift the responsibility of it on to some one else. it is tiresome, it is hard work. sometimes we would like to escape it: we would like infallible guides. but i have studied the world with all the care that i could; and i have never been able to find the materials out of which i could construct an infallible guide, if i wanted it ever so much. whether it is important or not to have infallible teaching in the theological realm, there is no such thing as infallibility that is accessible to us; and i, for one, do not believe that it would be best for us if there were. god is treating us more wisely and kindly than, if we were able, we would treat ourselves; because it is not the discovery of this or that particular fact or truth that is so important as is the development of our own intellectual and moral and spiritual natures in the search for truth. lessing said a very wise thing when he declared that, if god should offer him the perfect truth in one hand and the privilege of seeking for it in the other, he should accept the privilege of search as the nobler and more valuable gift, because, in this seeking, we develop ourselves, we cultivate the divine, and work our natures over into the likeness of god. and now at the end i wish simply to say that god has given us the better thing in letting us freely and earnestly and simply investigate and look after the truth, cultivating ourselves in the process, and being wrought over ever more and more into the likeness of the divine. and i wish also to say, for the comfort of those who may think that this lack of infallible guides is a serious matter, it may astonish you to have me say it, that there is not a single matter of any practical importance in our moral and religious life concerning which there is any doubt whatsoever. if anybody tells you that he is not living a religious life or not living a moral life, for the lack of light and guidance, do not believe him. what are the things that are in question? what are the things of which we are sure? take, for example, the matter of biblical criticism, as to who wrote the book of chronicles, as to whether deuteronomy was written by moses or compiled in the time of king josiah. are there any great spiritual problems waiting for those questions to be settled? do you need to have that matter made clear before you know whether you ought to be an honest man in your business, whether you ought to judge charitably of a friend who has gone astray, whether you ought to be helpful towards your neighbors, whether you ought to be kind to your wife, and whether you ought to lovingly train and cultivate your children? take another of the great questions, as to the authorship of the gospel of john. i shall be immensely interested in the settlement of that if the time ever comes when it is settled; but it would be a purely critical interest that i should have. i am not going to wait until that is settled before i lead a religious life. i am not going to let that stand in the way of my helping on the progress of the world. i tell you, friends, that these matters that are in doubt, that need an infallibility to settle them, are not the practical matters at all. we look off into the vast universe around us, and question about god. is he personal? can we have the old ideas about him? one thing is settled: we know we are the product of and in the presence of an eternal order, and that knowing and keeping the laws of the universe mean life and happiness, but the opposite means death. that is the practical part of it. we know that the power that is in this universe is making gradually through the ages for righteousness; and we know that the righteous and helpful life is the only manly life for us to lead, for our own sake, for the sake of those we can touch and influence. are we going to wait for criticism to settle metaphysical problems before we do anything about these great practical matters? whatever your theory about jesus may be, you can at least be like him, and wait; and, when you see him, you will love him, and know the truth about him, if you cannot before. matthew arnold, an agnostic, has put into two or three lines, which i wish to read now at the end, what might well be the creed of the person who doubts so much that he thinks nothing is settled. if you cannot say any more than this, here is all that is absolutely necessary to the very noblest life: "hath man no second life? pitch this one high. sits there no judge in heaven our sin to see? more strictly, then, the inward judge obey. was christ a man like us? ah i let us try if we, then, too, can be such men as he." the real significance of the present religious discussion. science tells us that the law of growth is embodied in the phrase, "the struggle for life and the survival of the fittest." as we look beneath the surface in any department of human endeavor, analyze things a little carefully, we discover that this contest is going on. we know that it is not confined to the lower forms of life or the order of the inanimate world. it is a universal law. we are not always conscious of it; but, when we do think and study, we discover it as an unescapable fact. in the religious world, for example, between the different thoughts and theories which are held among men as solutions of the problems of life we find this contest going on. here, again, it is not always noticed; but in the mind of any man who thinks, who reads, who reflects, this process is apparent. this view is considered, another view mentioned by somebody else is set over against it, and the claims of the two theories are brought up for judgment. and so there goes on perpetually this debate. now and again it comes to the surface, and attracts popular attention. we have been in the midst of an experience of this kind for the last two or three weeks here in new york city. but the thing i want you to note is -- and that is the great lesson i have in mind this morning that all of this superficial discussion of one point or another is only an indication of a larger, deeper contest. when, for example, men are debating as to the infallibility or inerrancy of the old testament, as to the story of the creation as told in genesis, as to the nature and work of jesus, as to the future destiny of the race, when they are discussing any one of these particular problems, they are dealing with matters that are really superficial. underneath these there is a larger problem; and to this problem and its probable issues i wish to call your attention this morning. there are two great world theories, complete each in itself, both of them thinkable, mutually exclusive, one of which only can be true, and one of which must finally become dominant in the educated and free thought of the world. these two theories i wish to place face to face before you this morning, call your attention to some of their special features and note the claims they have on our acceptance. before doing this, however, i wish you to note that there are indications of a dual tendency on the part of the human mind which has not been manifested in the development of these two theories alone, but which has had illustrations in other directions and in other times. in the early traditions of greece and rome you find two tendencies on the part of the mind of man. there was, first, an old-time tradition which placed the golden age of humanity away back in the past. the people dreamed of a time when saturn, the father of gods and men, lived on the earth, and governed directly his children and his people. in that happy time there was no disease, no pain, no poverty. there were no class distinctions. there were no wars. the evil of the world was unknown. that was the golden age which a certain set of thinkers then placed far back in the past. they told how that age was succeeded by a bronze age, a poorer condition of affairs, how the gods left the earth, and ill contentions and evils of every kind began to afflict the world. this was succeeded by the age of brass, that by the age of iron; and so the poor old world was supposed to be getting worse and worse, lower and lower, from one epoch of time to another. but also among these same people there were another set of traditions, illustrated sufficiently for our purpose by the story of prometheus. according to this the first age of humanity was its worst and poorest and lowest age. the people lived in abject poverty and misery. they were even neglected on the part of the gods, who did not seem to care for them, but treated them with contempt. prometheus is represented as pitying their evil estate, caring more for them than the gods did; and so he steals the celestial fire, and comes down to the world and presents it to men, and so helps them to begin civilization, a period of prosperity and progress. for this he is punished by the gods. the point i wish you to note is that even among the greeks and the romans there were two types of mind, one of which placed the golden age in the past, and the other of which placed it in the future as the goal of man's endeavor and growth. a precisely similar thing we find in the old testament, so that these two types of mind appear among the hebrews. in one of these we find again the golden age, the perfect condition of things, placed at the beginning. there was a garden, and man and woman were perfect in it. there was no labor, no toil, no pain, no sorrow, no fear, no trouble of any kind. but that was followed by sin, evil, entering the world, by their being driven out; and so the world has again been going from bad to worse, as the ages have passed by. on the other hand, among the hebrews, as illustrated in the writings of the great prophets, the master minds of the hebrew race, there is the opposite belief manifested. there is no fall of man, no perfect condition of things, no golden age at the beginning, in the prophets. there is none in the teaching of jesus. rather do they look forward with kindling eye and beating heart to some grander thing that is to be. here is this dual tradition, then, in the world, in different parts of the world, this dual way of looking at the problem of life. now i wish to place before you the two great contrasted theories of the universe. in presenting that which has been dominant for the last two or three thousand years, two thousand, perhaps, speaking roughly, i am quite well aware that i shall have to seem to tell you what you perfectly well know, what i have said on other occasions; but it is necessary for me to run over it, and i will do so as briefly as i can, setting it before you in outline as a whole, so that you may see it in contrast with the other theory which i shall then endeavor to set forth also as a whole. according to that theory of the world, then, which lies at the foundation, the old-time and still generally accepted theory of christendom, the world was created in the year b.c. it was created in a week's time. this was the general teaching until thinkers were compelled to accept another theory by the advances of modern investigation. the world was created inside of a week. god got through, pronounced it good, and rested. then in a short period of time we do not know how long evil entered this world which god had pronounced perfect. satan, a real being, the leader of the hosts of the fallen angels, the traditional enemy of god, who had fought him even in his own heaven and been cast out, invades this fair earth. he seduces our first parents, gets them to commit a sin against god which makes them his enemies, turns them into rebels against his just and holy government. the world, then, is fallen. now from that day to this the one effort on the part of god, according to this theory, has been to deliver the world from this lost condition. jonathan edwards, for example, published a book called "the history of redemption." he conceived the entire history of the world under that title, because the history of the world, according to this theory, has been the history of the effort of god to deliver man from the effects of the fall. now let us note the story as it proceeds a little further. the world exists for i think i have a date here which may interest you , years, god meantime doing everything he could, by sending angels and special messengers and teaching the people; and he had accomplished so little that the world was in such a condition that he was compelled to drown it. so came the flood. after that, he chooses one family, one little family and the descendants of that family, one little people, and bends all his energies to the education and training of that people,-- a small people inhabiting a country on the eastern coast of the mediterranean sea just about as large as the state of massachusetts. for more than two thousand years he devotes himself to the training of this people. how does he succeed here? he sends his messengers again, his angels, his prophets, one after another. he inspires a certain number of men to write a book to deliver his will to the people, fallen into such condition that they are incapable of discovering the truth for themselves. but, after all his efforts, they are so far from the truth that, when the second person of the trinity appears, they have nothing to do with him except to put him to death. after that, god sends the third person of the trinity, the holy spirit, to organize his church, spread his truth, convert men, bring them into the church, and so fit them to be saved. and, after two thousand years of that kind of effort, what is the result? they tell us that not more than a third part of the inhabitants of the world have heard anything about it, that the majority of those who have heard about it reject it. mr. moody told us last year that in this country, which we love to think of as the most favored and highly civilized and intelligent country in the world, out of seventy millions of inhabitants, not more than thirty millions ever see the inside of any kind of church. i do not vouch for the accuracy of the statistics. i wish to impress upon you the result of this theory of this six thousand years of endeavor on the part of god to bring his own children to a knowledge of his own truth. the upshot of it is that the few, the minority, will be saved, and the great majority eternally lost. now here is one world theory, one scheme of world history which i wish you to hold clearly and as definitely as possible in your minds, while i place alongside of it another theory. according to this other, god did not suddenly create the world in a week or in a hundred thousand years. it is a story of continuous and eternal creation. as jesus said, with fine and noble insight, "my father worketh hitherto." he did not recognize that god was resting on any day or through any period of time. the world, then, has always been in process of creation. the same forces at work in accordance with substantially the same laws. the world has been millions of years in this process; and the process all around us, if we choose to open our eyes and note it, is still going on with all its wonder and divinity. and we know, as we study the heavens above us, or around us rather, with our telescopes, that there are worlds and systems of worlds in process of creation on every hand. we are permitted to look into the divine workshop and observe the divine method. the world, then, is always in process of creation. this is the first point in the new theory. it follows, of course, from this that we are to hold the story of the antiquity of the earth, the earth millions of years old, instead of six thousand or ten thousand. and then, in the third place, it tells us the story of the antiquity of the human race. all scholars, for example, as bearing on this i will give you just this one illustration, know that there was a civilization in egypt, wide- spread, highly developed, with nobody knows how many ages of growth behind it, there was this civilization in egypt before the world was created according to the popular chronology that has been generally received until within a few years. we know that man has been on the earth hundreds of thousands of years. this is the next point in that story. in the next place, they tell us a wondrous tale of the origin and nature of man, tracing his natural development from lower forms of life. when i say "natural," i do not wish you to think for one moment that i leave out the divinity; for, according to this story of the world which i am hinting and outlining now, god is infinitely nearer, more wonderfully in contact with us, than he ever was in the old. natural, then, but divine at every step, so that we are seeing god face to face, if we but think of it, and are feeling his touch every moment of our lives. no fall of man, then, on this theory. no invasion of this world by any form of evil or any evil person from without. this story of the fall of man came into the world undoubtedly to account in some philosophical fashion for the existence of pain, of evil, and of death. we account for it on this new theory much more naturally, rationally, more honorably for god, more hopefully for man. the history of the world, then, since man began has not been by any means a history of universal progression. evolution, however much it may be misunderstood and misrepresented, does not mean the necessity of progress on the part of any one person or any one people, any more, for example, than the growth of the human body is inconsistent with the fact that cells and composite parts of the body are in process of decay and dissolution every hour, every moment of our lives. nations grow, advance, if they comply with the laws, the conditions, of growth and advance; and, if not, they die out and disappear. and so is it of individuals. but, on the other hand, in the presence of the loving, lifting, leading god, humanity in the larger sense has been advancing from the beginning of human history until to-day; and the grade, dim glimpses of which we gain as we look out toward the future, is still up and still on. according to this theory of the universe, there does not need to be any stupendous breaking in of god into his own world after any miraculous fashion. we do not need an infallible guide in religion any more than anywhere else, unless we are in danger of eternal loss because of an intellectual mistake. we do not need any stupendous miracle to reconcile god to his own world; for he has always been reconciled. we do not need any miraculous bridging of any mythical gulf; for there never has been any gulf. and the outcome, not as we look forward are we haunted by fearful anticipations of darkness and evil; as we listen, we do not ever hear the clanking of chains; as we look, we know that the dimness that hangs over the coming time is not caused by "the smoke of the torment that ascendeth up forever and ever." it is a story of eternal hope for every race, for every child of man and child of god. here are these two theories, then, two schemes of the universe and of human history. which of them shall we accept? i wish you to note now, and to note with a little care, that you cannot rationally accept a part of one theory and a part of the other, and so make up a patchwork to suit yourselves. take, for example, the one question, is man lost or is he not? he is not half lost or sort of lost: he is either lost or he is not lost. which is true? if he is not "lost," then he does not need to be "saved." he may need something else; but he does not need that, for the two correspond and match each other. let us think, then, a little clearly in regard to this matter, and remember that the outcome of the conflict between these two theories must be the supremacy of either one or the other. now, before i come to any more fundamental and earnest treatment of the subject, let me call your attention to certain things that are happening to the old theory. how much of that old theory is intact to-day? how much of it is held even by those who, being scholars and thinkers, still hold their allegiance to the old-time theology? let us see. the story of the sudden and finite creation of the world is completely gone. nobody holds that now who gives it any attention. they have stretched the six days of the week, even those who hold the accuracy of the genesis account, into uncounted periods of time. so that is gone. the antiquity of man is conceded by everybody who has a right to have and express an opinion; that is, by everybody who has given it any study. every competent and free scholar knows to-day that the story of the fall of man and the whole eden story, is a babylonian or a persian legend that came into the life of the jews about the time of their captivity, and was not known of till then among them, and did not take hold on the leading and highest minds of their own people. and there are, as you know, hundreds, if not thousands of clergymen in all the churches to- day who are ready to concede that the story of eden is poetry or legend or tradition: they no longer treat it as serious history. and yet, as i have said a good many times, they go on as though nothing had happened, although the foundation of their house has been removed. only theories which stand in the air can thus defy the law of gravitation. nobody to-day who has a right to have an opinion believes that god ever drowned the world. that is gone. as to the question as to whether we have an infallible book to guide us in religious matters, there are very few scholars in any church to-day, so far as my investigations have led, who hold any such opinion. that is gone; and the bible, the old testament, at any rate is coming to be recognized, not as infallible revelation, but as ancient literature, immensely interesting, full of instruction, but not as an unquestioned guide in any department of life. there are many among the nominally old churches who are coming to hold a very different theory concerning jesus, his life, his death, and the effect of his death on the salvation of man. more reasonable ideas are prevailing here. in every direction also there are thousands on thousands who are becoming freed from that horrible incubus of fear as they look out towards the future. as you note then, point after point of this old scheme of the universe is disappearing, being superseded by something else; until i am astonished, as i converse with friends in the other churches, to find how little of it is really left, how little of it men are ready, out and out, to defend. in conversation with an episcopal clergyman a short time ago on theological questions, we agreed so well that i laughingly said i saw no reason why i should not become a clergyman in the episcopal church. now, friends, what i wish you to note is this: that there is not one single point in this old scheme of the universe that can be reasonably defended to-day. it is passing away from intelligent, cultivated human thought. and note another thing: it is a scheme which is a discredit to the thought of god. it is unjust. it is dishonorable in its moral and religious implications. it is pessimistic and hopeless in its outlook for the race. it does not explain the problems of human nature and human experience half as well as the other theory does, even if it could be demonstrated as truth. now let us look at the other. the other theory is magnificent in its proportions. it is grand in its conception and in its age-long sweep and range. it is worthy of the grandest thought of god we can frame; and we cannot imagine any increase or heightening or deepening of that thought which would reach beyond the limits of this conception of the universe, magnificent in its thought of god. and, instead of being pessimistic and hopeless in its outlook for man, it is full of hope, of life, of inspiration, of cheer, something for which we well may break out into songs of gladness as we contemplate. and, then, it is true. there is not one single feature of it, or point in it, that has not in the main been scientifically demonstrated to be god's truth. i make this statement, and challenge the contradiction of the world. whatever breaks there may be in the evidence for this second theory that i have outlined, every single scrap and particle of evidence that there is in the universe is in its favor; and there is not one single scrap or particle of evidence in favor of the other. as i say, i challenge the contradiction of the scholarly world to that statement. it is true then. being true, it is god's truth, god's theory of things, the outline of human history as god has laid it down for us; and, as we trace it, like kepler, we may say, "o god, i think over again thy thoughts after thee." now i wish you to note one or two things concerning this a little further. there are a great may persons who shrink from accepting new ideas because they are haunted with the fear that in some way something precious, something sweet, something noble, something inspiring that they have associated with the past, is going to be lost. but think, friends. when the ptolemaic theory of the universe gave way to the copernican, not only did the copernican have the advantage of being true, but not one single star in heaven was put out or even dimmed its light. all of them looked down upon us with an added magnificence and a fresher glow, because we felt at last we were standing face to face with the truth of things, and not with a fallible theory of man. do not be afraid, then, that any of the sanctities, any of the devoutness, any of the tenderness, any of the sweet sentiments, any of the loves, any of the charities, any of the worships of the past, are in danger of being lost. why, these, friends, are the summed-up result of all the world's finest and sweetest achievement up to this hour; and our theories are only vessels in which we carry the precious treasure. i am interested in having you see the truth of this universe, because i believe you will worship god more devoutly and love man more truly and consecrate yourselves more unreservedly to the highest and noblest ends, when you can think thoughts of god that kindle aspiration and worship, and thoughts of men as children of god that make it grandly worth your while to live and die for them. do you think there is going to be a poorer religion than there has been in the past? i look to the time when we shall have a church as wide as the horizon, domed by the blue, lighted by the sun, the sun of righteousness, the eternal truth of the father; a church in which all men shall be recognized as brothers, of whatever sect or whatever religion, in which all shall kneel and chant or lisp their worship according as they are able, the worship of the one father, cheered and inspired by the one universal and eternal hope for man. do not be afraid of the truth, then, for fear something precious is going to be lost out of human life. evolution never gives up anything of the past that is worth keeping. it simply carries it on, and moulds it into ever higher and finer shapes for the service of man. i intimated a moment ago? i wish to touch on this briefly for the sake of clearness that man, according to this new theory, does not need to be saved, in the theological sense, of course, i mean, because he is not lost. he has never been far away from the father, never been beyond the reach of his hand, never been beyond the touch of his love and care. what does he need? he needs to be trained, he needs to be educated, he needs to be developed for man is just as naturally religious as he is musical or artistic, as he is interested in problems of government or economics, or any of the great problems that touch the welfare of the world. man needs churches, then, or societies of those interested in the higher life of the time, needs services, needs all these things that kindle and train and develop and lift him up out of the animal into the spiritual and divine nature which is in every one of us. so that none of the worships, none of the religious forms of the world that are of any value, are ever going to be cast aside or left behind. but there is one very important point that i must deal with for just a little while. i will be as brief as i can. i have been very much surprised to note certain things that have come out in the recent religious discussions. the editor of the brooklyn eagle, for example, has deprecated all talk in regard to matters of this sort, saying, in effect: what difference does it make? what is involved that is of any importance? why not let everybody worship and believe as he pleases? a writer in the new york times? i think perhaps more than one, but one specially i have in mind has said substantially the same thing. it does not make any difference. let people worship as they please, let them believe as they please, let them go their own way. what difference does it make? friends, it makes no difference at all, provided there is no such thing in the world as religious truth. if there is, it makes all difference. let us take this "don't care" and "no matter" theory for a moment, and in the light of it consider a few of the grandest lives of the world. if it makes no difference what a man believes in religion or how he worships or what he tries to do, how does it happen that we unitarians, for example, glorify theodore parker, and count him a great moral and intellectual hero? why should he have made himself so unpopular as to be cast out even of the unitarian fellowship? was he contending for nothing? was he a fool? was he making himself uncomfortable over imaginary distinctions? perhaps; but, then, why are we foolish enough to honor him? why is it that we glorify channing, who at an earlier period was cast out of the best religious society of the world for what he believed to be a great principle? why is it to-day that we lift john wesley on such a lofty pedestal of admiration? he left the church of england, or was cast out of it, went among the poor, preached a great religious reform, led a magnificent crusade, teaching a higher and grander spiritual religion, a religion of heart, of life, of character, against the mere formalism of the church of his time. was he contending about airy nothings without local habitation or a name? if so, why are we so foolish as to admire him? go back further to martin luther, putting himself in danger of his life, standing against banded europe, and saying, "here i stand: god help me, i can do no otherwise!" what is the use? what did he do it for? if it made no difference whether a man worshipped god intelligently or according to the things luther thought all wrong, what was the difference? what was he contending about, and why does the world bow down to him with reverence and honor? why are we fools enough to honor the men who were burned at oxford? why do we honor to-day the line of saints and martyrs? why do we look upon savonarola with such admiration? to go back still farther, why was it that the early christians were ready to suffer torture, to be racked, to be persecuted, to be thrown into kettles of boiling oil, to be cast to the wild beasts in the arena? were they contending for nothing at all? if it makes no difference, why were they casting themselves away in this quixotic and foolish fashion and, if there was nothing involved, how is it that these names shine as stars in the religious firmament of the world's worship? go to the time of jesus himself. a young nazarene, he leaves his home in nazareth, joins the fortunes of john the baptist. after john the baptist had been fool enough to get his head cut off contending for his theory, jesus takes up his work, dares to speak against the temple, dares to challenge the righteousness of the most righteous men of their time, dares at last to stand so firmly that he is taken out one afternoon and hung upon a tree on the hill beyond the walls of the city, the one supreme piece of folly in the history of the world from the "does not make any difference" point of view. is there any truth involved? does it touch the living or the welfare of the world? if not, why, then, are these looked upon as the grandest figures since the world began? are all men fools for admiring them, except these wiseacres who stand for the theory that it makes no difference and who ought not to admire them at all? suppose you apply the principle in other departments of life. we had a tremendous issue in this city and country last fall over the financial question. would it have made any difference which side won? if it was just as well one way as the other, why not let the people who clamored for silver have silver, those who wanted greenbacks have greenbacks, and those who desired gold have gold? what was the use of troubling about it? we thought there were principles involved. take it in the economic world, the individualist here with his theory, the socialist here with his; theories outlined like those in edward bellamy's "looking backward"; a hundred advancers of these different schemes, each contending for mastery. and we feel that the welfare of civilization is at stake; and we stand for our great principles. take it in politics. what difference does it make whether the theories embodied in the reign of the czar of russia prevail, or these here in the united states which we are so foolish as to laud and pride ourselves so much about? what did we have a civil war for, wasting billions of money and hundreds of thousands of lives? are these great human contests about nothing at all? friends, think one moment. either man is a child of god or he is not. man fell at the beginning of his history, and came under the wrath and curse of god, or he did not. god has sent angels, breaking into his natural order of the world, or he has not. he has created an infallible book or he has not. he has organized an infallible church that has authority to guide and teach the world or he has not. he himself came down to earth in the form of a man once and for all, and was crucified, dead and buried and ascended into heaven, or he did not. these are questions of historic fact. does it make no difference what we believe about them? if man is a fallen being, condemned to eternal death, and god has provided only one way for his escape and salvation, then it makes an infinite and eternal difference as to whether we know it or believe it or act on it or not. if the majority of the human race is doomed to eternal torture unless it escapes through certain prescribed conditions, does it make any difference whether we know it or not? and, if he is not so doomed, does it make no difference to the heart and hope, the life, the cheer, the courage and inspiration of man, whether or not we lift from the brain and the heart this horrible incubus of dread and fear? here are all these churches with their wealth, their intelligence, their enthusiasm, their inspiration, ready to do something for humanity. does it make any difference whether they are doing the right thing for it or not? we could revolutionize the world if we could be guided by intelligence, and find out what man really needs, and devote ourselves to the accomplishment of what that is. the waste, the waste, the waste of money and thought and energy and time and inspiration poured into wrong channels, unguided by intelligence, directed towards things that do not need to be done, and away from things that do need to be done! these are the questions involved in discussions as to what god is and has done and is going to do with his world. the one thing we need, then, almost more than all others just now, is to be led by the truth, and have the truth make us free from the errors and the burdens of the past, so that we may place ourselves truly at the disposal of god for the service of our fellows. o star of truth down-shining, through clouds of doubt and fear, i ask but 'neath your guidance my pathway may appear. however long the journey, how hard soe'er it be, though i be lone and weary, lead on, i'll follow thee. i know thy blessed radiance can never lead astray, however ancient custom may tread some other way. e'en if through untrod desert or over trackless sea, though i be lone and weary, lead on, i'll follow thee. the bleeding feet of martyr thy toilsome road have trod; but fires of human passion may lead the way to god. then, though my feet should falter, while i thy beams can see, though i be lone and weary, lead on, i'll follow thee. though loving friends forsake me or plead with me in tears, though angry foes may threaten to shake my soul with fears, still to my high allegiance i must not faithless be, through life or death, forever lead on, i'll follow thee. doubt and faith-both holy. the object of all thinking is the discovery of truth. and truth for us, what is that? it is the reality of things as related to us. there has been a good deal of metaphysical discussion first and last as to what things are "in themselves." it seems to me that this, if it were possible to find it out, might be an interesting matter, might satisfy our curiosity, but is of absolutely no practical importance to us. i do not believe that we can find out what things are in themselves, in the first place; and i do not believe that, if we could, it would be of any service to us. what we want to know is what things are as related to us, as touching us, as bearing upon our life, upon our practical affairs. once more: there has been a good deal of discussion as to whether the universe is really what it appears to be to us. they tell us that it is quite another thing from the point of view of other creatures, to beings differently constituted from ourselves. again, all this may be. it might be interesting to me, for example, to look at the world from the point of view of the fly or of the bird or some one of the animals; but, again, while it might satisfy my curiosity, it could be of no practical importance to me. it might be very interesting to me to know how the universe looks from the point of view of an angel. but, so long as i am not an angel, but a man, what i need to know is what the universe is as related to man. so truth, i say, then, is the reality of things as related to us. i must make another remark here, in order perfectly to clear the way. philosophers and scientific men, a certain class of them, are perpetually warning us of the dangers of being anthropomorphic. some one has said, "man never knows how anthropomorphic he is." this means, as you know, that we look at things from the point of view of ourselves. we see things as men, as anthropoi. this has been erected in certain quarters into a good deal of a bugbear in the way of thinking. we are told we can never know the universe really, because we shape everything into our own likeness, we are anthropomorphic, we look at everything from the point of view of men. i grant the charge; but, instead of being frightened by it, i accept it with content. how else should we look at things except from the point of view of men, since we are men? we cannot look at them in any other way. let us be, then, anthropomorphic. the only thing we need to guard against is this: we must not assume that we have exhausted the universe, and that we know it all. this is the evil of a certain type of anthropomorphism. but i cannot understand why it is important for us to be anything else but anthropomorphic. i want to know how things look to a man, what things are to a man, how things affect a man, how i am to deal with things, being a man. this is the only matter, let me repeat again, which is of any practical importance to us, until we become something other than men. truth, then, the truth that we desire to find, is the reality of things as related to us. now doubt and faith are attitudes of mind, and are neither good nor bad in themselves, either of them. they are of value only as they help us in the discovery of this reality about which i have been speaking. if a certain type of doubt stands in our way in seeking for truth, then that doubt so far is evil. if a certain something, called faith, stands in the way of our seeking frankly and fearlessly for the truth, that is evil. if -doubt helps us to find truth, it is good: if faith helps us to -find truth, it is good. but the only use of either of them is to help us discover and live the truth. the attitude of the church and by the church i mean the historic church of the past towards doubt and faith is well known to us. it has condemned doubt almost universally as something evil, sinful. it has extolled faith as something almost universally good. but in my judgment and i will ask you when i get through, perhaps, to consider as to whether you do not agree with me the trouble with the human mind up to the present time has not been a too great readiness to doubt: it has been a too great inclination to believe. there has been too much of what has been called perhaps by the time i am through you will think miscalled faith; and there has been too little of honest, fearless, earnest doubt. this is perfectly natural, when you consider how the world begins, and the steps by which it advances. let us take as an illustration the state of mind of a child. a child at first does not doubt, does not doubt anything. it is ready to believe almost anything that father, mother, nurse, playmate, may say to it. and why? in the first place it has had no experience yet of anything but the truth being told it; and in the next place it lives in a world where there are no canons or standards of probability. in the child- world there are no laws, there are no impossibilities, there is nothing in the way of anything happening. the child mind does not say, in answer to some statement, why, this does not seem reasonable. the child's reason is not yet developed into any practical activity. the child does not say, why, this cannot be, because there is such a force or such a law that would be contravened by it. the child knows nothing about these forces or laws: it is a sort of a jack- and-the-beanstalk world. the beanstalk can grow any number of feet over night in the world in which the child lives. anything is possible. if father and mother and nurse tell the child about santa claus coming down the chimney with a pack of toys on his back, it does not occur to the child to note the fact that the chimney flue is no more than six inches in diameter, and that santa claus and his pack could not possibly pass through such an opening. all this is beyond the range or thought of the stage of development at which the child has arrived. so in the childhood world. as i said, anything may happen. but you will note, beautiful, sunny, lovely as this childhood world is as a phase of experience, as a stage of development, sweet as may be the memory of it, yet, if the child is ever to grow to manhood, is ever to be anything, ever to do anything, it must outgrow this jack-and-the- beanstalk world, this santa claus world, this world in which anything may happen, and must begin to doubt, begin to question, begin to test things, to prove things, find out what is real and what is unreal, what is true and what is untrue, must measure itself against the realities of things, learn to recognize the real forces and the laws according to which they operate, so as to deal with them, obey them, make them serve him, enable him to create character and to create a new type of civilization, new things on the face of the earth. now what is true of each individual child has been true of the race. the world started in childhood; and for thousands of years it believed very easily, it believed altogether too much for its good, it believed altogether too readily. naturally, perhaps, necessary in that stage of its development; but so long as it remained in that stage there was no possibility of its becoming master of the earth. note, for example, the state of mind of the old hebrews, i use them merely as an illustration, because you are familiar with their story as told in the old testament. similar things are true of every race on the face of the earth. they knew nothing about the real nature of this universe. they knew nothing about natural forces working in accordance with what we call natural laws. consequently, they lived in a child- world, a world of magic and miracle, a world in which anything might happen. it did not trouble one of the people of that time to be told that, in answer to the prayer of one of the prophets, an axe-head which had sunk in the water rose and floated on the surface. there were no natural laws in his mind contradicted by an asserted fact like that. it never occurred to him to be troubled about it. there was nothing very startling to him in being told that the sun stood still for an hour or two to enable a general to finish a battle in which he was engaged. he did not know enough about the universe to see what tremendous consequences would be involved in the possibility of a thing like that. he was not troubled when you told him that a man had been swallowed by a great fish, and had lived for three days and three nights in its stomach, and had come out uninjured. there was no improbability in it to him. simply, a question as to whether god had chosen to have the fish large enough so that it could swallow him. to be told again that a human body that could eat food and digest it, a body like ours, might rise into the air and pass out of sight into some invisible heaven, not very far away, there was nothing incredible about it. he knew nothing about the atmosphere, limited in its range so that it would be impossible to breathe beyond a certain distance from the planet. he knew nothing about the intense cold that would make life impossible just a little way above the surface. the world in which our forefathers lived until modern times was just this magic, jack-and-the-beanstalk world, a world without any impossibilities in it, without any improbabilities in it. all this thought of the true and the untrue, the possible and the impossible, the probable and the improbable, is the result of the fact that man has grown up, has left his childhood behind him, has begun to think, has begun to study, has begun to search for reality, to find out the nature of the world in which he lives, the forces with which he must deal, to understand the universe at least in some narrow range, measured by his so-far experience. the world, then, until modern times has believed too readily, has accepted things too easily. let us note, for example, what have been called by way of pre-eminence the ages of faith, the middle ages, the age, say, from the seventh or eighth century until the thirteenth or fourteenth. what was characteristic of those ages? were they grand, noble? they were ages of ignorance, of superstition, of cruelty, of immorality, of poverty, of tyranny, of degradation. almost everything existed that men would no longer bear to-day; and hardly any of the grand things that characterize modern civilization had then been heard of. where did this modern civilization of ours begin? did it ever occur to you that it began when men began to doubt? it began, we say, with the renaissance. what was the renaissance? the renaissance was the birth of doubt, the birth of question, the demand on the part of men, who began to wake up and think, for evidence. it was the beginning of the scientific age, the birth of the scientific spirit which has renovated, re- created, uplifted the world. men began to think, to look about them, and to prove all things. and instead of holding fast all things, as they had been doing in the past, they began to hold fast only the things which they found by experience, and after testing and trial, to be good. here began, then, the civilization of the world; and all that is finest and highest in industry, in education, in discovery, in the whole external civilization of the world, came in with the coming of this spirit that questions and that asks for proof. i do not wish you to understand me as supposing that all kinds of doubt are good, equally good. the church, as i said a little while ago, has been accustomed to teach us that doubt was wrong; and there are certain kinds of doubt that are morally wrong, certain kinds of doubt that are disastrous to the highest and finest life of the world. i wish now to analyze a little and define and make clear these distinctions, that you may see the kind of doubt which is evil and the kind of doubt which is good. there are doubts which spring out of the fact that men, under the influence of personal interest, as they suppose, or strong desire, wish to follow certain courses, wish to walk in certain paths; and they doubt and question the laws, moral or mental, religious or what not, which stand in their way, which would prohibit their having their will. as an illustration of what i mean, suppose a man is engaged in a certain kind of business, or wishes to manage his business in a certain kind of way. he suspects, if he stops and thinks about it, that the interests of other people may be involved, that the way in which he wants to conduct his business is a selfish way, that the interests of other people may be injured, that the world as a whole may not be as well off; but it seems to be for his own advantage. now it is very difficult, indeed, for you to persuade a man that he ought to do right under such circumstances. he is ready to doubt and question as to whether these laws of right are imperative, whether they are divine, whether they may not be waived one side in the interest of the thing which he desires to do. so you must guard yourself very carefully, no matter what the department of life may be that you are facing, if you find yourself doubting under the impulse of your own wishes, if you are trying to argue yourself into the belief that you may be permitted to do something which you very much want to do. be suspicious of your doubts, then, and remember that probably they are wrong. great moral questions may be involved, and doubt may mean wreck here. there is another field where doubt is dangerous and presumably an evil. you will find most people, in regard to any question which they have considered or which has touched them seriously, with their minds already made up. they have some sort of a persuasion about it, they have a theory which they have accepted; and, if you bring them a truth with ever such overwhelming credentials which clashes with this preconceived idea or prejudice, the chances are that it would be met with doubt, with denial, not a clear-cut, intelligent, well- balanced doubt, but a doubt that springs out of the unwillingness that a man feels to reconstruct his theory. let me give you an illustration of what i mean, and this away off in another department of life from our own, so that it will not clash with any of your particular prejudices. sir isaac newton won a great and world-wide renown, and magnificently deserved, by his grand discovery of the law of gravity. you will see, then, how natural it was for people to pay deference to his opinion, to be prejudiced in favor of his conclusions. it was perfectly natural and, within certain limits, perfectly right. sir isaac newton not only propounded this law of gravity, but he propounded a theory of light which the world has since discovered to be wrong. but it was universally accepted because it was his. it became the accepted scientific theory of the time. by and by a man, unknown up to that time, by the name of young, studied newton's theory, and became convinced that it was wrong; and he propounded another theory, the one which to- day is universally accepted through the civilized world. but it was years before it could gain anything like adequate or fair consideration, because the preconception in favor of newton's theory stood in the way of any adequate consideration of the one which was subsequently universally adopted. so you will find scientific men, i know any quantity of them, grand in their fields, doing fine work, who are not willing to consider anything which would compel a reconstruction of their theories and ideas. this is true not only in the scientific field, but it is true everywhere: it is true in politics. how many men can you get fairly to consider the political position of his opponent? he not only doubts the rightness and the sense of it, but he is ready to deny it. how many people can you get fairly to weigh the position of one who occupies a religious home different from their own? and these religious prejudices, being bound up with the tenderest and noblest sentiments, feelings, and traditions of the human heart, become the strongest of all, and so are in more danger of standing in the way of human progress than anything else in all the world. people identify their theories of religion with religion itself, with the honor of god, with the worship and the love of god, and feel that somehow it is impious for them to consider the question whether their intellectual theories are correct or not; and so the world stands by the ideas of the past, and opposes anything like finer and nobler ideas that offer themselves for consideration. and not only in the religious field; but these religious prejudices stand in the way of accepting truths outside the sphere of religion. for example, when darwin published his book, "the origin of species," the greatest opposition it met with was from the religious world. why? had they considered darwin's arguments to find out whether they were true? nothing of the kind. but they flew to the sudden conclusion that somehow or other the religion of the world was in danger, if darwinism should prove to be true. and it is very curious to note i wonder how long the world will keep on repeating that serio-comic blunder from the very beginning it has been the same; almost every single step that the world proposes to take in advance is opposed by the constituted religious authorities of the time because they assume at the outset that the theories which they have been holding are divinely authorized and infallible, and that it is not only untrue, this other statement, but that it is impious as well. the doubt, then, that springs from preconceived ideas is not only unjustifiable, but may be dangerous and wrong. then there is another kind of doubt against which you should beware. there are certain doubts that, if accepted and acted on, stand in the way of the creation of the most magnificent facts in the world. take as an illustration of what i mean: when napoleon, a young man in paris, was asked to take command of the guard of the city, suppose he had doubted, questioned, distrusted, his own ability; suppose he had been timid and afraid, the history of the world would have been changed by that one doubt. take another illustration. at the opening of our war or in the months just preceding the beginning of active hostilities the man then occupying the presidential chair had no faith, no faith in himself, no faith in the perpetuity of our institutions, no faith in the people; and so he sat doubting, while everything crumbled in pieces around him. and then appeared a man in whom the people had little faith at first, and who had no great faith perhaps in his own ability; but he had infinite faith in god, faith in right, faith in the people, faith in the possibilities of freedom trusted in the hands of the people. and this faith created a new nation. if there had been doubt in the heart of abraham lincoln, again the history of the world would have been &hanged. he believed that "right is right, since god is god, and right the day must win: to doubt would be disloyalty, to falter would be sin." you see, then, here is another field where you had better be wary of doubt. do not doubt yourself, do not doubt the possibilities of noble action, noble character, of achievement. we say of a young man entering life, brimful of enthusiasm, that all this will be toned down by and by; and we speak of it as though the enthusiasm itself somehow was a fault or a folly. and yet it is just this enthusiasm of the young men that moves and lifts the world. it is this faith in themselves and in the possibility of great things, it is this faith that lies at the heart of every invention, of every great discovery, of every magnificent achievement. read the history of invention. the world is full of stories of men who got a new idea. they were laughed at, they were told it was impracticable; and, if they had been laughed out of it, it would have been impracticable. it was their faith in the possibility of some great new thing, their faith in the resources of the universe, their faith in themselves as able to discover some new truth and make it applicable to the needs of the world, it was this faith which has been at the root of the grandest things that have ever been done. it is this which was in the heart of columbus as he sailed out towards the west. it is this which was in the heart of magellan as he studied the shadow of the earth across the face of the moon, and believed in the story that shadow told him against the constituted authorities of the world. but now let us turn sharply, and find out where doubt does come in, and where it is as honorable, as noble, as necessary as faith. people misuse this word "faith." doubt applies to all questions of fact that may be investigated, to all questions of history, to all questions open to the exercise of the critical faculty. for example, if i am told that moses wrote the pentateuch, and i say i accept that statement on faith, i am abusing the dictionary. i have no business to accept it on faith. faith has nothing whatever to do with it. it is a pure matter of scholarship. it is a matter of study, of investigation, a matter of clear and hard intelligence and nothing more. suppose i am told that the catholic church is infallible, and i am asked to accept it as an article of faith. here, again, the introduction of the word "faith" into a domain like that is an impertinence. faith has nothing whatever to do with it. that is a question of fact. we can read history for the last eighteen hundred years. we can find out what the catholic church has said and what the catholic church has done, as to whether it has proved itself absolutely infallible or not. it is a matter of study and decision intellectually; and it is my duty to doubt that which does not bring authentic credentials in a field like this. take the question of the authorship of the gospel of john. was it written by the apostle john, who lay in the bosom of jesus, and was called the beloved disciple? have i any business to say i have faith that it was written by him, and let it rest there? faith has nothing to do with it. we can trace the history of that book, find out when first it was referred to, follow it back as far as possible, find out whether it was in existence before the apostle john had died or not. it is a pure matter of criticism, a matter of study; and i have no business to accept it as a matter of faith, because, if i do, i am in danger not only of deceiving myself, but of misleading the world. and truth, we cannot say it too often or too emphatically, truth is the only thing that is holy in investigations of this kind. men's beliefs and mistakes, old, venerable, reverenced though they may have been by thousands and for hundreds of years, are no less unworthy longer to delude the minds of men. truth is divine, truth is the one object of our search. now let us come to consider for a moment the nature of faith. i said a little while ago that the word is very frequently misused. nine times out of ten, when i hear people using the word "faith" and i see the connection in which they use it, i discover they do not know the meaning of the word. that which has favor generally under the name of faith is simple credulity. it is closing the eyes and accepting something on somebody's authority without any investigation. that, remember, is not faith. let us see now if i can give you a clear idea of what faith really is; and now i have the bible and i am glad to say it behind me. this magnificent chapter,* a portion of which i read as our lesson this morning, gives precisely the same idea of faith as that which i am going to outline. what is faith? faith is a purely rational faculty. it is not irrational, but it is perfectly understandable. suppose there is a man suddenly accused of a crime, and i never saw him before, i do not even know his name; but i go into court when he is brought up for trial, and i say that i have faith in that man, and i do not believe that he committed the crime. do you not see that i am talking nonsense? i have no business to have faith in him, there is no ground for faith, it is an entire misuse of the word. but now take another case. here is a man that i have known for twenty years. i have seen him in business. i have seen him in his home, among his neighbors and friends, and in the street. i have met him in all sorts of relations. i have talked with him, i have tested him. i have been intimate with him. he is suddenly accused of crime, and is brought into court. i appear, and say i have faith in that man, i do not believe that he committed the crime. i do not know that he did not commit it; but i have grounds here for faith. in the light of his past life, of his experience, of his temptations, of his opportunities to go wrong, and of his having gone right, in the light of all this past experience of years, i have faith in this man; and i say it, and i am talking reason and sense. in the other case i am talking folly. faith, you see, is a rational faculty. let me give you another illustration. suppose i am driving along through the country some morning when there is a very thick fog hanging over the landscape. the fog is so thick that i can see no more than ten or fifteen feet ahead of me; but i discover that i am near the bank of a river, and i come to the entrance to a bridge. i can see enough to know that here is an abutment of a bridge and an arch springing out into the fog. i drive on to that bridge with simple confidence. i do not know that there is any other end to the bridge. i have never seen it before. i have seen other bridges, however; and i know that, generally, bridges not only begin somewhere, but end somewhere. so, though i do not know for certain that the bridge ends on the other side of the river, for aught i know there may be a break in it, the bridge may not be completed, something may have happened to it, i confidently drive on; and in ninety-nine times out of a hundred my faith is justified by the result. this is a pure act of faith, but faith, do you not see, based in reality, springing out of experience, and so a purely rational act of the mind. let me give you one illustration of the scientific use of faith, very striking, beautiful, as it seems to me. the only time mr. huxley was in this country, i happened to be in new york, and heard him give the opening one of a brief course of three lectures in chickering hall. he was very much interested then in the ancestry of the horse. most of you are probably aware of the fact that they have traced its ancestry to a little creature having five toes, like ordinary animals. at the time that mr. huxley was here, one link in this chain was missing; that is, one of the forms in the line of the horse's ancestors had not been discovered. but here, for example, was the first one and the second one, we say, and the third one was missing, and here was the fourth one, and here was the horse itself. now, in the light of the presumable uniformity of nature, mr. huxley went on to describe this missing animal. he said, if the remains of this creature are ever found, they will be so and so; and he went into an accurate detailed explanation as to what sort of creature it would be. he had not been at his home in england a year before professor marsh, of yale college, discovered this missing link in colorado, and it answered precisely to the description which professor huxley had beforehand given of it. now here is a case of scientific prophecy, scientific faith, a faith based on previous scientific observations, based on the experienced uniformity of nature. mr. huxley did not know, he could not have known; but he believed. he believed in the universe, he believed in the sanity of the universe, he believed in the uniformity, the order, the beauty of the universe; and the result justified his faith. faith, then, is a purely rational faculty. it has nothing to do with the past, but is always the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of something not yet seen. it is always looking along the lines of possible experience for something as possibly or probably to be. now at the end i wish to suggest a few things that are in the rightful province and field of faith, fields where we can fearlessly exercise this grand faculty, where indeed we must exercise it if we are to achieve the highest and finest results in the world. and, in the first place, quoting the words of the old writer, let me say, "have faith in god." i do not mean by this, accept certain intellectual statements or propositions about him, though they may be mine, and though i may thoroughly accept and believe them. you may doubt the representation of god that is made in any one of the theologies of the world, as to whether the statements made about him are accurate. it is not this intellectual belief that i am talking about at this minute. have faith in god! you may not even use the name. i am no such stickler for phrases as to condemn a man who cannot say "god." i have known a good many men, who have hesitated to pronounce the name, who were infinitely more divine in their life and character than those who are glibly uttering it every hour of their lives. it is not this i mean. it is something deeper, higher, grander than that. as you look along the lines of history from the far-off time when we begin to trace it until to-day, and see the magnificent march of advance, an orderly universe lightening and glorifying as it advances, becoming ever finer and higher and better; as you observe the order and truth and beauty and good dominant, and ever coming to be more and more dominant as the years advance, believe in this and trust this, trust to all possibilities of something finer and grander by way of outcome in the future. have faith in god! and, then, have faith in truth. i meet only a few people that seem to me to have utter faith in truth, who really believe that it is safe to tell the truth, always tell it. i talk with a great many people i wish to mention this as an illustration of what i mean who speak in the greatest commendation of the roman catholic church. they say, we do not know what we should do in this country if we had not the roman catholic church to keep a certain section of the people down, to keep them in order. i wonder if people ever realize just what this means. it means a lack of faith in god and faith in truth and faith in humanity, all three. if it is not safe to tell the truth, then i am not responsible for it. i propose to say it, although people tell me that there is danger of the explosion of the universe on account of it. if there is, i am not responsible for making it true. oh, i get so tired of this kind of timidity, this playing hide-and-seek with people! i have had a minister tell me that he wished he was free to tell the truth in his pulpit, as i am; and then i have had people in his congregation tell me afterwards that they wished their minister would preach the truth plainly, as i did. simply playing hide-and-seek with each other! you remember the story of the man in italy, who asked the priest if he really believed the religion of the country; and the priest said, "oh, no! we have to go slowly on account of the people; they believe it." and when the people were asked if they believed it, they said, "oh, no, we are not such fools; but the priests believe it." and so people play hide-and-seek with each other, not daring to tell the magnificent, clear truth of things. have faith in the truth. it is feared that it is not quite safe to tell people the truth, because they are not quite ready for it; and i have had no end of conversations during the religious discussion of the last two or three weeks right in this line. it seems to me very much like saying that, because a man has been shut up in a dark prison for a long time, you had better keep him there, because it would be such a shock to him suddenly to face the light. undoubtedly, it would be a shock. undoubtedly, it would trouble and stagger people for a little while to be told the simple truth; but how is the world ever to get ahead, if you keep on, as a matter of policy, lying to it for ages? how is it ever going to find the truth? shall i lie for the glory of god, the supposed honor of god? i will take no such responsibility. let us have faith in the truth, then. tell it fearlessly, simply, utterly; and, if god is not able to take care of his own world, why, the sooner it ends and we get into a stage of existence where it is safe to tell the truth, the better. have faith in men. have faith in the people. this it is that we trust to in all our hopes of progress for the future. this it is which distinguished lincoln among our statesmen. you remember that grand saying of his, true and humorous, so that it sticks in our memory, and we can never forget it, "you can fool all the people a part of the time; you can fool a part of the people all the time; but you can't fool all the people all of the time." here is the basis on which we rest our republic. our republic is fallen unless the people are really to be trusted. have faith, then, in the people, faith in their healthy instincts, faith in their general sanity, faith in their desire for the right and the true; and this is a genuine exercise of faith, for the past history of the world justifies it. and, then, have faith in yourself as a child of god. i do not mean conceit now. i do not mean an overestimate of your ability, but belief that you can do great, grand, noble things, belief that you can become something great, noble, grand; belief in the possibility in this life or in some other life of unfolding all that is highest, truest, sweetest, in manhood and womanhood. it is this faith that is able to create the fact and make that which it trusts in. let us then believe in god, believe in truth, believe in humanity, believe in ourselves; and then we may work towards the coming of that far, grand time when the dreams of the world shall be realized and its faith shall become reality. is life a probation ended by death? my subject this morning is an attempted answer to the question, "is life a probation ended by death?" it will broaden itself naturally, if we cannot accept that theory of it, into the further question, what is the main end and purpose of our life? i take my text from the fifth chapter of the epistle to the ephesians, the fifteenth and the sixteenth verses. i will read them as they appear in the old version: "see, then, that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time." the idea of the writer is that, as we pass through the world, we should do it with our eyes kept intelligently open, looking about us on every hand, trying to comprehend the situation, to see what things are, and what we ought to do to play our part in the midst of them. not heedlessly, not unwisely, he says, perhaps hardly the harsh word "fools," but as wise, as persons intelligently ready to take advantage of the situation and make the most of the condition in which one finds himself; redeeming the time, or, as the revised version has it, "buying up the opportunity "; being ready, that is, to pay whatever price is necessary in order to make the most of the situation. this, then, is the spirit according to our text in which we should look over the problem of life; and this is the method by which we should attempt to guide its practical affairs. that which people regard as the matter of most importance, any particular theory or plan of life which they may hold to be for them the most desirable, this, of course, is that to which they will direct their chief attention, on which they will lavish their thought, on which they will pour out their care, to which they will consecrate their energies. if now the theory or plan of life be false, if it be inadequate, if one is looking in the wrong direction for the success that he desires, or if he expects to achieve the great end and object of living by means which are not real, which do not match the actual facts of the world and of human life, then of course his effort is so far thrown away. he wastes energies, power, time, enthusiasm on wrong ends which might be used to the attainment of things which are real and fine and high. is it not then of the utmost importance that our conception of life, what it is for, what we ought to attempt to reach, and how we should make this attempt, should be an accurate one? any young man starting out in life, if he sets up for himself a goal which is unworthy, which does not match his faculties and powers, and if he proposes to reach it by means which are not adequate to the attainment of his desires, do you not see how he wrecks and wastes his life? his opportunity is gone; and by and by he wakes up to find that the years have been dissipated, and he has not attained any worthy or noble end. if this be true of a young man as he looks forward to a scheme or plan of life here during these few short years, how much more is a similar thing true, when we are contemplating not merely the question of a business, or professional or social failure and success, but are looking at the grander and more inclusive theme of the beginning and aim and outcome of life itself we have inherited from the past the idea that this life here, under the blue sky for a few years, as we live it, is a probation, that we are put here on trial, and that death ends it, and that, when we have passed that line, gone over from that which is visible here into the invisible, we are either "lost" or "saved," and things are definitely fixed forever. i am perfectly well aware that the most of us who are here have given up this idea, though there may remain fragments and suggestions of it in our minds still haunting the chambers of the brain, not yet outgrown, not yet cleared away. but with most people in the modern world, if they are sincere, if they are consistent, the one great question with them is whether they are to be saved or lost in another life. and, if this be the true theory of things, then not only ought men to bend all their thought, their energies, devote their enthusiasms, consecrate their time and money to it as much as they do, but a thousand times more. we look, perhaps, with a sort of amused curiosity, some of us, from what we regard as our superior point of view, at a man like mr. moody; and yet mr. moody is one man out of a million for his consistency and consecration to the thought which underlies all the protestant churches of the modern world, with the exception of a few here and there. mr. moody believes that this life is a probation ended by death. there are thousands on thousand on thousands of men who say they believe it, who still cast in all their influence with churches that are based on it, and who yet devote their energies mainly to making money, to attaining social success, to pleasures of one kind or another, to political ambitions, who live as though this great fate were not overhanging the world, who meet their neighbors for pleasure or business, believing, if they are sincere, that this neighbor is heedlessly walking on to the brink of a gulf, and yet never speaking to him about it, never saying a word to imply that they really believe it; and yet this fear hangs over them, haunts their consciousness waking or sleeping; and, if you ask them if they believe it, they will say they suppose they do. in hours of danger, when disease threatens them or they are looking death in the face, they are affrighted, and try to flee to the traditional refuge as a place of safety. the whole great catholic church teaches that nobody has the slightest chance of being saved except by becoming a member of her great body of believers and partaking of her sacramental means of grace. this, i say then, is the great underlying belief of christendom; and, if it is true, the world ought to consecrate itself, head and brain and soul, time, money, power, prayer, enthusiasm, everything, to delivering men from the imminent danger. if it is not true, then it ought to be brushed completely one side, put out of consciousness, of thought, of fear. the world ought to be dispossessed of its haunting presence. why? so that we may fix our attention on the true end and aim of life, and find out what it means to live, how we ought to live, and why and what for, what ought to be the goal of our human endeavor. so long, then, as this belief does lie at the foundation of all the great churches of christendom, so long as it is employed in all the criticisms of us who do not any longer accept it, it seems to me that it is worth our while to reconsider the question for a little while, so that we may clear our minds and thoughts, and may fix our attention definitely and earnestly on that which ought to be the goal of all our endeavor, our enthusiasm and our hope. let us, then, look for just a few moments at this theory, and see what it means and implies. it is said that our first father was put on probation, was called upon to decide, not for himself only, but for all his descendants, as to what the future history of the inhabitants of this planet should be. two famous books were published only a few years ago by dr. edward beecher, the eldest son in that famous family. these were "the conflict of ages" and "the concord of ages." dr. beecher argued that anything like a fair probation on the part of adam was an impossibility. this in the face of the prevailing beliefs of the time when the books were written. he said that, if a man were to choose on such a momentous question as this, choose adequately, choose fairly, he must be so circumstanced and endowed that he could comprehend the entire result of his choice. he must be able to look down the ages imaginatively, and see on one hand all the line of sin and misery, of death, finite and eternal, which should issue from his choosing in one direction. he must be able to comprehend all the good, the music, the joy, the beauty, the glory, the infinite perfectibility, in this world and the next, which should follow his choice in the other direction. and he said that adam had no such opportunity as that, and was not endowed with the ability or the experience to make any such momentous choice; in other words, that the fundamental basis of the whole theological scheme of the world was unjust and unfair. this was dr. beecher's contention. how did he get over the difficulty? he believed in the pre-existence of human souls, and that in some other life before adam there must have been an intelligent and fair choice, and that we here and now are only fighting out one stage of the results of that far-off decision. but, if you will stop to think of it a moment, you will see that this puts the difficulty only a little further back: it does not solve it. how does this first person, if it is so, countless millions of ages ago, happen to be endowed with intelligence and experience and ability enough to make such a momentous choice? and now just consider a moment. is it conceivable that a sane person should intelligently choose evil, unless he had some inherited bias or tendency in that direction? for what does the choice of evil mean? it means sorrow, it means pain, it means death, it means everything horrible, everything undesirable, and means that a person deliberately and intelligently pits himself against an infinite and almighty power in what he knows must be an eternally losing battle. can you conceive of a sane person making such a choice as that? if one of these first ancestors in the garden of eden, or no matter how far back, had a right to choose for himself, i deny his right to choose for me. what right had he to choose for you? what right had he to determine that you should be born with a perverted and corrupt nature, so that you would be certain to choose evil instead of good, helpless in the hands of a fate like this? now you may look at this theory any way you please, place this probationary choice at the beginning of human history on this planet, or place it just as far back as you will, it is inconceivable, it is unfair, it is unjust, it is insane, it is everything that is foolish and wrong. and yet, note clearly one thing. so long as the world believes this, so long as the one end and aim of human life, as held up to people, is to be saved, think of the waste, think of the time, the anxiety, the enthusiasms, the prayers, the consecrations; think of the wealth, think of the intellectual faculties, think of the moral devotion, this whole power of the world expended on a false issue, turned into wrong channels! is this a dead question? is there no reason for us to consider it here in this latter part of the nineteenth century? why, nine-tenths of christendom to-day is spending its time in trying to propitiate a god who is not angry and trying to "save" souls that are not "lost." expending its energies along mistaken channels towards issues that are entirely imaginary! think, for example, if during the last two thousand years all the time and the money, all the intelligence, all the consecration, could have been spent on those things that would have really helped men to find out the meaning of life, and to illustrate that meaning in earnest living; suppose the money that has been spent on the cathedrals, on the monasteries, spent in supporting hordes and hordes of priests, spent in all the endeavor to save men in a future life, if all this had been used in educating men and training them into a comprehension of what kind of beings they really are, what kind of a world this is in which they have found themselves, spent in training them into mastery of themselves, spent in teaching them how to understand and control the forces of nature in order to serve and develop the higher life, think what a civilization might have been developed here on this poor old planet by this time! how much of the disease, how much of the corruption, how much of the unkindness, how much of the cruelty, how much of all that still remains in us of the animal, might have been outgrown, sloughed off, put underneath our feet! is it not, then, a vital question, so long as so many thousands, so many millions of people are still consecrating their time, their money, their energy, in the attempt to do that which does not need to be done? let us turn, now, and for a little while face another theory of human life; try to find out, or to suggest, what we are here on this planet for, what may be accomplished, how much of grand and true may be wrought out as the result of our attempt. the philosopher kant has somewhere said that there are three things needed to the success of a human life, "something to do, some one to love, something to hope for." the old catechism says that the chief end of man is "to glorify god and enjoy him forever." i indorse the words of kant; i agree most heartily and thoroughly with the catechism. philip james bailey, the author of that once famous poem "festus," has said, "life's but a means unto an end; that end, beginning, mean, and end to all things, god." this also i indorse. i believe that life is something inner, something deeper than that which we ordinarily think of as constituting the matters of chief concern regarding it. let me quote two or three lines again from bailey's "festus," familiar to you because so fine. we live in deeds, not years; in thoughts, not breaths; in feelings, not in figures on a dial. we should count time by heart-throbs. "he most lives who thinks most, feels the noblest, acts the best." what is human life, then? what is it for? the object of life is living. but what does living mean? most people cannot answer that question, because they have never more than half lived, and consequently have never appreciated its depth and significance. as i have had occasion over and over and over again, to say to business men, and i like to say it on every opportunity, it seems to me, as i look over the face of society, that most people live only in some little fragmentary way, some corner of their being. most men spend their lives in the attempt to accumulate the means to live, and forget to begin to live at all. sometimes, as you are riding through the country on a winter evening, you come to a silent farm- house, and you see one window lighted; and, if you should go and knock at the door, you would probably find out that the light is shining from the kitchen, where the family is gathered in the evening, perhaps as a matter of economy to save fire, perhaps to save trouble. and, if you examine the lives of these people, you would find that they live chiefly in the kitchen. they may have a sitting-room where they spend a few leisure hours; perhaps they have the beginning of a library; but they do not spend much time in that. they have little opportunity for the life of the parlor, representing the expansive, social human life which comes into contact with other lives. and so you will find that this, which is a figure, represents that which is true of most of us. we have only begun to live; and we live in the lower ranges of our nature, or perhaps we have touched life on a higher level in some tentative sort of way. but the most of us are only partly alive, have only developed a little of what is possible in us, have only come in contact with some fragments of this wonderful universe that is all around us on every hand. what, then, is the meaning of life? what shall we try to do? what are we here for? i do not attempt to go into the profound explanation of mysteries too deep for me to answer, as to what must have been in the mind of god when he planned and created this universe of which we are a part. my task is a humbler one. let us see if i can help you comprehend a little part of it. take an illustration. an immensely wealthy man suddenly dies, leaving his estates to a little boy seven or eight years of age. he has wide stretches of land, hill and valley, river, woods, all that is beautiful as making up a landscape. the house represents the accumulated resources of the experiences and the intelligence of a lifetime. there are not only beautiful drawing-rooms, telling of taste, but there is a library in which is all that the world has been able to accumulate of learning, of literature in every department. here is another room containing instruments of music and the works of the great composers. there is an art gallery, containing some of the finest masterpieces in the way of painting and sculpture; and then there is a room devoted to scientific experiments,-- chemistry, the microscope, the telescope. here are means and opportunity for finding out what the world has so far developed. now has this young boy come into possession of these things? he has inherited them, he is his father's heir. we say they belong to him; but do they belong to him? in what sense and to what extent do they belong to him? they belong to him just in so far and just as fast as he develops himself into capacity of comprehension and enjoyment, no faster, no farther. as he enters upon his inheritance then he is put under tutors. some man comes to teach him the languages which he does not comprehend; and by and by that part of the library which is composed of books written in other speech than his own begins to belong to him. it belongs to the tutor a good deal more than it does to the child, until the child has learned the lessons of the tutor. and so another teacher comes to instruct him in art; and the masterpieces of art belong to the person of taste, of culture, with appreciation, to the teacher again, to any one who knows and who feels, instead of to the boy, who merely has possession of the title-deeds. do you see the suggestion of the picture? man wakes up here on this planet what sort of a being? not at first "a little lower than god," as the old psalmist says of him, but only a little higher than the animals, ignorant of himself, ignorant of his surroundings, weak, undeveloped in every faculty and power. he begins, we say, to live; and what does that mean? he begins to explore this wonderful world, which is his heritage; and do you not see that along with this exploration there goes of necessity a process of self- development? i would pit against that statement of kant's a phrase something like this. the object of life is threefold: it is to become all possible, it is to serve all possible, it is to enjoy all possible. but i cannot outline completely either one of these suggestions; for they blend, they intermingle, as you will see in a moment. they are like different notes in a piece of music that are so blended together that they constitute one tune, while separate they are only fragments, or discords. the first thing, then, if a man wishes really to live, is that he should develop himself, unfold the faculties and powers which lie dormant in him. he is a child of god. he is capable of comprehending within his limit that which is divine. he is capable of being touched, played on, by all the phases and forces of the universe surrounding him. he is an instrument of ten thousand strings; and marvellous may be the music of his life. first, he should be as complete an animal as possible. then he should develop himself as a being capable of thinking, of knowing. how many men are there that take possession of the intellectual realm that lies around them on every hand? just think. let me hint suggestions, illustrations, in one or two directions. a man goes out for a walk in the park, or, better yet, into the country. the park is too artificial, perhaps, to carry just the meaning that i have in mind. let it be a walk in the country, then. how much do the grasses and the flowers have to say to him? i have a friend in washington, a famous botanist, a botanist not only of all things that live and grow to-day, but who has pushed his researches back and down into the prehistoric ages so as to understand and explain the records, the prints, the leaves and twigs, the forms of every kind that are on the rocks and left to tell the story of a life that has passed away many thousands on thousands of years ago. how much of all this marvellous realm, or even a suggestion of it, is revealed to the ordinary man as he walks through the field? look in the direction of geology a moment. here is a river course; here is the shape of a hill top; do they say anything to the ordinary man who walks with his head down, and occupied with some problem of wall street, perhaps? here are marvels of creative power. god shaped the slope of that hill as really as though he smoothed it down with his hand. and he who understands the methods of world building, of landscape-sculpture, may stand in wonder and awe and reverence before the forces that have been at work for millions of years, and are at work the same to-day. how many men have even a conception of the wonders of the microscopic world? to how many men do the star have anything to say at night? a man looks at a bowlder, unlike any other rock there is to be found anywhere in the neighborhood, and perhaps he does not even ask a question about it; while a man who has made a careful study of these things sees spring up before him in his imagination that long ice age before man lived on the planet, when this bowlder was swept from some far-off place by the glacial power, deposited where it is, scraped on its surface by the passing of the ice, as if god himself had left his sign-manual here, his autograph, that he, in after- ages who might make himself capable of reading, might understand. these merely as fragmentary, brief hints of what it is to live in the intellectual realm. go up to that realm where the intellect is blended with the emotions, the glamour of pictures, poetry, sculpture, music, beauty of color and form and sound. what a world this is, infinite resources of an infinite universe, appealing to, and, if a man responds, calling out the faculties and powers of his own nature that are capable of dealing with these things, so that a man may feel that he is thinking over the thoughts of god, tracing his footsteps, listening to the marvellous music of his words! this is one of the results of self-development, if a man is unfolding, developing himself, becoming as much as possible. now let us turn sharply to one of these other phases which i spoke of, of doing what we can to help the world. and now note, this universe is so cunningly contrived that a man cannot possibly be successful as a selfish man. it is one of the most conclusive proofs, it seems to me, not only of the divine goodness, but of the moral meaning and scope of the world. selfishness is not wicked only, it is the most outrageous folly on the face of the earth. if a man develop himself, if he develops that which is finest in him, that which is best and sweetest and truest, he develops not only his power to think, but his capacity to love, his capacity to enjoy, and to bestow enjoyment; and he cannot possibly succeed in the long run, and in the best ways, on selfish lines. people used to have a notion that he who grasped and retained everything he could get hold of was the fortunate, the successful man. people had an idea in politics, for example, that that nation was happiest which humbled other nations; and, if it was superior to all the rest, by as much as they were poor and devastated, this nation was fortunate. we know now that a nation finds its prosperity in that of other nations, in its ability to exchange, to trade, to carry on all the grand avocations of life with them. if a man writes a book, he wants the world intelligent enough to understand and appreciate it. if a man paints a picture, he wants artistic ability on the part of the public, so that they will appreciate and buy his pictures. if a man carves a statue, he wants the people to appreciate glory of form enough to see how great and true his work is, and reward him for his endeavor. in other words, no man would write a book, and go off with it alone by himself. no man would paint a picture, and hide it. no man would carve a statue, and conceal it from his fellows. we have learned, and are learning constantly in every direction, that our happiness is involved in the happiness of other people. the world is haunted to-day and i thank god that it is with the thought of the unhappiness, the misery, of men. what does it mean? it means that men have developed so on their sympathetic side that they cannot be happy themselves while the world is unhappy. so you see that this self- development, which i placed as the chief thing at the outset in the meaning of life, carries with it the necessity on the part of those who are developed, of doing everything they can to develop and lift up everybody else; so that making the most of yourself means making the most of everybody else. and now, if i turn for a moment to that other point, merely to distinguish it by itself, although i have been dealing with it all the while, the end and aim of life once more is to be happy. i am perfectly well aware that the old puritan theology has taught otherwise, so far as this life is concerned. i was brought up with the feeling that, if i wanted to do anything, the chances were it was wrong, that it was a good deal more likely to be in the way of virtue if it was something that was disagreeable to me. and yet, curiously enough, this old puritan theology invented and held up before men, as a lure to lead them to virtue, the most tremendous bribe that ever entered into the imaginations of men, eternal felicity on the one hand, and eternal woe on the other. so that it conceded the very thing that it seemed to deny, that men naturally and necessarily sought happiness, and could not possibly do otherwise. and so we learn to live, to think, to serve others. we are beginning to learn also that this desire for happiness is natural, is necessary, is right. if a man is not happy, you may be sure there is something wrong. if there is pain in the body, it means disease, difficulty, obstruction, something out of the way. it means that god's laws are not perfectly kept. if there is pain up in the mental realm, pain in the moral realm, pain in the spiritual realm, it means always something wrong. man ought to be happy. he ought to seek happiness as the great end and outcome of human life. and we are learning, as the natural and necessary result of our experiences in knowing and in serving, that just in so far as we know the laws of god, just in so far as we obey the laws of god, just in so far as we help others to know and obey, just in so far there comes into our lives the blessedness of the blessed god. the end of life, then, the object of life here on earth, is to develop ourselves to the utmost. it is to learn to know, take possession of our inheritance, this earth, control all its forces for the service of civilization. it is to rejoice in all this self-development, in all this help, in all this knowledge, in all this power. it is to feel ourselves thrilling with the consciousness that we are sons of god, and are co-operating with him in bringing about the grand result of the ages, the perfection of man. and then what? death? this is only one stage of our career. we are here at school; we learn our lessons or we do not; we attain the ends we seek after or we only partly attain them or do not attain them at all; and then we go on. does that mean that it ends there? i do not believe it. i believe that it simply means that we go out into a larger opportunity, from the planet to the system, to the galaxy, to the universe, wider knowledge answering to more magnificent resources in the infinite universe. we, with undeveloped powers that may increase and advance forever, and a universe so complete, so exhaustless, that it may match and lure and lead and rejoice us forever; we being trained as god's children in god's likeness and helping others to attain the same magnificent ends, this i believe to be the significance, the meaning, the purpose, of life. are there any here this morning who think or fear that the taking away of the old idea concerning the results of lying may remove moral motive, may undermine character, nay make people less careful to do right? it seems to me hat, if people understand the significance of this universe, and their relation to it, they will find that all the carelessness of motive, the ease of salvation, as they call it, is with the old idea. our theory is a more strenuous and insistent one. children are learning as they become wiser that evil is not only evil, but it is folly. a man wishes life, health, happiness, prosperity, all good. he learns, as he goes on, that the universe is in favor of the keeping of its own laws; and that, f he flings himself against the forces of the universe, he is only broken for his pains. if you wish to be healthful, sappy, strong, wish to attain any desirable thing, it is to be bound not in defiance of the laws of the universe, but in loving and tender obedience. and, then, if you only remember that in this universe and coder the universal law of cause and effect you are building to-morrow out of to-day, and next week and next year, and all he future, that every thought, every word, every action, is cemented together as a part of this structure that you build, hat you can make your own future for good or ill, and that you cannot build it successfully except in accordance with he eternal laws of things, then you find that here are the most insistent and tremendous motives it is possible for the human mind to conceive. this life of ours, if we lead it nobly and truly, then, we shall find to be a growth into the likeness of the divine, a growth into an increasing opportunity to share the work of our father in building and helping men, and that, as the result of this, joy, infinite joy, is to fill our hearts until we share the very blessedness of our father. god made our lives to be a song sweet as the music of the spheres, that still their harmonies prolong for him who rightly hears. the heavens and the earth do play upon us, if we be in tune: winter shouts hoarse his roundelay, and tender sweet pipes june. but oftentimes the songs are pain, and discord mars our harmonies: our strings are snapped by selfish strain, and harsh hands break our keys. but god meant music; and we may, if we will keep our lives in tune, hear the whole year sing roundelay, december answering june. god ever at his keyboard plays, harmonics, right; and discords, wrong: "he that hath ears," and who obeys, may hear the mystic song. sin and atonement. for the sake of clearness, and in order that you may definitely comprehend the doctrine of sin and atonement which i believe to be the true one, i need in the first place to outline as a background that which lies at the foundation of all the popular theologies of christendom. i am perfectly well aware that at least a part of the time, while i am doing this, i shall be traversing ground with which you are already familiar. some of it, however, i think may be somewhat strange to you. the tradition begins with the story of a war in heaven. in some way rebellion began among the angels; and he who had been lucifer, the light-bearer, prince among the glorious sons of god, took up arms of rebellion against the almighty. naturally, he failed in this inevitably losing battle, and was cast out into the abyss, with a third part of all the angels, who had followed him. then the tradition goes on: god decided to create the world, that the sons of men born and trained here might ultimately take the places that had been held by the angels who had been cast out on account of their sin. but satan, seeing this fair and beautiful earth, this wondrous handiwork of god, determined, if possible, to thwart and defeat the purposes of the almighty. he therefore invades this beautiful world. he finds adam and eve in their condition of perfect felicity, innocent, but inexperienced; and they fall a ready prey to his intention. they then share his rebellion, accept him instead of god as king. henceforth they are followers of him in his age-long warfare against light and truth, and, unless in some way saved, are to be sharers of his eternal destiny, cast out into chains and darkness forever. now comes the necessity for noting for a moment the nature of sin on this theory. you see it is not ignorance, it is not weakness merely, it is not inherited passion only: it is conscious and purposeful rebellion against god, putting yourself at enmity with his truth, his righteousness, his love. in action it is some specific deed done against god or against his truth or his right. as a state of mind, it is a heart perverted, choosing always that which is evil, a heart at enmity with god and with all that is good; and the theologians have always been obliged, as a matter of consistency, to hold, no matter how noble, how unselfish men might appear to be, that the natural man has inherently, always, necessarily been evil. he carries about with him the taint of original sin; that is, sin of constitution, ingrained, inherited, that which is of the very fibre of his being. this is the character of man as required by the old theological systems; and this is how it happened to come about. evil is not something natural, not imperfection, not something undeveloped, not yet outgrown. sin originated outside of this world, invaded it, and worked its ruin and destruction. now comes the device that has been called the atonement, by which it is supposed that god is going to be able to save at least a part of this rebellious humanity. there have been a good many different theories of the atonement that have been held, eighteen or twenty varieties of the doctrine, three or four of which i must outline, in order to make them clear to your mind, that you may see what have been the devices by which the theologians have supposed that they could find a way for the deliverance of man from this condition of loss, and fit him to share the felicity for which he was originally intended. of course, the main point in the whole scheme is that the second person of the trinity becomes incarnate, comes down here to this world, is born, grows up, teaches, suffers and at last is put to an ignominious death. this is the central idea of the doctrine of the atonement; or, rather, the christ is the central figure in that doctrine. but how is it supposed to work out the atonement that is necessary, in order that man may be saved? you will see that the world, according to the ideas i have been delineating, is in a condition of rebellion. what men need is to be persuaded that they are wrong, convinced of sin, in theological language, and then made repentant, and in some way be forgiven for the wrong which they have done. now it is supposed that god must invent some scheme by which to make it possible for him to save these lost and fallen men. if you read the parable of the prodigal son as jesus has so tenderly, touchingly, beautifully outlined it for us, you will see that there is no thought or plan or necessity for either in that. the son left his home, followed the impulses and passions of youth, had gone among those that were degraded, had soiled his character, done despite to his father's love, injured his own nature, degraded himself by his associations and actions. but when at last he awakes, becomes conscious of his father's love and righteousness and truth, and says, "i will arise, and go to my father," there is no talk of god's not being ready to receive him, or not being able to receive him, or needing to have something done before he can receive him, no thought of anybody's suffering any more in order that he may be forgiven. you see all these elements that are associated with the popular doctrines of atonement are not once thought of, never even alluded to. he simply arises, and goes to his father; and his father is so anxious to help him that he goes to meet him before he reaches the father's house, and gladly falls on his neck and kisses him and folds him in his arms. it only needs that the son should recognize the righteousness and goodness of his father, and should wish to go back. that is the doctrine of jesus as taught in this wonderfully sweet and beautiful parable. now what are the theories of atonement as outlined in the popular theology? for the first thousand years of christian history one of the strangest conceptions possessed the ecclesiastical mind that has ever been dreamed of. it was held literally that through the sin of adam the human race had become the rightful subjects of satan, that they belonged to him. he was their king, their emperor, their ruler, and had a right to them in this world and the next. and so some diplomatic negotiations must be entered into with the devil, in order to deliver a certain part of these his subjects, and open the way for them to be saved. so the church fathers taught that satan recognized in christ his old adversary in heaven, and he entered into a bargain with god that, if he could have christ delivered over to him, in exchange for that he would give up his right to so many of the souls of men as were to be saved as the result of this compact. so the work of the atonement used to be preached as being this sort of bargain entered into with satan. but note what quaint, naive ideas possessed the minds of people at that time. satan did not know that jesus possessed a divine nature, and that, consequently, he could not beholden of death; and so, when he entered into this bargain, he was cheated, he found out to his dismay that he had lost not only humanity, but christ also, had been defrauded of them both. this was the doctrine of the atonement that was preached during the early centuries of the christian church, at least in certain parts of europe. but later there came another doctrine, the belief that the sufferings of the christ were a substitute offered to god for what would have been the sufferings of the lost. he was made sin for us, he who had known no sin, as the new testament phraseology has it. so that he, being infinite, in a brief space of time during his little earthly career, during his suspension on the cross and his descent into hell, was able to suffer as much pain as all the lost would have suffered throughout eternity. and this suffering of the christ was supposed to be accepted on the part of god as the substitute for that which he would have exacted on the part of the souls of those that for his sake were to be saved. there is still another theory that i must mention briefly, that which is called the governmental theory, that which i was taught during my course of theological instruction. the idea was that god had a moral government to maintain, not only on this earth, but throughout the range of the universe among all his intelligent creatures, and, if he permitted his laws to be broken without exacting an adequate penalty, then all governmental authority would be overthrown. in other words, men took their poor human legal devices, their political ideals, and lifted them into the heavens, made them the models after which it was supposed god was to govern his great, intelligent universe. so they said that god would be willing to forgive, he would like to forgive, he was loving and tender and kind, but it was not safe, safe for the interests of his universal government, for him to forgive any one until an adequate penalty had been paid in expiation of human sin. you see, according to this theory, it does not apparently make much difference who it is that suffers, whether it is the person who has committed the sin or not; but somebody must pay an adequate penalty, and jesus volunteered to do this, to be the victim, and so to deliver man from the righteous deserts which he had incurred as a transgressor of the law of god. gradually, however, as the world became civilized, as wider and broader thoughts manifested themselves in the human mind, as tenderer and truer feelings took possession of the human heart, these theories receded into the background; and there came to the front i remember the bitter controversies over it in my younger days what was called the moral theory of the atonement. the originator and sponsor for this theory was the famous dr. horace bushnell, of hartford. he taught that god did not need the punishment of anybody to uphold the integrity of his moral government. he taught that god was not angry with the race, and did not care to exact a penalty before he was ready to forgive human sin. he taught that the inner nature of god was love, and that in the second person of the trinity he came to earth, was born, grew up, taught, suffered, died, as a manifestation to the world of his love, of his goodness, of his readiness to forgive and help, and that the efficacy of the atonement as thus wrought on the part of the christ was in its revelation to men of the love and saving power of righteousness. this was the moral theory of the atonement. it was not supposed to work any result in the nature of god or his disposition towards men. its effect was to work along the lines of human thought and human action: it was to affect men, and make them willing to be saved instead of making god willing to save them. this was the moral theory of the atonement; and you will see how it gradually approaches that which intelligent and free men, it seems to me, must hold to-day in the light of their careful study of human history and human nature. it is almost the theory which is being held by the freest and noblest men of to-day. the difference between it and that which i shall in a moment try to set forth is chiefly that dr. bushnell confines this work of the atonement to the person and history and character of one man instead of letting all men share in this divine and atoning work which is being wrought out through all the ages. let me now come to set forth what i believe to be the simple and demonstrated truth. my objections against this old theory are threefold. i will mention them, and have done with them in a word. in the first place, the supposed origin of sin in heaven seems to me so absurd as to be utterly unthinkable. this idea of war in heaven, rebellion against god, smacks too much of the old world traditions, of the mythologies of greece and rome and of other peoples. jupiter could dethrone his father, the god saturn, because saturn was not almighty and all-wise. these gods of the ancient time were merely exaggerated types of human heroes and despots. there could be war among them, and one of them overthrown; and jupiter could divide the universe, after he had conquered and dethroned his father, with his two brothers. all this is reasonable, when you are talking about finite creatures; but try to think for one moment of an archangel, a pure and clear-eyed intelligence, deliberately choosing to rebel against omnipotence! he must have known it would be utterly, absolutely, forever hopeless! intelligent creatures do not rebel under conditions like that, particularly when you combine with the absolute hopelessness of the case the fact that he knew he was choosing misery, suffering, forever. as i said, the whole conception of the origin of evil that implies the rebellion of a spiritual being who knew what he was doing is inexpressibly absurd, so absurd that we may dismiss it as impossible. if there were any such rebellion, if you waive the absurdity for the moment and consider the possibility, god would be responsible; for he made him. the whole theory is not only absurd: it is unjust in its implications towards both god and man. and then, and perhaps we need not say any more about it, we know that it is not true. it did not even originate in the bible, it did not even originate among the jews: it is nothing in the world but a pagan myth imported into jewish tradition just a few hundred years before the birth of jesus. it is of no more authority in rational human thought than the story of jason or hercules, not one particle. let us now turn, then, to what we know, from the history of man and the scientific study of the universe, to be something approaching the reality of things. people have always been talking about the origin of evil. it is not the origin of evil that we have to face or deal with or explain at all. let me ask you to consider for a moment the condition of the world when man first appeared on this planet. here among the lower animals were what? all the vices and all the crimes that we can conceive of, only they were not vices nor crimes at all. there were all the external actions and all the internal feelings and passions; but they were not vices, and they were not crimes. why? because there was no moral sense which recognized anything better, no moral standard in the light of which they might be judged. here, for example, in this lower world, were all hatreds, jealousies, envies, cruelties, thefts, greeds, murders, every kind of action that we speak of as evil in man. and yet i said there was no evil there, no moral evil there, because there was no consciousness, no recognition, of the distinction between the lower and the higher. this was a part of the natural and intended order of the development of life, not an accident, not an invasion from the outside, not a thwarting of the will of god, not an interference with his purpose, all of this a part of the working out of his purpose. now, when man appeared, what happened? the origin, not of evil, but the origin of goodness. a conscience was born. man came into possession of a moral ideal, in the light of which he recognized something higher than this animalism that was all around him, and became conscious of the fact that he must battle against that, and put it under his feet. so that the life of the world, from that day to this, has been the growth, the gradual increase, and the gradual conquest of good over that which was in existence before. there is no fall of man, then, there is no conscious and purposeful rebellion against god to be accounted for, there is no need of any devil to explain the facts. he is only an encumbrance, only in the way, only makes it difficult and practically impossible to solve our problem. the old story was that, after the rebellion, pain and death and all evil came into the human world; and the natural world was blighted. thorns and briers and thistles sprang up on every hand; and animals which before had been peaceful began to fight and destroy each other. we all know this to be a childish myth, and pagan. the actual history of the world has been something entirely other than that. now i do not wish that you should suppose that i minimize evil, that i make light of sin, that i do not properly estimate the cruelties and the wrongs that have devastated the world. i need only suggest to you that you look in this direction and that to see how hideous all these evils may be; how bitter, how cruel, is the fruit of wrong thoughts and of wrong actions. look at a man, for example, divine in the possibilities of his being, but through vice, through drink, through habits of one kind and another, corrupted until it is an insult to a brute to call him brutal. we do not deny all this. notice the cruelties of men towards each other, the jealousies, the envies, the strifes, the warfares. how one class looks down upon and treats with contempt another that is a little lower! how masters have used their slaves; how tyrants like nero and caligula have made themselves hideous spectacles of what is possible to humanity, on a stage that is world-wide and illuminated by the flash-lights of history! i do not wish you to suppose for a moment that i belittle, that i underestimate these evils, only we do not need anything other than the scientific and historic facts of the world in order to account for them. what is sin, as science looks at it and treats it? not something consciously and purposely developed, not something originating in a rebellion in some other world than this. it seems to me that we can very easily account for it when we recognize that man has been gradually coming up from the lower orders of life, and that he still has in him the snake and the hyena, the wolf, the tiger, the bear, all the wild, fierce passions of the animal world only partly sloughed off, not yet outgrown; when you remember how ignorant he is, how he does not understand yet the meaning of these divine laws and the divine life, glimpses of which now and then attract his attention and lure him on; when you remember that selfishness, misguided by ignorance, can believe that one man can get something for his behoof and happiness and good at the expense of the welfare of somebody else, and harm come only to the person that is defrauded. right in here, if i had time to treat it in still further detail, it seems to me we have a simple and adequate explanation of all the evil that has ever blasted, blighted, and darkened the history of man. now, man being this kind of a creature, having an animal origin as well as a divine one, gradually climbing up out of this lower life and looking towards god as his ideal, what is it that he needs? is there any need of atonement? all need of atonement! what does atonement mean? the word itself carries its clearest explanation. in its root it means "atonement," healing the division, whatever its nature or kind, bringing man into one-ness with god and men into one-ness with each other. now let me suggest to you a little as to the things that keep man and god apart, keep men away from each other; and they will suggest the atonement that is needed to heal all these divisions, and bring about that ideal condition of things that we dream of and pray for and talk about, when men shall perfectly love god, and when they shall love each other as themselves. what is it that keeps man from god? first, it seems to me, it is ignorance. what man needs in order to bring him into oneness with god is first to have some clear conceptions of the divine, some high, sweet, noble thoughts of god, some knowledge of the laws of god as embodied in himself and in the universe around him. man needs intelligence, then, to help him, needs education. in the next place, he needs such a picture of god as shall; make him seem lovable. you cannot make the human heart love that which seems hateful. the picture of god, as he has been outlined to the world in the past, has repelled the human heart; and i do not wonder. i do not think it strange that humanity should be at enmity with that conception of the divine. make god the ideal of all that is noble and sweet and lovely, and the heart will be as naturally attracted and drawn to him as a flower is toward the sun. then man needs to have his spiritual side developed, that in him which is akin to god, so that he shall naturally live out the divine love. education, then, is all on man's side, you will see. god does not need to be changed: we need to know him, to love him, to come into conscious relationship with him. this is what we need, so far as our relation to god is concerned. now for the more important side; for it is infinitely the more important practically. let me speak a little while of the work of atonement between man and man. if we trace the history of humanity, we find that men were scattered in groups all over the world, isolated, separated from each other, ignorant of each other, misunderstanding each other, hating each other, fighting each other; and the work of some other world than this. it seems to me that we can very easily account for it when we recognize that man has been gradually coming up from the lower orders of life, and that he still has in him the snake and the hyena, the wolf, the tiger, the bear, all the wild, fierce passions of the animal world only partly sloughed off, not yet outgrown; when you remember how ignorant he is, how he does not understand yet the meaning of these divine laws and the divine life, glimpses of which now and then attract his attention and lure him on; when you remember that selfishness, misguided by ignorance, can believe that one man can get something for his behoof and happiness and good at the expense of the welfare of somebody else, and harm come only to the person that is defrauded. right in here, if i had time to treat it in still further detail, it seems to me we have a simple and adequate explanation of all the evil that has ever blasted, blighted, and darkened the history of man. now, man being this kind of a creature, having an animal origin as well as a divine one, gradually climbing up out of this lower life and looking towards god as his ideal, what is it that he needs? is there any need of atonement? all need of atonement! what does atonement mean? the word itself carries its clearest explanation. in its root it means "atonement," healing the division, whatever its nature or kind, bringing man into one-ness with god and men into one- ness with each other. now let me suggest to you a little as to the things that keep man and god apart, keep men away from each other; and they will suggest the atonement that is needed to heal all these divisions, and bring about that ideal condition of things that we dream of and pray for and talk about, when men shall perfectly love god, and when they shall love each other as themselves. what is it that keeps man from god? first, it seems to me, it is ignorance. what man needs in order to bring him into oneness with god is first to have some clear conceptions of the divine, some high, sweet, noble thoughts of god, some knowledge of the laws of god as embodied in himself and in the universe around him. man needs intelligence, then, to help him, needs education. in the next place, he needs such a picture of god as shall: make him seem lovable. you cannot make the human heart: love that which seems hateful. the picture of god, as he has been outlined to the world in the past, has repelled the human heart; and i do not wonder. i do not think it strange that humanity should be at enmity with that conception of the divine. make god the ideal of all that is noble and sweet and lovely, and the heart will be as naturally attracted and drawn to him as a flower is toward the sun. then man needs to have his spiritual side developed, that in him which is akin to god, so that he shall naturally live out the divine love. education, then, is all on man's side, you will see. god does not need to be changed: we need to know him, to love him, to come into conscious relationship with him. this is what we need, so far as our relation to god is concerned. now for the more important side; for it is infinitely the more important practically. let me speak a little while of the work of atonement between man and man. if we trace the history of humanity, we find that men were scattered in groups all over the world, isolated, separated from each other, ignorant of each other, misunderstanding each other, hating each other, fighting each other; and the work of civilization means to bring men together, to work out an atonement between nation and nation, religion and religion, family and family, man and man. here, again, as in the case of god, the first thing that needs to be overcome is ignorance. look back no further than our late war. i think every careful student of that tremendous conflict is ready to say to-day that, if the north and south had been acquainted with each other, known each other as they know each other now, the war would have been impossible. we need to know other men. as you go back, you find curious traditions illustrating this ignorance of different nations and different peoples of each other. plato, for example, taught it as a virtue that the athenians should hate all other peoples except the greeks and all other greek cities except athens; and they spoke of the outside nations that did not speak greek as barbarians, people who could not talk, people who, when they essayed to speak, said, "ba, ba," misusing words and expressions. they had traditions of men who carried their heads under their arms, who had only one eye, which was in the middle of their forehead, all sorts of monstrosities in human shape, antagonistic to the rest of mankind. even in modern times those ignorances, misconceptions, and prejudices are far from being outgrown. lord nelson counted it as a virtue in an englishman that he should hate a frenchman as he did the devil. how many people are there to- day who look with an unprejudiced eye upon a foreigner? the things, then, that keep nations apart are ignorance. then there is the lack of sympathy. you will find people walking side by side here in our streets, people in the same family, who find it impossible to understand each other. they cannot put themselves in the place of another; they cannot comprehend something which is a little different from what they are accustomed to hear; not only cannot they understand it, they cannot lovingly or patiently look at it. think of the things that have kept people apart in physical and mental and spiritual realms, the rivers, the mountain chains, the oceans; differences of religion, differences of language, differences of civilization; different ethical ideas, until people of the world have sat looking at each other with faces of fear and antagonism instead of with the dawning in their eyes of love and brotherhood. now what the world needs is something to atone, to bridge over these differences, to bring men into sympathetic and loving acquaintance with each other. i wish to note two or three things that have wrought very largely and effectively in this direction. does it ever occur to you that commerce is something besides a means for the accumulation of wealth? commerce has played one of the largest parts in the history of this world in atoning the differences, the antagonisms, between nation and nation and man and man. it has taught the world that there is a community of interests, and that, instead of fighting each other, they are mutually blessed and helped by coworking, co-operating, exchanging with each other. so the inventors, the discoverers, have helped to bring about this sense of human brotherhood, this community of human interests. how much, for example, was wrought when the electric wire was placed under the seas, and, instead of allowing weeks and weeks for a misunderstanding to grow and for ill-feeling to ferment between england and this country, puts us in such quick relations that a misapprehension could be corrected in an hour. all these things have helped bring the world together, are engaged in this magnificent religious service of atonement, of making nations one, making humanity one, a family. i do not wish you to suppose that i misunderstand or underestimate the work of the christ in this direction. he has done a grander work of atonement than any other figure in the history of the world. he revealed to us the glory, the tenderness, the love, of god, and so lifted the heart of the world towards the father as no other one man has done who has ever lived. and, then, he lived out and manifested the glory, the tenderness, the wonder, of human character and human life as hardly any other man who has ever lived; and on so world- wide a stage did he do this that the influence of his work has overrun all national barriers, and is rapidly coming to be world-wide, and in admiration of, and love for him, jew and greek, and barbarian, scythian, arabian, european, and asiatic, all the nations of the world are becoming one. for no matter what their theory may be about him, whether they hold him to be god or man, they hold the ideal that he set forth and lived to be spiritually human and nobly divine. so jesus is more and more, as the ages go by, helping us to one-ness with god, helping us into sympathetic one-ness with each other. but i would not have you think that jesus is the only one who has wrought atonement for the sin of the world. every man in his degree, in so far as he has been divine and human, patient, faithful, has rendered service to the world, has done his part in bringing about this magnificent consummation. look for a moment at abraham lincoln. think what he did by the atoning sacrifice of his life for liberty, for humanity, for truth. on the one hand, his murderer showed what sin may come to in its ignorance, its misconception, its antagonism to whatever is right and good and true. and, on the other hand, he, with words of forgiveness on his lips, words of human love, with all tenderness and charity in his heart, illustrated again and lived out the sweetness of divinity and the tenderness of humanity. as another illustration, human, simple, natural, just let me say a word concerning the act, the attitude, of general grant at appomattox. he did more at the surrender of lee to send a thrill of brotherly sympathy through north and south and help wield this nation into one than he could have possibly done by the most magnificent achievement of arms, when he refused to take his opponent's sword; when he let the officers go away with their side-arms; when he told each man that his horse or his mule was still of right his because he would need it to begin the new life again that was before him. facts like these suggest the naturalness, the humanness, as well as the god-likeness of the work of atonement that is going on all over the world, as it climbs and swings slowly up out of the darkness and into the light of life. jesus the great atoning sacrifice? yes, but thousands on thousands of others atoning in just the same divine way, just the same human way, just as naturally, just as necessarily. every man who does an honest day's work, every man who is kind and loving in his family, every man who is helpful as a neighbor, every man who stands faithfully by his convictions of truth, every man who shows that he cares more for the truth than he does for worldly success, that he knows that in that truth only is immortality, and that it is greater and better and sweeter than even life, every man who consecrates himself in this way is doing his part towards working out the atonement of human sin, the reconciliation of man with god, the reconciliation of men with each other. let us, then, while loving jesus, while reverencing him for the grandeur of his work and the beauty of his life, let us rise and claim kinship with him, rise to the dignity and glory of the thought that we are sons of god as he was, and that we may share with him the grandest service that one man can render to his time, the helping of people to find and love and serve god, the helping of people to discover and love and serve each other. the outcome of this atoning work is simply the coming of that time which we speak of familiarly without half comprehending it, when the world shall recognize the universal fatherhood of god and the universal brotherhood of man. prayer, and communion with god some years ago i heard a minister, then widely known throughout the country, say in a public address, "prayer is the power that moves the arm that moves the world." can we accept that to-day as a definition of a rational view of the relation in which we stand to god? many of you will remember that not long ago the churches and the scientific men of england and america were much stirred and roused over a discussion concerning the practical efficacy of prayer. there was much talk of what was called the "prayer-gauge." i think it was professor tyndall who proposed to test the question as to whether prayer was a real power in the physical world; and his test, if i remember rightly, was something like this. he said: you churchmen claim that prayer is able to heal the sick. now, he said, let us take a certain hospital. we will divide it, a certain number of wards on one side, and a certain number of wards on the other, equalizing so far as we can the nature of the illnesses which afflict the patients. you now concentrate as much as you please, and as many as you please, the prayers on certain wards in the hospital, and we will commit the rest to the ordinary treatment of the physicians; and we will see if you are able to produce any results. against a certain type and theory of prayer i suppose a test like that is legitimate enough; and this type, this theory, is the one that has prevailed throughout christendom largely for a good many hundreds of years. i suppose you can remember in your boyhood some of you are as old as i that it was not an uncommon thing for the minister to pray earnestly for certain things that intelligent men would hardly think of praying for in the same fashion to-day. it was not an uncommon thing, a few years ago, to have a special prayer- meeting during a drought in the endeavor to prevail upon god to send the rain; and there was certainly a scriptural warrant for it; for elijah is represented in the old testament as having, by the power of prayer, shut up the heavens for three years and a half, and then as bringing rain again as the result of his petition. if you study the book of james, and remember, when you do study it, that it was not written by the apostle, but by some unknown author towards the middle of the second century, you will see that he teaches that, if any one is sick, you are not to send for a physician. the brethren are to assemble, the invalid is to be anointed with oil, they are to pray over him, and the explicit and unqualified promise is given that the prayer of faith shall save the sick. and yet we have been confronted for ages with the spectacle of people breaking their hearts in pleading prayer for those that were sick, and seeing them fade and vanish from their sight in spite of their petitions. i have heard it said a good many times that the fame of the cunard line of steamships touching the matter of the safety of its passengers was to be explained by the piety of the founders of the line, and the fact that they prayed every time a ship sailed that it might safely cross the seas and land its passengers without accident in the wished-for haven. are there no prayers for other lines? has no one ever prayed on behalf of a ship that did meet with an accident? but this would be explained on this theory by saying that the prayer was not the prayer of faith or that there was some defect in it somewhere. i refer to these things simply by way of illustration to recall to your mind that prayer used to be supposed to be a power touching the winds, the waves, the prosperity of the crops, insuring safety during a dangerous journey; that it was a power that was able to heal disease, that could accomplish all sorts of strange and startling effects in the physical realm. and now i simply wish to call your attention to the naturalness of that kind of prayer in the olden time. to some of us this thought may seem strange, it may seem almost absurd, to-day; but remember it was not strange, it was not absurd, in the times when the old theory of the universe was thoroughly believed in, not only by church members, but by scientific men as well. what was that old conception? i have had occasion to refer to it in one connection or another a good many times; and now i shall have to refer to it again, so that you may clearly see what is involved in this question of the efficacy of prayer. god was supposed to be up in heaven, away from nature. nature was a sort of mechanism, a machine that ordinarily ran on after its own fashion. god had made it, indeed, in some sense, god supported it continually; but it went on apart from him, and he was away from it. he was, as carlyle used to say, looked upon as an absentee god. he was up in heaven. he ruled this world as the kaiser rules germany, arbitrarily. he was not even always supposed to know everything that was going on, at least, if you are to judge by the tone of the prayers of a good many people such as i have heard. he needed information concerning matters. he needed to be pleaded with, that he might interfere and accomplish some results that would not otherwise take place. he ruled the world arbitrarily and from a distance. now, if any german wishes a certain thing accomplished that would not happen in the ordinary course of nature and human life, he knows that the kaiser has almost unlimited power; and, if he can persuade him to undertake it, it may be accomplished. so he will send a petition to the kaiser; and he will back that petition with all the influence that he is able to bring to bear upon it. if there is a prime minister who stands specially high in favor with the kaiser, do you not see how much might be accomplished by winning his ear, and getting him to intercede on behalf of the petitioner? do you not see right in there the parallel to the old idea that used to dominate us in regard to the government of the universe? if only we could get god interested in the matter, if we could bring to bear upon him an adequate amount of influence, if we could get jesus to intercede with him, then something might be accomplished. are these antiquated ideas? i received a letter only a little while ago. it told me nothing new; but it came to me with a shock, roused me to a recognition of ideas still dominant and popular in the common mind. it was from a catholic. he said: we do not worship mary; but she is in the spirit world, and she is in sympathetic relation with this world's sorrow and trouble. we pray to her, asking her to intercede with her son, because a mother's influence is efficacious. think for a moment of the implications of this theory of governing the universe. god is away off, has forgotten us, or does not care, at any rate, is not doing for us the things we need. if we can get jesus to intercede! but, according to this catholic theory, jesus had perhaps forgotten or was not attentive. so he pleads with his mother, and gets the mother to exert her influence on jesus so he may exert his influence on god, and at last something may be done. i confess to you, friends, that this theory of things does not seem piety to me, but the precise opposite. i ask you now to follow me while i attempt to point out some of the difficulties that confront us in this old-time theory of prayer. why is it that we cannot pray to god to change the order of the natural world? why cannot we believe that prayer is the power that moves the arm that moves the world??? why cannot i consistently pray to god to heal my disease or the disease of a friend, or to save the soul of some friend who would otherwise be neglected by the divine care? why cannot i any longer pray to god to send his light and truth to the heathen world? why cannot i pray to him to insure my safety in mid-atlantic, to do something to prevent my colliding with a derelict, as the van-dam has done during the last few days? do you think there was no one on that ship that prayed? what is the difficulty in the mind of the intelligent, modern thinker when he faces this conception of prayer? let us think a little clearly just a moment; and i imagine i can make it plain. we no longer think of god we cannot think of him as outside the system of nature, and as possibly interfering with it to produce a result that would not otherwise take place. why? because god is the soul, the mind, the heart of nature. the forces of the universe, acting according to their changeless and eternal laws, are simply god at work. and, when i pray to god to interfere, i am praying him to interfere with himself, i am praying him to contradict his own wisely and eternally and changelessly established methods of controlling the world. the question is sometimes asked, but a man can interfere with the course of nature, and produce a result that would not be naturally produced without it? certainly, because man does not stand in this relation to natural forces. but man, however, does not change any law, he does not interfere with any law. he simply discovers some law and obeys it, and in that way produces a result that would not otherwise be produced. but man does not stand, i say, in this vital relation to the forces of the universe and their laws. when you remember that these forces working, as i said, changelessly, eternally, after their methods, when you remember that these are god in his ceaseless and wise and loving activity, then do you not see that he cannot contradict or interfere with himself? here is the great difficulty in regard to this old method, this old conception of prayer which confronts the intelligent, the educated, the thoughtfully devout man. when i was first struggling out into the light? as it seems to me now from my old theological training, i met another difficulty that i think will appeal to you. it seemed to me an impertinence for me to be telling god, as i heard so many people on every hand, all sorts of things that he knew before. i reconsidered the words of jesus, you are not to give yourself to much speaking in your prayers, for your father knoweth what you have need of before you ask him. and then there was another difficulty which troubled me more than any of the others, a delightful, splendid difficulty it has seemed to me since those days. it was connected with the thought of god's goodness and love. there are heathen, they tell us, who have got a glimpse, from their point of view, of this fact about god. it is said they do not bring any offerings, except some flowers, to the deities they regard as good, because, they say, they do not need to be persuaded. they bring all their costly offerings to the bad gods, the ones they are afraid of; and they attempt to buy their favor or buy off their anger. when i waked up to the free and grand conception of the eternal love and the boundless goodness of the father, then it seemed to me that many of my prayers in the past had been so far from reasonable that they were absurd, and so far from piety that they were wrong. to illustrate what i mean. when i was minister of an orthodox church in the west, a lovely, faithful lady came to me to raise some question touching this matter of prayer. it had been suggested, i suppose, by something i had said; and i asked her this question: what would you think of me if i should come to you, and with pathos in my voice, and perhaps with tears in my eyes, plead with you to be kind to your own children, beg you to give them something to eat, beseech you to furnish them with clothes, entreat you to educate them, to do the best for them that you knew how? what would you think of it? i asked. she said, i should feel insulted. and i replied, do you not think that god is almost as good as you are? if you are anxious and ready, do you think that god needs to be pleaded with and entreated and besought in order to make him willing, in order to make him kind, in order to bring some sort of pressure to bear upon him so that he will do the things for his children of which they most stand in need? no scientific difficulty, no question of theories of the universe, has ever affected my practice in the matter of prayer so much as this overwhelming, blessed thought of the loving-kindness and care of the infinite father. he does not need to be informed, he does not need to be persuaded. has not jesus told us that your heavenly father is more ready to give the things which you need than you are to give good gifts to your children? and so i came to have a difficulty with the kind of prayer- meetings in which i was brought up as a boy, and which i used to lead as a young and earnest minister. i have heard kinds of prayers which have seemed to me reflections on the goodness and the kindness of our father in heaven. i remember one man i used to hear him over and over again, week by week who would pray, it is time for thee, o god, to work! and, as i came to think of it, it hurt my sense of reverence. i shrank from it. and i could not believe that god was going to let thousands of souls in china or africa perish merely because christians in america did not pray hard enough and long enough for their salvation. why should they meet with eternal doom on account of the lack of enthusiasm or devotion of people of whom they have never heard? so i used to find myself troubled about this question of praying so hard for the salvation of other people's souls. if, as the old creeds tell us, it is settled from all eternity as to just who is to be saved and who is to be lost, there would hardly seem place for a vital prayer; and if, as a friend of mine, a minister, and a very liberal and broad one, though in one of the older churches, said to me, "i believe that god will save every single soul that he can save," then do you not see again that it touches this kind of prayer? if he cannot save them, then why should i beg him to do it? if he can, and loves them better than i do, again, why should i plead with him after that fashion to do it? these, frankly and freely spoken, are some of the difficulties connected with a certain theory of prayer. i gladly put all that now behind my back, and come to the grand and positive side of my theme. i wish to tell you what i myself believe in regard to this matter of prayer. and, in the first place, let me suggest to you that prayers, even the prayers of the past, any of them, the most objectionable types, are not made up only of petition; they are not all begging, teasing for things. there enter into their composition gratitude, adoration, reverence, aspiration, a sense of communion with the spiritual being, a longing for higher and finer things; a sense of refuge in time of trouble, a sense of strength in time of need, a sense of hope, uplift, and outlook as we glance towards the future. a prayer, then, you see, is a very composite thing, not a simple thing, not merely made up of the element of pleading with god to give us certain things that we cannot come into possession of by ordinary means. right here let me stop long enough to ask you to attend a little carefully to the teaching of jesus on the subject of prayer. you will see he chimes in almost perfectly with the things i have been saying. if we followed his directions literally, we should never pray in public at all. he says, enter into your chamber, and shut to the door, and commune with the father in secret. he does not advocate long prayers, nor this kind of pleading, begging prayers that i have referred to. do you remember the story of the unjust judge? jesus tells this parable on purpose to enforce the point i have been speaking of. he says: here is an unjust judge: a widow brings her case before him. she pleads with him until she tires him out; and at last he says, although i am an unjust judge, and fear neither god nor men, because with her continual praying she wearies me, i will grant her petition. jesus does not say you are to weary god out in order to get your petitions granted, but just the opposite. how much more shall god give good gifts unto those that ask him read once more that other story of the man who rises at night and goes to a neighbor for assistance. the neighbor, for the sake of being gracious and kind, will rise, although it gives him trouble and he does not wish to, and grant his request. but god is not like that neighbor: he does not need to be wearied or roused to make him care for our interests. this is the teaching, you will notice, of jesus. if there is anything that appears like contrary teaching, you will find it in the supposed gospel of john, written by an anonymous author, in which quite different doctrines are taught in regard to a good many things from those that are reported of jesus in the other gospels. now i wish to come to my own personal position concerning the subject of prayer. it is fitting is it not that we should open our hearts with gratitude to god, no matter what has come to us of good or bright, of beautiful, sweet and true things, no matter through what channel, by the ministry of what friend, as the result of the working of no matter how many natural forces. trace it to its source, and that source is always of necessity the one fountain, the one eternal giver. and, if there be no more than courtesy in our hearts, ought it not to be easy and fitting for us to think, at least, if we do not say, thank you, father? not only thanksgiving, but adoration. any uplook to something beautiful and high and fine above you partakes of the nature of worship. so that prayer which is worship, is it not altogether fitting and sweet and true? only as we look up do we ever rise up, do we ever attain to anything finer and better. and then there is communion. is it true that god is spirit, and that he is father of his children, also spirit? are we made in his likeness? is there community of nature between him and us? i believe that he is human in all essential qualities, and that we are divine in all essential qualities. i believe the only difference between god and man is a difference not of kind, but of degree, and that there is, possibility of constant interchange of thought, of feeling, communion, between god and his children. profound, wonderful truth it seems to me is expressed in those beautiful words of tennyson's: "speak to him thou, for he hears, and spirit with spirit may meet. closer is he than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet." communion then possible, the very life of that which is divine within us! then i do not believe for one moment that prayer is only a sort of spiritual gymnastics, that it produces results in us merely by the exercise of spiritual feelings and emotions. i believe that in the moral and spiritual realms prayer does produce actual results that would not be produced in any other way. this, however, mark you carefully, not by producing any change in god, only changing our relations towards god. can i illustrate it? i have a flower, for example, a plant in a flower-pot in my room. it seems to be perishing for the lack of something. it may be that the elements in the air do not properly feed it: it may be that it is hungry for light. at any rate, i try it: i take it out into the sunshine, i let the air breathe upon it, the dews fall upon it, the rains touch it and revive it and the plant brightens up, grows, blossoms, becomes beautiful and fragrant. have i changed natural laws any? not to one parunticle. i have changed the relation of my plant and the air; and i have produced a result of life and beauty where would have been ugliness and death. so i believe in prayer in that sense, that it may and does change the spiritual attitude of the soul towards god so that we come into entirely new relations with him, and the spiritual life in us grows, unfolds, becomes beautiful and sweet, not because we have changed god, but because we have got into a new set of relations with him. if i thought that i could change god by a prayer, that i could interfere in the slightest degree with the working of any of the natural forces, i would never dare to open my lips in prayer again so long as i live. we do not need to change god: we need simply to change our attitude towards him, change our relations to him. is not this true in every department of human life? how is it that you produce results anywhere? you wish a mountain stream to work for you. do you change the laws of motion? you adapt your machinery to those laws of motion, and all the power of god becomes yours. you do not change him, you change yourself, your attitude towards him. and so in every one of the discoveries, in every one of the revolutions, that have come to the world, simply by discovering god's methods, and humbly adapting our ways to those methods thus the forces of god, which are changeless and eternal, produce for us results which they would not have produced but for adapting our lives to the working of their ways. a great many people do not think they ever pray. i have never seen a man yet who did not pray. you cannot live, and not pray: you cannot escape it if you try. take montgomery's famous old definition, "prayer is the soul's sincere desire, uttered or unexpressed, the motion of a hidden fir that trembles in the breast." soul's sincere desire. yes, the body's desire, the mind's desire, the heart's desire, any desire, any outreach of life, is a prayer, an appeal for something that only the universe, that only god, can bestow. so, no matter whether you think you are religious or not, you are a praying man so long as you are a living man; and you cannot escape the fact if you try. it is merely a question whether you are a loving praying man or some other kind. there is another aspect of prayer to which i wish to call your attention. prayer is the refuge of a soul in trouble. it does not mean here, again, that you change god any. can you not understand what it means to go to god, as it were, and fling yourself, like a child, against his breast and feel yourself folded in the everlasting arms? your sorrow may not be removed, the burden may not be taken away, the life of your friend may not be saved, the sickness may not be healed; but there is comfort, there is strength, there is peace, there is help. why, even in our human life do you not know how it is? you go to some friend you trust and love with your trouble. perhaps he cannot lift it with one of his fingers; but he can tell you that he loves you, he cares, he would help you if only he were able. he can put his arm around you, he can say, god bless you; and you are stronger. you go away with lifted shoulder and with head that fronts the heavens; and you are able to bear the burden. is there nothing akin to this in the sense of coming into intimate relations with the eternal father, when troubled, pressed, when the outside world is dark, and feeling that here is refuge in a love deeper, higher, unspeakably more tender than that of the dearest friend that ever lived? and this suggests another point. i have no doubt that sometimes, in my attempts to lead the devotions of this congregation, i use words which, if i were to sit down and critically analyze, i could not logically justify. i do not mean to; but, perhaps, sometimes i do. what of it? when my children were small, and my little boy came and climbed up in my lap and expressed himself in all sorts of illogical and foolish ways, telling me every sort of thing he wanted, impossible things, unwise things, things i could not get for him, things i would not get if i could, because i thought myself wiser than he, did these things trouble me? i loved to have him pour out his whole little soul into mine, because he was my child and because i did not expect him to be over-wise. it was this simple touch of kinship, this simple communion of father and child, which was sweet and tender and true. so i believe with my whole soul that god loves us, his little children, with an unspeakable tenderness, a tenderness infinitely beyond that with which any earthly father ever loved a child, and that we can go to him freely and pour out our hearts, whether it is wise in expression or unwise; only let us do it with the feeling, "not my will, father, but thine, be done," not as though we were trying to persuade him to do things for us that he would not otherwise do, but merely as the pouring out of our gratitude, our tenderness, our love. there is another thing that needs just a word of suggestion. i believe that we ought to pray to god, not in the sense of begging for things, but sympathetically bringing in the arms of our sympathy all those we love and all those we hate, if there are any, and all things that live on the face of the earth. there is a hint of what i mean in those beautiful words of tennyson's: "for what are men better than sheep or goats that nourish a blind life within the brain, if, knowing god, they lift not hands in prayer both for themselves and those who call them friend? for so the whole round earth is every way bound by gold chains about the feet of god." let us reach out our arms of sympathy to all the world and bring the world sympathetically into the presence of our father. so our own hearts and loves will broaden, until they, too, are divine. and, then, there is one other thing. what a strength prayer has been to the grandest souls of the ages! never was truer, finer truth written than those magnificent words of isaiah: "even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: but they that wait upon the lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, and not faint!" take jesus in his hour of agony, take savonarola with his struggle, take huss, wyclif, luther, take all the grand souls of the ages when they have simply stood with the feeling, one with god is a majority, and ready to face the world, if need be, in the conviction that they spoke for and represented the truth. the times of which lowell speaks: "truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne, yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, standeth god within the shadow, keeping watch above his own." this sense that god is for the truth and right, and, if you are standing for the truth and right, the almighty power is backing you up, the ground you stand on impregnable, because of that position. you do not expect god to work miracles, you do not expect him to do anything; but simply the sense that you are in his presence, that you are on his side, re- enforces you more than a thousand men could re-enforce an army in the time of its need. this is the great sense of surety that the poet clough had in mind, when he wrote those wonderfully fine words: "it fortifies my soul to know that, though i perish, truth is so; that howsoe'er i stray or range, whate'er i do, thou dost not change. i steadier step when i recall that, if i slip, thou dost not fall." here is the confidence, the strength, that comes from prayer, from communion with god, from the sense of being in his presence, from a feeling of fellowship with the divine. the truest and finest, the sweetest prayer must come oft of the loving, the sympathetic, the tender soul. no selfish prayer can expect to enter into the heart of god. you will note in the words that jesus teaches his disciples, it is not "my" father, it is "our" father. and, if we wish to pray in the divine spirit, we shall broaden that "our" until it includes not only our family, our church, our city, our state, our nation, our humanity, but until it includes all life that swims or walks or flies, feeling that it is the one life of the father that is in us all. for, as coleridge has finely put it, he prayeth best who loveth best all things, both great and small; for the dear god who loveth us, he made and loveth all. the worship of god there are those who in religious matters, as well as in all other departments of life, are content to walk unquestioningly the path which the footsteps of previous generations have made easy and familiar. but there are others and these among the more thoughtful and earnest minds to whom it is not enough to utter earnest words concerning enthusiasm and devotion, consecration and worship. these spiritual attitudes and exercises must first be made to appear reasonable to them, fitting, fitting to their conception of god, fitting to their ideas of that which is highest and finest in man. so there are many things that pass to-day as forms of worship, many ideas connected with worship, which this class of minds cannot heartily and fully accept. some of them do not seem to them fitting, as they look upward towards god. they cannot, for example, believe that god cares for flattery, cares to sit on his throne, and be told by his creatures how great and how wonderful he is. they cannot think that he cares to have presents brought to him, gifts offered on his altar, as men say. they cannot believe that he really is anxious for many of these external forms and ceremonies, which seem to the onlooker to constitute the essential element of much that passes as popular worship. and then, on the other hand, man has grown into a sense of dignity. he has a higher and loftier idea of his own nature and of what is fitting to a man; and he cannot any longer heartily enter into the meaning of words which speak of him as a worm of the dust, which seem to him to intimate that god cares to have him prostrate himself in utter humiliation, to speak of himself always as a miserable sinner, as one without any good in him. many of these things from the point of view of the man himself no longer constitute the real conviction, the real feeling of the noblest hearts; and so there are many who are troubled over this question of worship, who are not quite sure as to how much spiritual significance it may any longer retain, not quite sure as to how vital a part it may play in the development of the religious life of man. we find an adequate and perfectly natural explanation of some of these phases of worship that trouble us to-day, as we look back and note some of the steps in the religious development of the race. i shall not raise the question as to how or where or in what way the act of human worship began. i will simply say that one of the first manifestations of that which came to be religious worship which we are able to trace at the present time is to be found in the burial-mounds of the dead. men reverenced the memory of the chief of the tribe who had passed into the invisible. they did not believe that he had ceased to exist: they rather looked upon him as having become, because invisible, a higher ruler. they thought of him as still interested in the welfare of the tribe, still its guardian, still its avenger, still demanding of the tribe the same reverence that it paid to him while he was yet alive; and his followers clothed him with all the human attributes with which they were familiar during the time he was among them. he was still hungry, he was still thirsty, he still wanted his old-time weapons, all those things he was familiar with during his earthly career. and so they brought food, and laid it on the burial-mound above his body; and they poured out their libations of drink to quench his spiritual thirst. these were very real beliefs on the part of man universally during a certain stage of his mental, his moral, his spiritual growth. it was a very natural step beyond this to the origin of sacrifices. all sacrifice began right here. it was a religious meal, in which god and his worshippers equally shared. some animal, supposed to partake of a life similar to that which distinguished the god and the worshipper, too, is sacrificed. it is cooked, and the worshippers partake of the meal; and they fully believe that the god joins in it also. and then the drink they partake of, and pour out their libation for the invisible spirit. so the first sacrifice was a meal eaten together; and just as, for example, to-day you see a remnant of this idea when a man eats with an arab, although the arab may discover five minutes after that it was his bitterest foe, he finds himself at least during a little time bound to amity and peace by the fact that they have shared this sacred meal together, so in the act of sacrifice it was believed that the worshipper consecrated himself in loyalty to his god, and that the god consecrated himself in faithfulness to his worshippers as their guardian and protector. here is given the central significance of sacrifices that have made so large a part of the religious ceremonial of the world. these are not peculiar to what we call pagan people. do you remember the story of how, after the flood, noah offers a sacrifice, and god up in heaven is represented as smelling the flavor of the burning meat and as rejoicing in it, accepting the offering, and pledging himself to guard and care for his worshippers? do you remember, also, that story of jacob, how, when he is on his journey, he falls asleep, and has his wonderful dream, and sees the ladder starting at his feet and ending at the throne of god, up and down which the angels are passing? when he wakes in the morning, he says, "surely, this is holy ground"; and he takes the stone on which he slept, and sets it up as an altar, and pours out the sacred oil as an offering to his god. all the way through the old testament, in the history of the hebrew people, you trace these same ideas that you find in the life of almost all the other nations of the world. it was only a step beyond this to the idea of presenting gifts to god, no matter what the nature of that gift might be. and, as men came to make him these sacred offerings, they came also to believe and in the most natural way in the world that, the more costly the gift, the more likely it was to be accepted on the part of its sublime recipient. so human sacrifices arose; for there could be no more sacred gift than for a man to offer his own child or his own wife to god. the gods were looked upon as sometimes demanding these tremendous sacrifices as the conditions of their mercy or their care. i refer you for illustration to one of the most striking and touching of tennyson's poems. i think it is entitled "the victim." there had been famine in the land, and the priests have announced that they have learned that the gods demand as an offering that which is most sacred and most dear to the heart of the king; and the question is as to whether it is his son, his boy, or his wife. they think it must be the boy, because he was the one that would continue the kingly line; but the wife detects the gladness of her husband when he sees that the boy is to be selected, and knows by that sense of relief that passes over his face that the priests have made a mistake, and that she herself is to be the victim. and so, in her love for him and for the people, she rushes upon the sacrificial knife. all these ideas, you see, are perfectly natural in certain stages of human development, logically reasoned out in view of their thought of the gods and of their relations to them and of what these gods must desire at their hands. it is not only among the very early beliefs that you find these ideas controlling the thought and action of men. study the ancient classical times as they are reflected in the iliad, in the odyssey, or in virgil's aeneid, and you will find that the gods were very human in all their feelings, their thoughts, their passions. as, in the old testament, yahweh is reported to have been a jealous god, not willing that respect should be paid to anybody but himself, so you find the old greek and roman deities very jealous as to what were regarded as their rights, as to what the people must pay to them; and, if they are angry, they can be appeased if an offering rare and costly enough be brought by the worshipper. you can buy their favor; you can ward off their anger, if only you can offer them something which is precious enough so that they are ready to accept it at the worshipper's hands. these are not merely old testament ideas, nor only pagan ideas. some years ago, when i was in rome, i visited among others one of the many churches dedicated to mary under one name or another; and there was a statue of the virgin by the altar, and it impressed me very much to see that it was loaded down with gifts. every place on the statue itself to which anything could be attached, anything on the altar around it, was weighted down with gold chains, with jewels, with precious gifts of every kind. these had been brought as thank-offerings, expressions of worship, or pledges connected with a petition, because i have brought thee this gift, have mercy, do this for me which i need. so these old ideas are vital still, and live on in the modern world. and yet modern and magnificent are those utterances of the old hebrew prophet, who had so completely outgrown the common customs even of his time, when he represents god as saying that he is weary of all these external offerings. he says: i do not want the cattle brought to my temples. those that wander on a thousand hills are already mine. if i were hungry, i would not ask thee. he does not want the rivers of oil poured out. what does he want? the old prophet says, what doth the lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with god? and some of the later writers caught a glimpse of the same spiritual truth when they said, not burnt- offerings, not calves of a year old; when they cry out, shall i bring the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? no, it is a broken and contrite heart, a heart sorry for its sin, a heart consecrating itself to righteousness and truth, this inner, spiritual worship. the prophets, you see, were climbing up to that magnificent ideal so finely set up by jesus as reported in the gospel from which i read our lesson this morning. they had not only believed that god was to be worshipped after these external fashions, but that there was some special place, not only where it was easier to think of him, but where he demanded the offering should be brought. he said to the woman at the well: you think it is mount gerizim where the people ought to worship, and the jews think it is mount moriah; but i say unto you that neither in this mountain nor yet at jerusalem shall men worship the father. god is spirit, the universal spirit, every place a temple, every spot hallowed, if only those that worship him do so in spirit and in truth. you see, then, how up these stairways of gradual approach the human race, in the person of its highest and finest representatives, has climbed, how near it has come to the spiritual ideal of god and the spiritual thought of that which he requires at our hands. is worship, then, so far as external form is concerned, to pass away? by no manner of means, as i think. as you analyze any one of these old primitive acts of worship, no matter how crude, no matter how cruel, how bloody, how repulsive it may be to-day from the outlook of our higher civilization, you will note that it has in it an element which, i believe, is permanent, and can never be outgrown. whatever else there is, there is always the sense of a presence, invisible, mighty, high, and, from the point of view of the worshipper, holy and set apart. there is always the feeling of being in the shadow of the high and lofty one who inhabiteth eternity. there is always the sense of uplooking, of worship, in the higher sense of that term. always, at any rate, the germ of these; and this, it seems to me, we may be sure and certain, however it may clothe itself in the future, shall never pass away. i wish now, if there are any who think it is not befitting the greatness, the nobleness of man that he should bow himself in the presence of the highest, humiliate himself, if you choose to use that term, in acts of worship, i wish now, i say, to consider worship under two or three aspects, and see what it means. and, in the first place, i ask you to note that the ability to worship is always the measure of the rank of a being, it is the test and the standard of greatness. as you look over the animal world, which one of them are we accustomed to think of as coming the nearest to man? what one do we love to have most with us, to associate most with our joys, with the peace of our homes? is it not the dog? and as you examine the dog, study carefully his nature and characteristics, do you not note that there is in his nature a hint, a suggestion, of that which is the root of all worship? the dog is the one animal with which man is accustomed familiarly to associate himself, who looks up with an incipient reverence, love, almost worship, to his master. and it is this quality in the dog that enables him to look up, and, however dimly, feel the life of some one that is above him, that lifts him into our society, and makes us feel this tenderness of heart-kinship with that which is finest in his nature. and man is man simply because he is able to look above himself. the old greeks had an anticipation of that idea when they called man anthropos; for the meaning of the word is the upward-looker. as in imagination you go back and down to the time when man first appeared, developed from the lower life which preceded him, the first thing you can think about him as human is the opening of his eyes in wonder, the lifting of his face in curiosity and question, and the birth of adoration in his soul. this is that which made him man. you go and study the lowest type of barbaric life to-day; and you will find that the barbarian has very little curiosity as compared with the civilized man. you will find that it is very difficult to astonish him with anything. he does not wonder. he takes everything for granted. he does not see clearly and deeply enough to appreciate the marvel. let me illustrate from a specimen of barbaric life itself. a few years ago the chief of an indian tribe was brought from the plains of the west to visit washington. the idea was to impress him as much as possible with the idea of our civilization, so that he might report it to his people when he went home. after they had crossed the mississippi on their way to the west, the gentleman in whose care he was travelling asked the chief what the one thing which he had seen during his trip was which had impressed him the most; and he said at once the st. louis bridge. but his companion said, are you not astonished at the capitol of washington? "yes," he said, "but my people can pile stones on top of each other; but they cannot make a cobweb of steel hang in the air." you see how that perception lifted him above the average level of his people? he was showing his capacity for higher and nobler civilization. it is just this ability in the man to wonder, to see something to wonder at, to worship, to admire, which lifts him one grade higher than that of the average level of his tribe. so that which makes man a man is the capacity in him to admire. all admiration is the essence, the root, of worship. and, the more things a man admires, the greater and nobler type of man he is seen to be. if he can admire music, if he can admire painting, if he can admire sculpture, if he can admire poetry, if he can admire literature of every kind, if he can admire grand architecture, the beautiful monuments of the world, we say, here is a large, all-round type of man. we estimate his dignity, his greatness, by the capacity that he shows for worship in its lower type; for worship is simply looking up with admiration. there is another quality about this worship that i wish to speak of. it is the power that is capable of transforming a man, making him over into the likeness of that which he admires. you find the man without this capacity, and you know it is hopeless to appeal to him, hopeless to set up ideals, hopeless to place before him enticing examples. there is nothing in him to which these things appeal. take alexander the great. it is said he carried around with him a copy of the iliad, and that achilles was his ideal of a hero. do you not see how this admiration transformed the life of the young king, and made him after the type of that which he admired? it does not make any difference what this special admiration may be. let a man admire beethoven, and he will cultivate instinctively the qualities that make the beauty and greatness of beethoven's character and the wonders of his career. this ideal may be in a book, it may be embodied in fiction. i have liked always, either on the walls of my room or on the walls of my heart, to have certain portraits of persons whom i have loved, who are no longer living; and they are to me constant stimulus. they speak to me by day, and in my dreams at night their eyes follow me, and seem to look into my soul; and in their presence i could not do a mean, an unmanly thing. i love, i reverence, i worship these lofty ideals. and the quality of these characters filters down through and permeates the thought and the life. you remember how the other aspect of this thought is illustrated by shakspere. he says, "my nature is subdued to what it works in, like the dyer's hand." if that with which you keep company, that you admire, is below you, it degrades; if it is above you, it lifts. in any case you are transformed, shaped into the likeness of that which you admire. there is another aspect of this close akin to that which i have just been dealing with. it is only the worshipper who has in him any promise, any possibility, of growth. whether it is the individual or the nation, it makes no difference. if you find no capacity to admire that which is above and beyond you, then there is no hope of progress. take the young man who thinks he has exhausted the possibilities of the world, who has reached the stage, who prides himself on not being surprised, not being over whelmed, not admiring anything. the careful outside observer knows that, instead of having exhausted the possibilities and greatness and wonders of the universe, he has simply exhausted himself. the man who knows how full the world is of that which is beautiful and great and true and noble walks through the universe with his head bared and bowed, and feels, as did moses when standing in the presence of the burning bush, that he ought to take off his shoes from his feet, for the place where he is standing is holy ground. wherever you are standing in this universe, which is full of god from star to dust particle, is holy ground; and, if you do not feel it, if you are not touched, if you are not bowed, if you are not thrilled with wonder, it is defect in you, and not lack of god. if the musician admires his great predecessors and strives to emulate them; if the painter in the presence of the sistine madonna feels lifted and touched, so that he never can be content with poor work again; if the sculptor is ready to bend his knees in the presence of the venus of melos, as he sees her standing at the end of the long gallery in the louvre; if the lover of his kind admires john howard, and can never be content unless he is doing something for his fellow- men again; if we can be touched by lives like clara barton's, like florence nightingale's, like dorothea dix's, like the great and consecrated ones of the earth; if in any department of life we can be lifted, humbled, thrilled, at the same time with the thought of the greatness and glory and beauty that are above and beyond us, then there is hope of growth, then there is life that can come to something fine and noble in the future. i wish, in the light of these illustrations of what worship means, to note the thought that a great many men conscientious, earnest, simple who have never been accustomed to think of themselves as religious, and perhaps would deny it if a friend suggested to them that they had in them the possibilities of worship, that perhaps they are worshippers, even if they know it not. a great many persons have thrown away the common ideals of worship, and perhaps have settled down to the idea that they are not worshippers at all, while all the time the substance and the beauty and the glory of worship are in their daily lives and always in their hearts. i want to suggest two or three grades of worship, to show that this worship climbs; and i want to call attention to the fact that on the lowest grade it is worship of god just the same as on the highest, that all worship or admiration for truth, for beauty, for good, wherever, however, manifested, is really worship of god, whether we think of it or call it by that name or not, because they all are manifestations of god. take the man who is touched and lifted by natural beauty, the sense of natural power; the man who loves the woods, who turns and stands to see the glory of a sunset, who is lifted by tides of emotion as he hears the surf beat on the shore, who feels bowed in the presence of the wide night sky of stars, who is humbled at the same time that he is uplifted in the presence of the mountains, who is touched by all natural scenes of beauty and peace and glory. are not these men in their degree worshippers? take the feeling that is expressed in those beautiful lines of byron. we do not think of byron as a religious nature, but certainly he had in him the heart of worship when he could write such thoughts as these: "'tis midnight. on the mountains brown the cold, round moon shines deeply down; blue roll the waters; blue the sky seems like an ocean hung on high, bespangled with those isles of light, so wildly, spiritually bright. whoever looked upon them shining and turned to earth without repining, nor wished for wings to flee away and mix with their eternal ray?" and wordsworth says he feels a presence that "disturbs him with the joy of elevated thought, a sense sublime of something far more deeply interfused." and so you may run all through the poets, these simply as hints, specimens, every one of them worshippers, touched by the beauty, glory, uplift of the natural world. and then pass to the next stage, and come to the worship of the human, to the admiration of the highest and finest qualities that are manifested in the lives of men and women. who is there that is not touched and thrilled by some story of heroic action, of heroic self- sacrifice, of consecration to duty in the face of danger and death? and no matter what this manifestation of human goodness may be, if you can be thrilled by it and lifted by it, then you have taken another step up this ladder of worship which leads you into the very presence chamber of the divine. let a boy read the life of lincoln, see his earnest thirst for knowledge, the sacrifice he was willing to pay for it, his consecration to his ideals of truth, the transparent honesty of the man, the supreme contempt with which he could look down upon anything poor or mean or low, the firmness and simplicity with which he assumes high office, the faithfulness, the unassuming devotion, that he carries into the fulfilment of the trust. take him all the way through, study his character and admire, and you are a worshipper of that which is divine. so in the case of jesus, the supreme soul of history in its consecration to the father, its simple trust in the divine love, its superiority to fear, to question, to death. when we bow ourselves in the presence of the nazarene, we are not worshipping another god. we are worshipping his father and our father as lie shines in the face of jesus, as he illumines and beautifies his life, as he makes glorious the humble pathways of galilee, and so casts a reflected glory over the humblest pathways any of us may be called upon to tread. the next step in our ascent brings us to the conscious worship of god himself. we cannot grasp the divine idea. the finite cannot measure or outline the infinite; and so, when we say god, we mean only the grandest ideal that we can frame, that reaches on towards, but can never adequately express the deity. and so we worship this thought, this ideal, growing as our capacity develops, advancing as the race advances, and ever leading us godward, as when we follow a ray of light we are travelling towards its source. and the attitude of our souls in the presence of this which is divine is truest worship. the humility of it, the exaltation of it, is beautifully phrased in two or three lines which i wish to repeat to you from browning's saul: "i but open my eyes, and perfection, no more and no less, in the kind i imagined, full-fronts me, and god is seen god in the star, in the stone, in the flesh, in the soul and the clod. and, thus looking within and around me, i ever renew (with that stoop of the soul which in bending upraises it, too), as by each new obeisance in spirit i climb to his feet!" here is the significance of the thought i had in mind at the opening. we talk about humbling ourselves. when we can bend with reverence in the presence of that which is above us, the very bending is exaltation; for it indicates the capacity to appreciate, to admire, to adore. thus we climb up into the ability to worship god, the infinite spirit, our father, in spirit and in truth. now to raise one moment the question suggested near the opening, are forms of worship to pass away? the reply to this seems to me perfectly clear. those forms which sprang out of and are fitted to only lower ideals of worship, ideals which humanity outgrows, these must be left behind, or else they must be transformed, and filled with a new and higher meaning. but forms will always remain. but note one thing: they sometimes say that we unitarians are too cold, and do not have form enough. you will see that, the higher men rise intellectually, the less there is always of outward expression. for example, before men were able to speak with any large vocabulary, they eked out their meaning by all kinds of motions and gestures. but the most highly cultivated men to- day, in their conversation, are the ones who get the least excited and have the least recourse to gestures, because they are capable of expressing the highest, finest, and most varied thoughts by the elaborate power of speech which they have developed. and perhaps the highest and finest worship of the world will not be that which has the most elaborate ceremonial and ritual; but it will have adequate and fitting ceremonial and ritual, because it will naturally seek to express in some external way that which it feels. i sometimes wish and perhaps you will pardon me for saying it here and now that we unitarians were a little less afraid of adequate posture and gesture in our acts of public worship. god is, indeed, everywhere as much as he is here; but this is the place we have specially consecrated to thinking about him and to going through our stated forms of worship. and if, when you enter the house of a friend, you take off your hat, you bow the head, it seems to me it would be especially fitting to do it, when one enters a christian church. and, in the attitude of prayer, i wish that all might find it in their hearts to sit with bended brow and closed eyes as in the presence of the supreme, shutting out the common, the outside world, and trying to realize what it means to come consciously to the feet of the eternal one. i love these simple, fitting, external manifestations of the worshipful spirit; and, if we do not substitute them for the worship, and think we worship when we bend the knee, this appropriate expression of the spirit, or feeling, it seems to ought to help cultivate the feeling and the spirit, and make it easier for us to be conscious of the presence of the divine. we are men, then, in the highest sense of the term, only as we are worshippers. and the more worshipful we are, in high and true sense of that word, the nobler and higher manhood, and the grander the possibilities in us of de intellectual, moral, spiritual growth. let us, then, cultivate the admiring, the wondering, the worshipful attitude of heart and mind, and recognize on lowest steps of this ladder that lifts to god, the presence of the same divine power and beauty and glory as that which we see clearly on the highest, and know that always, when we are worshipping any manifestation of god, we are shipping him who is spirit, in spirit and in truth. when on some strain of music our thoughts are wafted high; when, touched with tender pity, kind teardrops dim the eye; when thrilled with scenes of grandeur, or moved to deeds of love, do we not give thee worship, o god in heaven above? for thou art all life's beauty, and thou art all its good: by thy tides are we lifted to every lofty mood. whatever good is in us, whatever good we see, and every high endeavor, are they not all from thee? morality natural, not statutory. it is very common for people to identify their special type of religion or their theological opinions with religion itself, and feel that those who do not agree with them are in the rue sense not religious. not only this. it is perhaps quite less common for them to identify their particular type of religion with the fundamental ideas of morality, and think that the people who do not agree with them are undermining the moral stability of the world. for example, those who question the absolute authority of the catholic church are looked upon the authorities of that church as the enemies, not only of religion, but as the enemies of society, the enemies of humanity, as doing what they can to shake the very foundations of he social order. you will find a great many protestant theologians who seem to hold the opinion that, if you dare to question the authenticity or authority of some particular nook in the bible, you are not only an enemy of religion, but you are an enemy of morality. you are doing what you can to disturb the stability of the world. but, if we look at the matter with a little care, we shall see that we ought to turn it quite around, look at it from another point of view. though every bible, every particle of religious literature, every hymn, every prayer on the face of the earth, were blotted out of existence to-day, religion would not be touched. religious books did not create religion, did not make man a religious being. it is the religious nature of man that made the bibles, that uttered itself in prayers, that created the rituals, that sung the hymns and chanted the anthems. it is man, a religious being, who makes religious institutions, who creates all the external aspects and appearances of the religious life. and the same is true precisely in regard to moral precepts. if the ten commandments were blotted out of the memory of man, if every single ethical teaching of jesus should perish, if the high and fine moral precepts of epictetus and marcus aurelius and all the great teachers of the pagan world should cease to exist, if there were not a printed moral precept on earth, morality would not be touched. it is not these that have created morality. it is the natural moral nature of man that has written all the commandments, whether they have come to us by the hand of moses or of gautama or mohammed or confucius or seneca, or no matter who the medium may have been. man is a moral being, naturally, essentially, eternally, and this is a moral universe, inherently, necessarily, eternally; and, though all the external expression of moral thought and feeling should be lost, the human race would simply reproduce them again. it is sometimes well for us to get down to the bed-rock in our thinking, and find how natural and necessary the great foundations are. the hindu priests used to tell their followers that the earth, which was flat, rested on certain pillars, which rested again on some other foundation beneath them, and so on until thought was weary in trying to trace that upon which the earth was supposed to find its stability. and they also told their followers that, if they did not bring offerings, if they did not pay the special respect which was due to the gods, if they were not obedient to heir teachings, these pillars would give way, and the earth would be precipitated into the abyss. but we have found, as a result of our modern study of he universe, that the earth needs no pillars on which to rest; but it swings freely in its orbit, as the old verse that used to read in my schoolboy days says, "hangs on nothing in the air," part of the universal system of things, stable in its eternal sound and motion, kept and cared for by the power that lever sleeps and never is weary. so, by studying into the foundations of the moral nature of man, we have discovered a last that it needs no artificial props or supports, but that morality is inherent, natural and eternal. i shall not raise the question, which is rather curious than practical, as to whether there are any beginnings of moral feeling in the animal world below man. for our purpose this morning it is enough to note that the minute that man appears conscience appears, and that conscience is an act which springs out of social relations. in other words, when the first man rose to the ability to look into the face of his fellow and think of the other man as another self, like himself in feelings, in possibilities of pleasure or pain, when this first man was able imaginatively to put himself in: he place of this other, then morality as a practical fact was dorn. we may imagine, for the purpose of illustration, this man saying: here is another being who appears to be like myself. he is capable of suffering pain, as i am. he does not like pain any better than i do. therefore, i have no right to make him suffer that which i do not wish to suffer myself. this other man is capable of pleasure. he desires certain things, similar things to those which i desire. if i do not wish him to take these things away from me, i have no right to take them away from him. i do not mean that this was thought out in this clear way, but that, when there was the first dim perception of this other self, with similar feelings, similar possibilities, similar pleasures, similar pains, then there became a conscience, because there was a consciousness of this similarity of nature. morality, then, is born as a social fact. to go a little deeper, and in order to trace the natural and historical growth of the moral ideal, let me say that morality in its deepest and truest sense is born of the fact of sex, because it is right in there that we find the root and the germ of permanent social relations. and i wish you to note another very significant fact. you hear people talking about selfishness and unselfishness, as though they were direct contraries, mutually exclusive of each other, as though, in order to make a selfish man unselfish, you must completely reverse his nature, so to speak. i do not think this is true at all. unselfishness naturally and necessarily springs out of selfishness, and, in the deepest sense of the word, is not at all contradictory to that. for example: a man falls in love with a woman. this, on one side of it, is as selfish as anything you can possibly conceive. but do you not see by what subtle and divine chemistry the selfishness is straightway transformed, lifted up, glorified, and becomes unselfishness? the very love that he professes for her makes it necessary for his own happiness that she should be happy, so that, in seeking for his own selfish gratification, he is devoting himself unselfishly to the happiness of somebody else. and, when a child is born, do you not see, again, how the two selfishnesses, the father's and the mother's, selfishly, if you please, brooding over and loving the child, at once go out of themselves, consecrating time and care and thought and love, and even health or life itself, if need be, for the welfare of the child? right in there, then, out of this fact of sex and in the becoming of the family, are born love and sympathy, and tenderness and mutual care, all those things which are the highest and finest constituent elements of the noblest developments of the moral nature of men. imagination plays a large part in the development of morality; for you must be able to put yourself imaginatively in the place of another before you can feel for that other, and in that way recognize the rights of that other and be ready to grant these rights to that other. so we find that morality at first is a narrow thing: it is confined perhaps to the little family, the father, the mother, the child, bound together by these ties of kinship, of love, of sympathy, devoting themselves to each other; but they may look upon some other family as their natural enemies, and feel no necessity whatever to apply these same principles of love and tenderness and care beyond the limits of their own little circle. so you find, as you study the growth of the moral nature of man, that it is confined at first to the family, then to the patriarchal family, then the tribe; but the fiction of kinship is still kept up, and, while the member of the primeval tribe feels he has no right to rob or murder within the limits of his tribe, he has no compunction whatever about robbing or murdering or injuring the members of some other tribe. so the moral principle in its practical working is limited to the range of the sympathy of the tribe, which does not go beyond the tribal limits. we see how that principle works still in the world, from the beginning clear up to the highest reaches which we have as yet attained. take the next step, and find a city like ancient athens. still, perhaps, the fiction of kinship is maintained. all the citizens of athens are regarded as members of the same great tribe or family. but even in the time of plato, whom we are accustomed to look upon as one of the great teachers of the world, there was no thought of any moral obligation to anybody who lived in sparta, lived in any other city of greece, and less was there any thought of moral obligation as touching or taking in the outside barbarian. so when the city grew into a nation, and we came to a point where the world substantially stands to-day, do you not see that practically the same principle holds, that, while we recognize in some abstract sort of fashion that we ought to do justice and be kind to people beyond our own limits, yet all our political economy, all our national ideas, are accustomed to emphasize the fact that we must be just and righteous to our own people, but that aggression, injustice of almost any kind, is venial in our treatment of the inhabitants of another country? and it may even flame up into the fire of a wordy patriotism in certain conditions; and love of country may mean hatred and injustice towards the inhabitants of another country, or particularly towards the people of another race. let me give you a practical illustration of it. what are the relations in which we stand to-day towards spain? i have unbounded admiration for the patience, on the whole, for the justice, the sense of right, which characterize the american people. i doubt if there is another nation on the face of the earth to-day that would have gone through the last two or three years of our experience, and maintained such an attitude of impartiality, of faithfulness, of justice, of right. and yet, if we examine ourselves, we shall find that it is immensely difficult for us to put ourselves in the place of a spaniard, to look at the cuban question from his point of view, to try to be fair, to be just to him. it is immensely difficult, i say, for us to look at one of these international questions from the point of view of another race, cherishing other religious and social ideas, having another style of government. and there is another illustration of it that has recently occurred here in our country, which is sadder still to me. only a little while ago a postmaster in the south was shot by a mob. the mob surrounds his house, murders him and his child, wounds other members of the family, burns down his home; and why? under no impulse whatever except that of pure and simple race prejudice, the utter inability of a white man to put himself in the position of a black to such an extent as to recognize, plead for, or defend his inherent rights as a man. i am not casting any aspersion on the south in what i am saying, none whatever. were the conditions reversed, perhaps we should be no better. it is not a practical problem with us. if there were two or three times as many colored men in the state of new york as there are white men, then we might understand the question. let us not mentally cast any stones at the people across the line. i point it out simply as illustrating the difficulty that we have in recognizing the rights, the moral rights, of people beyond the limits of that sympathy to which we have been accustomed and for a long period trained. i believe the day will come when we shall be as jealous of the right of a man as we are now of the right of an american. we are not yet. there have been foregleams and prophecies of it in the past. long ago a latin writer said, i am a man, and whatever is human is not foreign to me. but think what a lone and isolated utterance that has been for hundreds of years. jesus taught us to pray, not my father, but our father, and we do pray it every day in the-year; but how many are the people in any of the churches that dream of living it? a hundred years ago that heretic, who is still looked upon as the bugaboo of all that is fine and good, thomas paine, wrote, "the world is my country, and to do good is my religion," a sentence so fine that it has been carved on the base of the statue of william lloyd garrison on commonwealth avenue in boston, as being a fitting symbol of his own philanthropic life. how many of us have risen to the idea of making these grand sentiments the ruling principles of our lives? but along the lines of moral growth it is to come. the day will be when, as i said, we shall feel as keenly whatever touches the right of any man as to-day we feel that which touches the right of one of our own people; and the moral growth of the world will reach beyond that. i love to dream of a day when men will no longer forget the inherent rights of any inhabitant of the air or of the waters or of the woods or any of the domesticated animals that we have come to associate with our lives. we feel towards them to-day as in the old days a man felt towards another man who was his slave, that he had a right to abuse, to maltreat, even to kill, if he pleased. we have not yet become civilized enough, so that we feel it incumbent upon us to recognize the fact that animals can suffer pain, that animals can enjoy the air or the sunshine, and that they have a right to each when they do not trespass upon the larger rights of humanity. i was something of a boy when it first came over me that it was not as amusing to animals to be shot and killed as it was to me to shoot and kill them. from the time i was able to lift a gun i had always carried one; but i soon learned that for me there was no pleasure in taking needlessly the life of anything that lived. we are only partially civilized as yet in the treatment of our domesticated animals. how many people think of the torture of the curb bit, of the check, of neglect in the case of cold, of thirst, of hunger? how many people, i say, civilized and in our best society, are careful yet as to the comfort, the rights, of those that serve them in these humble capacities? the time will come when our moral sympathetic sense shall widen its boundaries even farther yet, and shall take in the trees and the shrubs, the waters, the hills, all the natural and beautiful features of the world. i believe that by and by it will be regarded as immoral, as unmanly, to deface, to mar, that which god has made so glorious and so beautiful. as soon as man develops, then, his power of sympathy, so that it can take the world in its arms, so soon he will have grown to the stature of the divine in the unfolding of his moral nature. i wish now to raise the question, for a moment, as to what is to be our guide in regard to moral facts and moral actions. i was trained, and perhaps most of you were, to believe that i was unquestioningly to follow my conscience, that whatever conscience told me to do was necessarily right. the conscience has been spoken of as though it were a sort of little deity set to rule man's nature, this little kingdom of thought and feeling and action. but conscience is nothing of the kind. half of the consciences of the world to-day are all wrong. let me hint by way of illustration what i mean: calvin was just as conscientious in burning servetus as servetus was in pursuing that course of action which led him to the stake. one of them was wrong in following his conscience, then. you take it to-day: some people will tell you there is a certain day in the week that you must observe as sacred. your conscience tells you there is another day in the week that you must observe as sacred. can both be right? many of the greatest tragedies of the world have come about through these controversies and confusions of conscience. the quaker in old boston went at the cart's tail, in disgrace, because he followed his conscience; and the puritan put him there because he followed his conscience. were both of them right? the inquisitor in spain put to death hundreds and thousands of people conscientiously; and the hundreds and thousands of people conscientiously went to their deaths. what is conscience, then? conscience is not a moral guide. it is simply that monitor within that reiterates to us forever and forever and forever, do right. but conscience does not tell us what is right. we must decide those questions as a matter of calm study and judgment in the light of human experience. it is the judgment that should tell us whether a thing is right or wrong. and how shall we know whether it is right or wrong? simply by the consequences. that which helps, that which lifts man up, that which adds to the happiness and the well-being of the world, as the result of human experience, is right. that which hurts, that which injures men and women, that which takes away from their welfare and happiness, that is wrong. all these things, as we shall see before i get through, are inherent in the nature of things, not created by statute, not the result of the moral teaching of anybody. this leads me to extend this idea a little farther, and to raise the question as to what is the standard by which you are to judge moral action. if you will think it out with a little care, you will find that the standard of all moral action may be summed up in the one word "life." life, first, as continuance; second, to use a philosophical term, content, that which it includes. life, this is the standard of right and wrong. to illustrate, take me physically, leave out of account all the rest of my nature now for a moment, and consider me as an animal. from the point of view of my body, that which conduces to length of life, to fullness, to completion, to enjoyment of life, is right, the only right, from this physical point of view. that which threatens my life, that which takes away my sum of strength, injures my health, takes away from my possibility of enjoyment, that, from a physical point of view, is wrong; and there can be no other right or wrong from the point of view of the body. but i am not simply body. so this principle must be modified. come up to the fact that i am an intellectual being. in order to develop myself intellectually, i may have to forego things that would be pleasant on the bodily plane. i sacrifice the lower for the higher; and that which would be right on the physical plane becomes relatively wrong now, because it interferes with something that is higher and more important. rise one step to man as an affectional being. if you wish to develop him to the finest and highest here, you may not only be obliged under certain conditions to sacrifice the body, but you may be obliged to sacrifice his intellectual development. in order that he may be the best up here, he must put the others sometimes, relatively, under his feet. so, again, that which would be right on the physical plane or the intellectual plane becomes relatively wrong, if it interferes with that which is higher still. and so, if you recognize man as a spiritual being, a child of god, then you say it is right, if need be, to put all these other things under his feet, in order that he may attain the highest and best that he is capable of here. but you see it is life all the way, it is the physical life or it is the mental life or it is the affectional life or it is the spiritual life; and that which is necessary for the cultivation and development of these different grades of life becomes on those grades right, and that which threatens or injures one or either of these grades becomes, so far as that grade is concerned, wrong. life, then, continuance, fullness, joy, use, this is the standard of right and wrong; a standard which no book ever set up, which no book can ever overthrow; a standard which is inherent, natural, necessary, a part of the very nature of things. i wish now for a moment i must of course do it briefly to consider the relation of religion to this natural morality. and perhaps you will hardly be ready some of you, at any rate for the statement which i propose to make, that sometimes, in order to be grandly moral, a man must be irreligious. i mean, of course, from the point of view of the conventional religion of his time, he must be ready to be regarded as irreligious. in the earliest development of the religious and moral life of a tribe, very likely, the two went hand in hand, side by side; for the dead chief now worshipped as god would be looked upon as in favor of those customs or practices which the tribe had come to regard as right. but religion perhaps you will know by this time, if you have thought of it carefully is the most conservative thing in the world. naturally, it is the last thing that people are willing to change. this reluctance grows out of their reverence, grows out of their worshipful nature, grows out of their fear that they may be wrong. but now let me illustrate what i mean. religion, standing still in this way, has become an institution, a set of beliefs, of rites and ceremonies, which do not change. the moral experience of the people goes right on; and so it sometimes comes to pass that the moral ideal has outgrown the religious ideal of the community. and now, as a practical illustration to illume the whole point, let us go back to ancient athens for a moment at the time of socrates. here we are confronted with the curious fact that socrates, who has been regarded from that day to this as the most grandly moral man of his time, the one man who taught the highest and noblest human ideals, is put to death as an irreligious man. the popular religion of the time cast him out, and put the hemlock to his lips; and at the same time his teaching in regard to righteousness and truth was unspeakably ahead of the popular religion of his day. let us come to the modern athens for a moment, to the time of theodore parker in boston. we are confronted here, again, with this strange fact. there was not a church in boston that could abide him, not even the unitarian churches; and in the prayer-meetings of the day they were beseeching god to take him out of the world, because they thought he was such a force for evil. and at the same time theodore parker stood for the very highest, tenderest, truest moral ideal of his age. there was no man walking the earth at that time who so grandly voiced the real law of god as did theodore parker. and yet he was outcast by the popular religious sentiment of his time. this, then, is what i mean when i say that we ought to be careful, and study and think in forming our religious ideals, and see that we do not identify our own unwillingness to think with the eternal and changeless law of god. this is what i have meant in some of the strictures which i have uttered during the last year upon some of the theological creeds of the time. the people have grown to be better than their creeds, but they have not yet developed the courage to make those creeds utter the highest and finest things which they think and feel. this is what i have meant when i have said that the character of god as outlined in many of these creeds is away behind and below the noblest and finest and sweetest ideals of what we regard as fitting even to humanity to-day. religion, then, may be ahead of the moral ideal or it may be behind it. the particular type of religion i mean, of course, which is being held at any particular time in the history of the world. but the moral ideal of necessity goes on, keeping step with the social experience of the race. i must touch briefly now just one other point of practical importance that we need to guard, in order to be tender and true in our dealings with our fellow-men. you will find, if you look over the face of society, that there are two kinds of morality, frequently quite inconsistent with each other; and sometimes the poorer of the two kinds is held in higher esteem than the better. i mean there is conventional morality, and there is real morality. as a hint of illustration: an american woman goes to turkey to-day; and she is shocked by the customs of the women and their style of dress. it seems to her that no woman can possibly be moral who, although she covers her head, can appear on the street with feet and ankles bare. but this same turkish woman is shocked beyond the possibility of utterance to know that in europe and america women carefully cover their feet, but expose their faces and their shoulders. it seems terrible to her, and she cannot understand how a european or american woman can have any regard for the principles of delicacy and morality. do you not see how, in both cases here, it is purely a matter of convention? no real question of morality is touched in either case. i speak of this to prepare you to note how conscience can be as troubled over things which are purely conventional as it can over things which are downright and real. let me use another illustration, going a little deeper in the matter. here is a man, for example, who is terribly shocked because his neighbor takes a drive with his family on sunday afternoon. it seems to him an outrage on all the principles of public and social morality; and he is eager to get up a society to abolish such customs, that seem to him to threaten the prosperity of all that is good in the world. but this same man, perhaps, has been trained in a way of conducting his business that, while legal, is not strictly fair. this man may be hard and cruel towards his employees. he may cherish bitter hatreds towards his rivals. in his heart he may be transgressing the law of vital ethics, while fighting with all the power of his nature for that which does not touch any real question of right or wrong at all. or take a woman who, while shocked at the transgression of some social custom in which she has been trained from her childhood, or, for example, has come to think that a certain way of observing lent, on which we have just entered, is absolutely necessary to the safety of religion and morals both, is yet quite willing, and without a qualm of conscience, on the slightest hint of a suspicion, to tear into tatters the character of one of her neighbors or friends, does not hesitate to slander, perhaps is unjust or cruel to the servants that make the house comfortable and beautiful for her; in other words, transgressing the real laws of right and wrong, she is shocked and troubled over the transgression on the part of others of some purely conventional statute, the keeping or breach of which has no real bearing on the welfare of the world. a good many of our social judgments are like the case of the old lady pardon me, if it should make you smile, but it illustrates the case who criticised with a great deal of severity a neighbor and friend who wore feathers on her bonnet. somebody said to her, but the ribbons on your bonnet are quite as expensive as the feathers that you criticise. "yes," she said, "i know they are; but you have got to draw the line somewhere, and i choose to draw it at feathers." so you find a great many people on every hand in society who are choosing to draw these lines purely artificial, purely conventional in regard to matters of supposed right or wrong, while they are not as careful to look down deeply into the essential principles of that which is inherently right or wrong. and now at the end i wish to suggest what is a theme large enough for a sermon by itself, and say that these laws of righteousness are so inherent that they are self-executed; and by no possibility did any soul from the beginning of the world ever escape the adequate result of his wrong-doing. the old hebrews, as manifested in the book of job, the psalms, and all through the old testament, taught the idea, which was common at that time in the world, that the favor of god was to be judged by the external prosperity of men and women. the old testament promises long life and wealth and all sorts of good things to the people who do right; and i find on every hand in the modern world people who have inherited this way of looking at things. i have heard people say: i have tried to do right, and i am not prosperous. i wonder why i am treated so? i have heard women say, i have tried to be a good mother: why is my child taken away from me? as though there was any sort of relation between the two facts. i hear people say, don't talk to me about the justice of god, when here is a man, who has been dishonest all his life long, who has prospered, and become rich and lives in a fine house, drives his horses, and owns a yacht. as if there was any sort of connection between the two, as though a man merely because he had a fine house and owned a yacht was escaping the punishment of his unjust and selfish life. remember, friends, look a little below the surface. there is no possibility of escape. i break some law of my body; do i escape the result? i break some law of my mind; do i escape the result? i break some law of my affectional nature; is nothing to happen? i break a law of my spiritual nature; does nothing take place as the result of it? you might as well say that the law of gravity can be suspended, that a man can fling himself over the edge of a precipice, and come to no harm. the precipice over the edge of which you fling yourself may be a physical one, may be a mental one, an affectional one, a spiritual one; but the moral gravity of the universe is never mocked, and the man who breaks any of god's laws never goes free. he may discover that he has broken it, be sorry for it, begin to keep it again, and recover himself; but the consequences are sure, inevitable, eternal. you look at a man who is externally prospering, and because of this you say he is not suffering the result of the evil he has done. go back with me to homer's odyssey at the time when ulysses and his companions fell into the hands of the sorceress, and his companions were turned into swine. would you go and look at these swine, and say they are not suffering anything? see how comfortable they are. see with what gusto they eat the food that is cast into their troughs. see how happy they are as swine. they are not suffering anything is it nothing to become swinish, merely because you have your beautiful pen to live in? is a not suffering the result of his moral wrong when he debases and degrades and deteriorates his own nature, and becomes less a man, because he is surrounded with all that is glorious and beautiful that art can supply? look within whatever department of nature where the law has been disobeyed, and there forever and forever read the result, the inevitable law, that the soul that sinneth, in so far as it sinneth, it shall die. reward and punishment. two weeks ago i preached a sermon, the subject of which was "morality natural, not statutory." judging by the conversations which i have had and letters which i have received, it has aroused a good deal of question and criticism in certain quarters. this must be for one of three reasons. in the first place, the position which i took may not be a tenable one. in the second place, it is possible that the views expressed, being somewhat new and unfamiliar, were not found easy of apprehension and acceptance. in the third place, it is possible that, in endeavoring to treat so large a subject, i did not analyze and illustrate enough to make myself perfectly clear. at any rate, the matter seems to me of such supreme importance as to make it worth my while this morning to continue the general subject by a careful and earnest treatment of the great question of reward and punishment as applied to feeling, to thought, to conduct, the whole of human life. let me say here at the outset, as indicating the point towards which i shall aim as my goal, that in the ordinary use of language, in the popular use of language, i do not believe in either reward or punishment: i believe only in causes and results. this, as i said, is the point that i shall aim at. where shall i begin? i need to ask you to consider for a moment the state of mind of man, so far as we can conceive it, when he first wakes up as a conscious being, and begins to look out over the scene of nature and human life with the endeavor to interpret facts as they appear to him. of course, he knows nothing whatever of what we mean by natural law: he knows nothing of natural cause and of necessary result. so far as we can discover by our researches, all the tribes of men about whom we have been able to gather any information have had a belief, if not in god, at least in gods, or in spiritual existences and powers that controlled within certain limits the course of human events. it may have been the worship of ancestors, it may have been the worship of some great chief of the tribe; but these invisible beings have been able to help or hurt their followers, their worshippers; and of course they have been thought of as governing human life after substantially the same methods that they used when they were living here in the body. that is, it has been a magical or arbitrary government of the world that has been for ages the dominant one in the human mind. people have supposed that these invisible beings desired them to do certain things, to refrain from doing certain other things, and they have expected them to reward or punish them how? by giving them that which they desired, on the one hand, or sending them something which they did not desire, on the other. they have brought the gods their offerings, their sacrifices, their words of praise, and have asked that they might be successful in war, that they might bring home the game which they sought when they went on a hunting expedition. when there have been disease, pestilence, famine, drought, no matter what the nature of the evil, they have been regarded as allotments of these divine powers sent on account of something they have done or omitted to do. it never occurred to them to interpret these as part of a natural order, because they knew nothing about any natural order. they reasoned as well as they were able to reason at that stage of culture in any particular age of the world's history which they had reached. but this has been the thought of men time out of mind concerning the method of the divine or spiritual or unseen government of the world. is this way of looking at it confined to primitive man, confined to pagan nations? do we find something else, some other condition of mind, when we come to study carefully the old testament? let us see. take the first verse which i read as a part of my text. the author of this psalm we do not know who he may have been says, "i have been young, and now am old; yet have i not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging their bread." as i have read this a great many times in the past, i have wondered as to the strange experience that this man must have had in human life, if this is a correct interpretation of that experience. i have been young: i do not like to admit that as yet i am old; but, whether i am or not, i have a good many times seen the righteous forsaken, and his seed begging their bread. it seems to me that the writer of this verse was trained in a theory of the government of human affairs that does not at all match the facts. he has this magical, this arbitrary theory in his mind. it was the general conception i think, as any one will find by a careful reading of the old testament or study of jewish history, the ordinary conception among the hebrews, that god was to reward people for being good by prosperity, long life, many children, herds of cattle, distinction among his fellow-men, positions of political honor and power; and the threat of the taking away of these is frequently uttered against those that presume to do wrong. in other words, it seems to me that the ordinary theory of the government of human affairs as set forth in the old testament is precisely this same one that i have been considering as the natural and necessary outcome of the ignorance and inexperience of early man. as time went on, now and then some deeper, more spiritual thinker begins to question this method of reasoning, begins to wonder whether it is quite adequate; and we have a magnificent poetical expression of this kind of critical thought in the book of job. this book of job is any way and every way worthy of your careful attention. it is the nearest to a dramatic production of anything in the bible. james anthony froude said once in regard to it that, if it were translated merely as a poem and published by itself, it would take rank as a literary work among the few great masterpieces of the world. but the thing that engages our attention this morning is not its power as a dramatic production, but its criticism of god's government of the world. it has been assumed, as i have said, and we are not through with that assumption, that, if a man suffered, if he was ill, if his wife or children were taken away from him, if his property was destroyed, somehow he had offended god, and that this was a punishment for the course of wrong-doing in which he had been engaged. but the author of the book of job conceives that this does not quite match the facts; so he gives us this magnificent character that he declares upright, spotless, free from wrong of any kind, who yet is suffering. he has lost his property, it has been swept away, his children have been put to death, almost everything that he cared for he has lost, and he from head to feet is sick of a loathsome disease; and he sits in the midst of his deprivation and sorrow. his friends gather around him; and with this old assumption in their minds some of them begin to taunt him. they say, now, job, why not confess, why not own up as to what you have been doing? of course, you have been doing something wrong, or all this would not have happened. this is the tone that one of his critics takes. this is the kind of comfort that he receives in the midst of his sorrow. but job protests earnestly and indignantly that it is not true. he says he is innocent, there are no secret wrongs in his life; and he wishes that he might find some way by which he could come into the presence of the great ruler of the universe, and openly plead his cause. but his friends do not believe him. now the writer of the book lets us into the explanation he has thought out for this: god for a special reason is testing job, to see whether he will be true to him in spite of the fact that he does not get the ordinary blessings that the people were accustomed to look for as the rewards of their conduct. but the writer is not consistent with the wonderful position that he makes job assume; for, after the trial is all over, he falls in with the popular theory, and shows us job, not with the old children who could not be brought back, but with a lot of new ones, with herds and cattle again in plenty, with honor among his fellow-citizens, with all that heart could wish in the way of worldly prosperity and peace. so i say the writer is not quite consistent, for he falls back at the end on the old theory, and he lets us gain a glimpse behind the scenes, just enough to see that there are cases, special cases, where the popular theory does not hold; but he still seems to assume that, in a general way, we are to accept it as correct, and as explaining the facts of human life. the jews acted on this theory in their political history. their prophets, their great teachers, asserted over and over again that, if they were true to their god, if they were faithful in their obedience to the law, if they lived out all these highest and finest ideals of ceremonial as well as heart righteousness, that they would be mighty as a nation, that their enemies would be put under their feet, that they would have political success and power; and yet their increasing insistence on this ceremonial and interior righteousness of thought and life was found to be no adequate defence against the roman legions. political success did not come to them. in spite of all their obedience, they were swept out of existence as a nation. now do we find any difference in teaching in the new testament? we do; and we do not. the teaching of the new testament is not consistent in this matter. if jesus be correctly reported, his own teaching is not quite consistent on this subject. let me give you one or two illustrations, that you may see what i mean. john tells us that a certain man, who had been born blind, was brought to jesus to be cured; and the people stood about, and said to jesus, "who is it, this man himself or his parents, that sinned, so that he was born blind?" you see it does not occur to them that there is any natural cause for a man's being blind, apart from some sin on the part of somebody. who is it, then, his father or mother, or he himself, that has sinned, that is the cause of it? jesus says, "neither this man nor his parents have sinned," and you think at first that you are going to get an adequate explanation; but he straightway adds that the man was blind in order that the works of god might be manifest in him; which we cannot accept to-day as quite an adequate explanation. then take the case of the man who was lying at the pool of bethesda, and was reported as cured. jesus meets him, after a good deal of question and criticism on the part of the jews, and says, "now you have been healed, see to it that you sin no more, lest a worse thing come to you," seeming to imply again that sin might be punished by lameness, by affliction of this kind or that. so it seems to me that we do not get, even in the new testament, entirely free from this old conception. indeed, there are the verses which i read as a part of our lesson from the fifth chapter of matthew, one of which for a clear or more spiritual insight i have quoted as a part of my text, "blessed are they that do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled" with what? filled with righteousness; not filled with health, external prosperity, many children, friends, political position, honor. blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall what? see god. "blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." you see these beatitudes strike down to the eternal principle of natural, necessary causation and result, just as does the last verse which i have quoted from galatians, "be not deceived; god is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," not something else, that. here is a clear and explicit annunciation of the eternal, universal law of cause and effect, of the idea that those things which happen are not arbitrary infliction, but natural and necessary result. let us, then, consider this matter for a little as we look over the face of human life as it is manifested to us at the present time. i suppose hardly a week passes that, either by letter or in conversation, i do not come face to face with this same old problem, showing that only partially and here and there have men and women even to-day come to comprehend the real method after which this universe of ours is governed. for example, let me give you a few illustrations. i have a friend in boston, one of the noblest men i ever knew, sweet, gentle, true: he came to me one day, and said: "mr. savage, i have tried all my life to be an honest man. i do not own an ill-gotten dollar. i have tried to be kind and helpful to people in need, in trouble; and yet," and then it began to dawn on him that he was not on a very logical track, for he smiled, "and yet i have not got on very well in the world; i have not made a great deal of money; i have not been specially prosperous in business." and the implication was that here, next door or in another street, was a man who had a good many ill-gotten dollars, and who had not been generous or kindly or humane or tender, but who had prospered and become rich, as he had not. and he raised this as a serious objection against the justice of the government of the world. i have had mothers; i presume a thousand times, say to me: "i have tried to take the best possible care of my child. i loved my child, i watched over it night and day, i have money enough to give it a good education, i could train it into fitness for life; and yet my child is taken away." here is somebody else who has not the means to educate her child, perhaps whose character and intelligence are a good deal below the average level. her child is spared, spared for what? spared for a career for which it will be entirely unfitted; and the question is, why does god do such things, why is the universe governed in this fashion? and i have had persons say to me: "i have been ill all my life, i have suffered no end of pain and trouble: i wonder why? what have i done that i must be burdened and afflicted after this fashion?" so these questions are coming up perpetually, showing that underlying the ordinary surface of our common daily life is still this theory that god arbitrarily governs the world, and rewards people for being good with health and with money and with children and with all sorts of prosperity. there is no end of talk in regard to judgments, as they are called. i remember when i was living in the west i take this as an illustration as good as any a neighboring small city was badly devastated by fire. all the ministers around me in my city began to preach about it as a judgment of god for the supposed wickedness of this city. one peculiar thing about this particular judgment, which i noticed as reported in the papers, was that the last thing which the fire burned was a church; and it left standing next door, and untouched, a liquor saloon. it seemed to me a very peculiar kind of divine judgment, if that is what it really was. and so, as you look into these cases of supposed divine judgments, which people are so ready to see in regard to their neighbors, you will find that it has some serious defect of this sort almost always that makes you question whether a wise man would be guilty of that method of conducting his affairs. this, perhaps, is enough by way of setting forth the popular method of looking at these problems. i want to ask you now to go with me for a little while, as i attempt to analyze some of these cases, and get at the real principle involved as to what it is that is really going on. now take this case of the mother whose child is taken away from her, as she says. let us see if we can find out what is really being done. it is possible, of course, that the child has inherited, it may be from a grandfather or great-grandfather, from somewhere along the line, a tendency to a particular kind of disease. it may be that, without anybody's being to blame for it or anybody's knowing it, the child was exposed to some contagious disease on the street or at school. it may be that the mother, through a little otherwise pardonable vanity, wishing to display the beauty of the child rather than to dress it in the healthiest manner, has been the means of exposing it to cold. it may be any one of a dozen things has caused the death of this child. and do you not see that in every case it has nothing whatever to do with the mother's moral goodness or spiritual cultivation? it is absurd to think that the mother, in this case, is being punished for something that she is entirely unconscious of having been guilty of. do you not see that there is no logical connection between an inherited disease, between exposure, between taking cold, between any of these natural causes and the goodness of the mother? is it not absurd to talk about their having anything whatever to do with each other? i remember hearing a famous revivalist preach some years ago; and in this particular sermon he represented god as using all means to try to turn such a man from his path of evil, as he regarded it, into the way of right and truth and salvation; and he said: first, perhaps, god takes his property away from him; and that does not change him. and by and by he takes his wife; and that does not change him. and then he takes one of his children; and, as he expressed it, he lays these coffins across his pathway in order to warn him of his sinful condition, and turn him into the right way. think of a god who kills other people on account of my wrong! i had a friend in boston once, a lady, a school-teacher, who in all seriousness told me, when her sister died, that she was afraid god had taken her sister away because she had not been sufficiently faithful in attending church services during lent. think of it! not only the lack of logic in linking things like these together, but the practical impiety of attributing to god such feelings and action in regard to his dealings with his children! let us take the case of a man who, not being highly elevated in character, becomes rich. let us see if we can get at the principles involved here. perhaps you can call to mind one or another case that you may be thinking of while i speak. of course i shall mention no names. here is a man who possesses remarkable natural business ability, power to read the commerce, the business of his times. he deals with these in a practical way. he complies with the conditions of accumulating wealth. no matter for the present whether he does wrong in doing it or not, that is, whether he is unjust or hard or cruel; but he complies with the conditions for the obtaining of money in this particular department of life. now do you not see that, no matter what his moral character may be in other directions, whether he is kind to his wife, whether he is loving towards his children, whether he is generous in a charitable way, whether he is politically stanch or corrupt, do you not see that these questions are entirely irrelevant, have nothing whatever to do with the question of success in the money field? he sows according to the laws of the product which he wishes to raise, and the product appears. or take the case of a farmer: here is a certain tract of land adapted to a particular crop. he sows wisely in this field. he cultivates it: the rain and the sun do their part; and in the fall he has a magnificent result. now has that anything whatever to do with the question whether the man was a good man or not, as to whether he went to prayer-meeting or not, as to whether he read his bible or not, as to whether he was profane or not, as to whether he was a good neighbor or not? whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap, and reap it where he sows it. is it not perfectly plain? so in any department of human life, i care not what, trace it out, and you will find that precisely the same principle is involved, and that you get results, not arbitrary bestowal's of reward or punishment. now i must come having, i hope, made this sufficiently clear, though after this fragmentary fashion to deal a little more with some of the ethical sides of this question. i have had no end of persons tell me, first and last, that it seemed to them that the universe could not be a moral universe, that it was not governed fairly, that reward and punishment were not meted out evenly to people; and they based their criticism on statements of fact similar to those with which i have been dealing. now let us look into the matter a little deeply; and let us see if we can find any hint of light and guidance. i have had a person within a week say to me, "i do not feel at all sure that it means much that people get the moral results of their moral action in a particular department of life. if a person becomes a little bit callous and hard, wisely selfish and prudent, and so prospers in the affairs of this life, i am not sure that he is not as well off as anybody, perhaps a little better off, perhaps a little better off than a person who is sensitive, and worries because he does not reach his ideals; and it is possible that he serves the world after all quite as well." this is a kind of criticism, i say, that has been made to me in the last week. let us look at it for just a minute. people do not seem able as yet to understand that a man is really "punished," in the popular sense of that word, unless they can see him publicly whipped. it does not seem to them to mean anything because a man deteriorates, because the highest and finest qualities in him atrophy and threaten to die out. i used an illustration in my sermon two weeks ago to which i shall have to recur again, to see if i can make it mean more than it did then. it is the story of ulysses who fell into the hands of the famous sorceress, and whose companions were turned into swine. now would you be willing to be turned into a pig, merely because, being a pig, you would not know anything about it, and would not suffer? would you be willing to be reduced to the life of an oyster, merely because, being an oyster, you would be haunted by no restless ideals, and, so far as you had any sense at all, would probably be very comfortable indeed? is there no "punishment" in this deprivation of the highest and finest things that we can conceive of? it seems to me that a person who has deteriorated, who has become selfish, who has become mean, who has lost all taste for high and fine and sweet things, and is unconscious of them, is having meted out to him the worst conceivable retribution. if a man is mean and knows it, if a man is selfish and is conscious of it, if a man is unjust and is stung by the reflection, there is a little hope for him, there is life there, there is moral vitality, there is a chance for him to recuperate, to climb up into something higher and finer; but, if he has not only become degraded and mean, but has become contented in that condition, it seems to me that he is worse off than almost anybody else of whom we can dream. let us see for a moment on what conditions a man who has deteriorated is well off. there are three big "ifs" in the way, in my thought of it. if a man really is a spiritual being, if he is a child of god, if there are in him possibilities of unfolding of all that is sweet and divine, then he is not well off when he is not developing these, and is content not to develop them. browning says, in his introduction to "sordello," "the culture of a soul, little else is of any value." if we are souls, and if the culture of a soul is of chiefest importance, then cursed beyond all words is the man who has deteriorated and become degraded and is content to have it so. blessed beyond all words is the soul that is haunted by discontent, haunted by unattained and unattainable ideals, who is restless because of that which he feels he might be and yet is not, he who is touched by the far-off issues of divinity, and cannot rest until he has grown into the stature of the divine! and then, once more, if it be true that it is worth our while to help our fellow-men in the higher side of their nature, to help them be men and women, to help them realize that they are children of god, and to grow into the realization of it, if, i say, this be worth while, then lamentable beyond all power of expression is the condition of that man who does not feel it and does not care for it, and does not consecrate himself to its attainment. look over the long line of those who have served mankind. who are they? from abraham down, the prophets of israel; jesus, paul, savonarola, huss, wyclif, luther, channing, parker, who have these men been but the ones who were ready at any price to do something to lift up and lead on the progress of mankind? these are the ones who have felt the meaning of those sublime words of jesus: "he that loseth his life shall save it." if there is any meaning in that splendid passage from george eliot, that is so trite because it is so fine, "oh may i join the choir invisible of those immortal dead who live again in minds made better by their presence: live in pulses stirred to generosity, in deeds of daring rectitude, in score for miserable aims that end with self, in thoughts sublime that pierce the night like stars, and with their mild persistence urge man's search to vaster issues. so to live is heaven: to make undying music in the world, breathing as beauteous order that control with growing sway the growing life of man. this is life to come, which martyred men have made more glorious for us who strive to follow. may i reach that purest heaven, be to other souls the cup of strength in some great agony, enkindle generous ardor, feed pure love, beget the smiles that have no cruelty, be the sweet presence of a good diffused, and in diffusion ever more intense. so shall i join the choir invisible whose music is the gladness of the world." if, i say, there is any meaning in that magnificent song, then indeed it is worth while to be miserable, if need be, worth while to suffer, worth while to sacrifice for the sake of planting seed in the spiritual fields, and looking for its spiritual results, and not finding fault with the universe because we do not get results of spiritual goodness in material realms. there is one other "if." if it be true, as i believe it is, that this life goes right on, and that we carry into the to-morrow of another life the precise and accurate results that we have wrought out in the to-day of this; if it be true that, when we get over there, it will be spiritual facts and spiritual things with which we shall deal, then the man who has cultivated his spiritual nature and has reaped spiritual results has no right to find fault with the universe because it has not paid him with material good. let us remember, then, that we get what we sow. god has not promised to pay you in greenbacks for being good; god has not promised to give you physical health because you are gentle and tender; god has not promised to give you long life because you are generous; god has not promised to give you positions of social or political honor because you are kind to your neighbors, faithful to your wife, true to your children. can you not see that whatsoever a man sowest, that shall he reap; and that he will reap in the field where he sows, and not in some other; and that god is dealing fairly, justly, tenderly, truly, with you in giving you the results at which you aim, and not the results at which you do not aim? so, if you really care to be a man, if you care to be a woman, honest, noble, tender, true, then be these, and be grateful that you reap the reward where you sowed, and do not find fault with god or the universe because he does not pay you for things that you have not done, because he does not make a crop grow in some field that you have not cultivated, because it is eternally true that god is not mocked, and that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. things which doubt cannot destroy. the critical and investigating work of the modern world threatens to shake not the earth only, but also heaven. and there are large numbers of people who are disturbed and afraid: they are troubled lest certain things that are precious, that are dear to them, may be taken away. not only this, they are troubled lest things of vital importance to the highest life of the world be taken away. i propose, then, this morning to run in rapid review over a few of the changes that are caused by the investigating spirit of the time, and then to point out some things that are not touched, that cannot be shaken, and that therefore must remain. and i ask you to have in mind, as i pursue this line of thought, the question whether doubt has taken away anything really valuable from mankind. the negative part of my theme i shall touch on very lightly, and dispose of as briefly as i may. what has doubt, what has investigation, done concerning the universe of which we are a part? in the old days, before doubt began its work, before men asked questions and demanded proof, we lived in a little, petty, tiny world, which the imagination of the superstitious and the fear of ignorant men had created. but the cycles and epicycles which ptolemy devised, and by means of which he explained, as well as he knew how, the movements of the heavenly bodies around us, these have passed away. the breath of doubt has blown upon them; and they have gone, like mists driven by the wind. but has doubt quenched the light of any star? has doubt taken away from the glory of the universe? rather, as the result of the work of these myriad investigators, whose one aim and end was truth, at last we have a universe worthy to be the home of an infinite god, a universe that matches our thought of the divine, a universe that thrills and lifts us, fills us with reverence, and bends us to our knees in the attitude of worship. the same spirit has raised no end of questions concerning god. what has been the result? we have lost the old thought of god in the shape of a man sitting on a throne located in the heavens just above the blue or on some distant star. we have lost the thought of a god as a tyrant, as a jealous being, as angry every day with his children, as ready to punish these children forever for their ignorance, for their intellectual mistakes, for their sins of whatever kind. we have changed our conception of him; but have we lost god? i will not answer that question at this stage of the discourse, because i wish merely to suggest it now, and dwell on it a little more when i come to the positive treatment of our morning's theme. let us glance at the bible a moment. doubt and investigation have been at work there. what has been the result? have we lost the bible? no. we have gained it. we have lost those things about it which were intellectual burdens because we could not believe them, which were a moral burden because they conflicted with our highest and noblest sense of right. we no longer feel under the necessity of reconciling human mistakes with divine infallibility. professor goldwin smith has told us recently that these old theories of the bible were a millstone about the neck of christendom, and that they must be gotten rid of if christianity was to live. this is all that doubt and investigation have done to the bible. they have cleared away the things that no sane and earnest and devout mind wishes to keep; and they have restored to us in all their dignity and beauty and sweetness and power the real human bible, the bible which poured out of the heart of the olden time, and which is in all its truth and sweetness, so far as they go, a revelation of the divinest things in human thought and human dream. preachers tell us every little while that those who ask questions have taken away our lord, and they know not where he has been laid. what has this spirit done concerning jesus? has it taken him away from us? rather, as the result of all this question and criticism, at last we have found him, found him who has been hidden away for ages, found the man, divine son of god, son of man, brother, friend, inspirer, companion, helper. it has done for jesus the grandest service of which we can conceive. and now one more point. people used to suppose they knew all about the next world. they knew where heaven was and where hell was, and who were to be the inhabitants of either place, and why. doubt and question have been at work here, and now we do not know where heaven is; and we do not know where hell is, except that it is within the heart of those that are not in accord with the divine life. where the places are, we know not; but blessed beyond all words be ignorance like this! we know because we believe in righteousness and truth that there is no hell except that which we create for ourselves; and that is in this world, in any world where there is a breach of a divine law. but has the great hope gone? has doubt touched that, so that it has shrivelled and become as nothing? that i shall have occasion to touch on a little more at length in a moment; and so i leave it here with this suggestion. i wish you now to note, and to note with a great deal of care, that doubt, criticism, question, investigation, have no power to destroy anything. people talk as though, if you doubted a thing, it disappeared, as though doubt had magical power to annihilate in some way a truth. if you really do doubt an important divine truth, it may disturb and trouble you for a while; but the truth remains just the same. i remember some years ago a parishioner came to me, an intelligent lady, and said, "mr. savage, i have about lost my belief in any future life." i smiled, and said: "i am sorry for you, if it interferes with your comfort and peace; but remember one thing, neither your doubt nor my belief touches or changes the fact." the eternal life is not something to be puffed away with a breath, if it be real. so rest right there in the firm assurance that whatever is true is true, and rests on the eternal foundation of the permanence of god; and asking questions about it, digging away at its foundations, testing it in any and all sorts of ways, cannot by any possibility injure it. enforce thus this idea, simple as it seems, because thousands of men and women at the present time are made to tremble by utterances from the pulpit, as though doubt were really a destroyer. of course, it seems commonplace the moment you think of it; and, still for your peace and for the restfulness of your mind as you look on the things that are taking place about us, hold fast to this simple idea. there is one other point which i wish to raise. what is the use of criticism? what is the use of all this investigating? why indulge in all this doubt? and now let me give you an illustration which will lead me to answering this question and enforcing the point i have in mind. a farmer, if he selects a favorable piece of ground, plants good seed, cultivates it properly, if the rain falls and the sun shines, and the weather is propitious, will have a successful crop. does it make any difference now whether the farmer has correct ideas about soil and seed and cultivation? does it make any difference whether he has any true conception of the nature and work of the sunshine in producing this crop? in one sense, no. in another, a very important sense, yes. suppose the farmer, having gotten into his mind the idea that the sun is the source of all the life and growth of the things that he plants and the crops he cultivates, should say, "well, now, it does not make any difference whether i have correct scientific theories about the sun or not: the sun carries on his work just the same." i have heard people say, over and over again, using an illustration like this: "what difference does it make what your theories are about the spiritual life, about the origin and nature of religion, about morality? if you live a good life, the results are just the same, whatever your thinking may be." and i grant it. but now suppose the farmer should say to himself: "the sun is the source of all the life that i am able to produce, that i see growing around me; and now i will worship him as a god. i will pray to him, i will sing songs of praise to him, i will bring birds and animals and burn sacrifices to him; and so i will win his favor, and get him to produce these wonderful results for me." suppose he should so seek his results, and pay no attention to the character of the soil, to the kind of seed he planted, or to proper cultivation: would that make no difference? do you not see that theory may be of immense practical importance in certain contingencies? whether he has any knowledge of the sun or not, if he complies with the laws, the conditions, if he is fortunately obedient, then his results will be produced. but, if his ignorance, his superstition, lead him to neglect the natural forces with which he deals, then it may make all the difference in the world. so, as i study the history and development of religious thought, i see everywhere that men and women, through their ignorance in regard to the real nature of the universe and of god and of their own souls, are going astray, wasting time, wasting thought, wasting effort, misdirecting all these instead of complying with the real natural universal conditions on which these noblest and highest results which they desire depend. if a man, for example, believes that he is to please god by a sacrifice, by an offering, by swinging incense, by going through a certain ceremony, instead of being righteous and true, does it make no difference? carry out the idea as far as you please, i think i have made plain the thought i had in mind. so it does make a difference what our thoughts, our theories, may be; and, therefore, there is good in this work of investigation which proposes to sift and test and try things, and find out the real nature of the forces which confront us and with which we have to deal. now, then, i come to the positive answering of our question. are there some things that doubt cannot touch? and are these things the most important ones, the ones that we need to feel solid under our feet? what do we need? we do not need to be able to unravel all the mysteries of the universe. any quantity of the questions we ask are not practical ones. we do not need to wait for an answer to them. any number of the things that are in doubt are of no practical consequence; and we need not wait for their settlement before we begin to live and to help our fellowmen and to do what we can to bring in the coming kingdom of our father. i wish to note now a few of the things that seem to me very stable things, that doubt cannot disturb. and first i will say that which i mean when i use the word "god." i wish you to learn to separate between the word and the reality. sometimes people are quarrelling over a label instead of the reality that is back of all. i care very little for a name. i care for things, for the eternal truths of the universe. may we then feel that modern doubt does not touch our belief in god? i ask you to consider a moment, and see. as we wake up, assuming nothing, and look abroad, what do we find? we find ourselves in the presence of a power that is not ourselves, another power, a power that was here before we were born, a power that will be here after we have died, a power that has produced us, and so is our father and mother on any theory you choose to hold of it, a power out of which we have come. now suppose we look abroad, and try to find something in regard to the nature of this power. we can conceive no beginning: we can conceive no end. and let me say right here that, as the result of all his lifelong study and thinking as an evolutionist, mr. herbert spencer has said that the existence of this infinite and eternal power, of which all the phenomenal universe is only a partial and passing manifestation, is the one item of human knowledge of which we are most certain of all. an infinite power, then, an eternal power, shall i say an intelligent power? at any rate, just as far as our intelligence can reach, we find that the universe matches that intelligence, responds to it, so that we must think of it, it seems to me, as intelligent. out of that power, as i have said, we have come; and who are we? persons, persons that think, persons that feel, persons that love, persons that hope; and we are the children of this power, and, according to one of the fundamental principles of science, nothing can be evolved which was not first involved, the stream cannot rise higher than its source, that which is produced must be equal to that which produces it. this power, then, eternal, infinite, intelligent, must be as much as what we mean by person, by thought, by love, by hope, by all that makes us what we are. shall we call a power like this god? shall we call it nature? shall we call it law? shall we call it force? it seems to me that, if we take any name less and lower than god, we are indulging in a huge assumption, and a negative assumption at that. suppose that, looking at one of you, i should call you body instead of calling you man. i should be assuming that you are only body, which i have no right to do. if i call this infinite power, then, nature, force, law, matter, i am indulging in a negative assumption which is scientifically unwarranted. as a reasonable being, then, i think i am scientifically warranted in saying that belief in god is something that all investigation only affirms, and affirms over and over again, and with still greater and greater force. i have not time to go into this at any further length this morning; but i believe that we are scientifically right in saying that all the doubt, all the investigation, all the questioning of the world, have only given us a stronger and more solid assurance that we have a divine power around us, and that we are the children of that power. in the next place, to carry the idea a little farther, we want, if we may, to believe that this infinite and eternal power manifested in the universe is a good power. if it be not, we are hopeless. i hear reformers sometimes in their zeal picturing the dreadful condition of affairs socially or industrially or politically, and saying that the world is getting worse and worse, that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer, and the republic is becoming more corrupt week by week and year by year, giving the impression that the world in general is on the down grade. if i believed that, i should give it up, i should see no reason for struggle and effort. if an infinite power is against me in my efforts to do good, what is the use of my making the effort? we want to know, then, as to whether a belief in the goodness of this infinite power is a thing that doubt and investigation have not touched and cannot disturb. let us consider just a moment one or two thoughts bearing upon it. the pessimist tells us that the universe is bad all the way through, that this is the worst possible kind of world. when a man makes a statement like that, i always wish to ask him a question which it seems to me absolutely overturns his position, how did he happen to find it out? if the universe is bad all through, essentially bad, where did he get his moral ideal in the light of which to judge and condemn it? how does this bad universe produce an amount of justice and truth and love to be used as a measuring-rod in order to find out whether it will correspond with these ideals or not? that one question seems to me enough to turn pessimism into nonsense. let us look at it in another way. as we look back, as far as we can towards the beginning of things, we find this fact: when man appeared on the earth, conscience was born, as i told you the other day, a sense of right came with him, and since that day he has been struggling to attain and realize an ever and ever enlarging and heightening ideal. this, then, the conscience, the sense of right, the ideal, must be a part of the nature of the universe that has produced them. and we notice that these have been growing with the advance of the ages. before dwelling on that a little farther, let me touch another consideration which is germane to it. if you look over the face of human society, you get proof positive, scientific demonstration unquestionable, that good is in the majority, love is the majority power of the world. how do i know? you draw up a list of all those things that you call evil, and you will note, as you analyze them, that they are the things that tend to disintegrate, to separate, to tear down; and you draw up a list of those things that you call good, and you will find that they are the things that tend to build up, that bind human society together, and help on life and growth and happiness. now the simple fact that human society exists proves that the things that tend to bind together are more powerful than the things that tend to disintegrate and tear down. just as, for instance, if you see a planet swinging in the blue to-night, you will know that the centripetal power is stronger than the centrifugal, or there would be no planet there. that which tends to hold it together is mightier than that which tends to disintegrate and fling its particles away from each other. so the simple fact that human society exists proves that good is in the majority. and then, as we trace the development of human society from the far-off beginning, we find that justice, truth, tenderness, pity, love, helpfulness, all these qualities have been on the increase, and are growing; and, since the power that has wrought in lifting up and leading on mankind is unspent, we believe that that infinite power of which we have been speaking is underneath this lifting, is behind this progress, and that the end may reasonably be expected to issue in that perfection of which we dream and whose outlines we dimly see afar off. an infinite power, then, a power that is good, a power that we may study, partially understand, at any rate, and co-operate with. we can help on this progress instead of hindering it. we can do something to make the world better. here are two things then, god and goodness, that no doubt, no investigation, have ever been able to touch or destroy. a third thing. we want to believe that there is a meaning in these little individual lives of ours. sometimes, when we read of pestilences or the great wars of the world, when we think of children born and dying so soon almost as they are born, when we note the brevity of even the longest life and take into account the sweep of the ages, we sometimes find ourselves depressed with the thought that these human lives of ours mean so little. it sometimes seems as though nature cared nothing for us, and swept us away as the first cold and the frost sweep away the millions of flies that had been buzzing their little hour of sunshine. we need to feel, then, if we are to live manly, womanly lives, that there is some plan, or may be some purpose in our being born, in our little struggle of a few years, in our being thwarted, in our succeeding, in our being sick or well, in our being rich or poor, in our being learned or ignorant. does it make any difference how we live these lives of ours? is there significance in them, any purpose, any plan, any outcome, to make it worth while for us to struggle and strive? we need to know this; and what do the investigation and the doubt and the struggle of the world say to us concerning these? if there is anything which science teaches us, it is that the infinite god, the power, whatever we name it, that is the thought and life of this universe, is expressed just as perfectly in the tiniest atom as in the most magnificent galaxy. there is no such thing as an imperfect atom in this universe. the infinitesimal atoms below us, and the tiny orbits through which these atoms and molecules sweep, are as much in the grasp of the eternal law as the movements of the stars over our heads. things are not lost in this universe out of the eternal purpose because they are little. so our apparent littleness, the weakness, feebleness of our lives, need not disturb the grandeur of our trust in this direction. then as we study ourselves, as we see the good that has been growing through the ages, and as we note the fact that i hinted at a moment ago, that we can plant ourselves in the way, and hinder the working of the divine, so far as our tiny strength goes, or that we can study the conditions of this growth and co-operate and help it on, and so be just as truly a builder of the highest and finest humanity of the future as god is himself, as we note this, are not our little lives raised into dignity and touched with glory? and why should i cringe and humiliate myself in the presence of a planet a thousand times larger than our earth, or a sun a million and a half times larger than the planet that shakes to its centre as i stamp my tiny foot? i, or one like me, has measured the sun, weighed it as an apothecary can weigh a gram in his scales. i have untangled the rays of his light, and am able to tell the substances that are burning those ninety millions of miles away, in order to send down that ray of light to our earth. i have untangled the mysteries of the heavens, and find these only aggregations of matter like those of which my body is composed; but i deal with all these and overtop them, speeding with my thought with the rapidity that leaves the lightning behind. and i know that, because i can think god and can trace his thoughts after him as he goes through his creative processes, so i am more than these,-- a child of the creator. i may feel as a little boy feels who stands beside his father who is the captain of some mighty ship. the ship may be a million times greater than he; but the captain's intelligence and hand made it, shaped it, rules it, turns it whithersoever he will. and i am the captain's child, like him, and capable of matching his masterly achievement. and so i may believe that i, as a child of the infinite father, am of infinite importance to him in this universe of his; and i can live a grand and noble life. nobody can harm me but myself. place an obstacle in my path, and, whether it be insurmountable or not, i may show myself a coward or a hero as i face it. tell me i have made a mistake, i can repair it. tell me i have committed some moral error, am guilty of sin, i confess it. but i can make all these mistakes and sins stairways up which i can climb nearer and nearer to god. you may test me with sorrows, affliction, take away my property, take away my health, take away my friends; and the way in which i receive these may either make me nobler or poorer and meaner, as i will. the sun shines upon the earth. it turns one clod hard, makes it incapable of producing anything. it softens and sweetens another, the same sun: the difference is in the way in which it is received. so these influences may touch me, may make me hard and bitter and mean and rebellious, or i may stand all, and say, as the old stoics used to, "even if the gods are not just, i w ill be just, and shame the gods." so man may say, whatever comes upon me, i will meet it like a man, and like a child of the highest, and so make my life significant, a part of the divine plan, something glorious and real. one thought more. when we have got through with this life, and stand on the shore of a sea whose wavelets lap the sands at our feet, and the ships of those that depart go out into the mist, and we wonder whither, what has doubt done, what has investigation done, touching this great hope of ours, as we face that which we speak of as the unknown? so far as the old-time and traditional belief is concerned, i hold that doubt has been of infinite and unspeakable service. certainly, i could rather have no belief at all than the old belief. certainly, i would rather sink into unconsciousness and eternal sleep than wake to watch over the battlements of heaven the ascent of the smoke of the torment that goeth up forever and ever. but is there any rational ground for hope still? i cannot stop this morning even to suggest to you the grounds for the assertion that i am about to make. i believe that, if we have not already demonstrated eternal life, we are on the eve of such demonstration. i believe that another continent is to be discovered as veritably as columbus discovered this new world. as he, as he neared the shore, saw floating tokens upon the waters that indicated to him that land was not far away, so i believe that tokens are all about us of this other country, which is not a future, but only a present, unseen and unknown to the most of us. but grant, if you will, that that is not to be attained, modern investigation and doubt have done nothing to touch the grounds of the great human hope that springs forever in the breast, that hope which is born of love, born of trust, born of our dreams, born of our yearning towards the land whither our dear ones have departed. let me read you just a few lines of challenge to those that would raise a question as to the reality of this belief: what is this mystic, wondrous hope in me, that, when no star from out the darkness bore gives promise of the coming of the morn, when all life seems a pathless mystery through which tear-blinded eyes no way can see; when illness comes, and life grows most forlorn, still dares to laugh the last dread threat to scorn, and proudly cries, death is not, shall not be? i wonder at myself! tell me, o death, if that thou rul'st the earth, if "dust to dust" shall be the end of love and hope and strife, from what rare land is blown this living breath that shapes itself to whispers of strong trust, and tells the lie, if 'tis a lie, of life? where did this wondrous dream come from? how does it grow as the world grows? it must be a whisper of this eternal being to our hearts; and so, in spite of all the advance of knowledge, all the criticism, it remains untouched, brightening and growing. and so there is reason, as we gaze out on the future, why we should look with contempt, if you will, upon the conditions that trouble us in this life, the burdens, the sorrows, the illnesses, when all that life means at its highest is that out of the conditions, whatever they are, i should shape a manhood, cultivate a soul, make myself worth living, fitting myself for that which gleams through the mist a promise, if you will, of something there beyond. now i wish simply to call your attention to the fact that doubt does not touch this eternal power, does not touch the fact that this is a good power, and that it is on the side of goodness, does not touch the fact that we are the children of that power and may co-operate with it for good and share its ultimate triumph, does not touch the great hope that makes it worth while for us to suffer, to bear, to dare all things. and these great trusts, are they not all we need to be men, to be women, to conquer the conditions of life and prove ourselves children of the highest? evolution loses nothing of value to man. i take two texts, one of them from the new testament. it may be found in the fifth chapter of the gospel according to matthew, the seventeenth verse, "think not that i came to destroy the law or the prophets: i came not to destroy, but to fulfil." the other text is from emerson: "one accent of the holy ghost the heedless world hath never lost." the theory of evolution to-day, in the minds of all competent students, is quite as firmly established as is the law of gravity or the copernican theory in astronomy. but, when it was first propounded in its modern form by herbert spencer, when he issued his first book, and when darwin's "origin of species" was published, there was an outcry, especially throughout the religious world. there was a great fear shuddered through the hearts of men. they felt as though the dearest things on earth were threatened and were likely to be destroyed. essayists declared that this theory undermined the foundations of morals. they said that it took away, not only the bible, but god and all rational religion. they told us that, in tracing the ancestry of man back and down to the animals, humanity was being desecrated, and that the essential feature of man as a child of god was being taken away. if i believed that any of these things were true, i might not be an enemy of evolution, if indeed it be established; for there is very little reason in a man's setting himself against an established truth. but i should certainly be very sad, and should wish that we might hold some other theory of things. but i believe that it will appear, as we study the matter a little while carefully, that not only are these charges that have been brought against the theory baseless, but that right here is to be found not only the real progress of the world, but the true conservatism. evolution is the most conservative theory that has ever been held. it keeps everything that has been found serviceable to man. it may transform it. it may lift it to some higher level, on to some loftier range of life; but it keeps and carries forward everything that helps. this inevitably and in the nature of things. there are two great tendencies which are characteristic of that method of progress or growth which we call by the name of evolution. one is the hereditary tendency, and the other is the tendency to variation. one, if it were in full force, would merely, forever and forever, repeat the past: the other, if it were in full force, would blot out all the past, and forever be creating something new. it is in the balance of these two tendencies that we discover the orderly growth of the world; and this orderly growth it is which constitutes evolution. let me illustrate: here is a tree, for example. the tendency that we call heredity would simply constantly repeat the past: the tendency to vary would vary the tree out of existence. the ideal is that it shall keep its form, for example, as an oak, but that, in the process of growth, the bark shall expand freely and sufficiently to make room for the manifestation of the new life. now, if the bark had power to refuse expansion, of course, you know, the tree would die. if there were not power enough to maintain the form, then, again, the tree would cease to exist. this you may take as a type and illustration of the method of all life and all progress everywhere. those people who naturally represent the heredity tendency what we call the conservative people of the world are the ones who are always afraid of any change. they deprecate the utterance of new ideas. they hesitate to accept any new-fangled notions, as perhaps they call them. they are afraid that something precious, something sweet, something dear, that belonged to the past, may be lost. this manifests itself in all departments of life. i suppose that there never was an improvement proposed in the world that somebody did not object to it in the interests of the established order. and yet, if these people that do not want any changes made had had control of the world ten thousand years ago, where should we be to-day? we should still be barbarians in the jungles. for it is because these people have not been able to keep the world still that we have advanced here and there in the direction of what we are pleased to call civilization. you remember, for example, as illustrating this opposition, how the workingmen, the laborers of the time, a few years ago, in england, fought against the introduction of machinery. they said machinery was going to take their work away, it was going to break down the old industrial order of the world, it was going to make it impossible for the laborer to get his living. a few machines were to do the world's work; and the great multitude were to be idle, and, not having anything to do, were to receive no pay for labor, and consequently were to starve. this was the cry. the outcome has been that there has been infinitely more done, a much larger number of laborers employed, employed less hours in the day, paid higher wages; and in every direction the condition of the industrial world has been improved. i speak of this simply as an illustration of this tendency. when we come to religion, it is perfectly natural that the opposition here should be bitterer than anywhere else in the world; and it always has been. if you think of it just a little, if you read the history of the world a little, you will find that the last thing on earth that people have been willing to improve has been their religion. and this, i say, is perfectly natural. why? because men have instinctively felt and rightly felt, as i believe that religion was the most important thing in human life. they felt that it was the most sacred thing, that on it depended higher and more permanent interests than on anything else; and they have naturally been timid, naturally shrunk from change, with the fear that changing the theories and the practices and the thoughts was going to endanger the thing itself. they have said, we will hold on, at any rate, to these reverences, these worships, these precious trusts, these hopes; and we will hold on to the vessels in which we have carried them, because how do we know, if the vessels are changed or taken away, that we may not lose the precious contents themselves? this, i say, has been the feeling; and it has been a perfectly natural feeling. i wish then, this morning, for a little while to review with you some of the steps in evolution that the world has taken, and let you see how it has worked in different departments of human thought and human life, so that you may become convinced if possible, as i am that evolution has never thrown away, has never lost, anything precious in any department of the world since human life began. if i believed it did, i would fight against it. for instance, here is a devout catholic servant-girl. she believes in her saints. she counts her beads and recites her ave marias. she goes to the cathedral on sunday morning. and this is her world of poetry and romance. here is a source of comfort. this throws a halo around the drudgery of the kitchen, the service of the house in which she is an employee. would i take away this trust, this poetry, this romance, untrue as i believe it to be in form, inadequate as i believe it to be? would i take it away, and leave her mind bare, her heart empty, leave her without the comfort, without the inspiration? not for one moment. i would take it away only if, in the process, i could supply her with something just a little better, a little more nearly true, something that would give her comfort, something that would be an inspiration to her, something that would buoy her up as a hope, something that would help her to be faithful and true in the work of her daily life. this is what evolution means. it means taking away the old, and, in the process, substituting therefore something a little bit better. i would not take away the idol of the lowest barbarian unless i could help him to take a step a little higher, so that he should see the intellectual and spiritual thing that the idol stood for, and so enable him to walk his pathway of life as firmly, as faithfully, as hopefully, as he did before. i have been watching the work that has been going on in our streets during the last months. you, too, have seen how they will replace the track on an entire line of railway without stopping the running of the cars. they take away the old and worn and poorer, but constantly substitute something better for it; and human life moves right on. everything is better; the change has come; but that change is; an improvement. this is what evolution does; for evolution is nothing new in the world. it is only the name for the method of god, which is as old as the universe itself, new to us because we have just discovered it; but as old as the light of a star that has been travelling for twenty-five thousand years, and has just come into the field of the astronomer's telescope, so that he announces it as a new discovery.. this is what it means. now let me call your attention to the fact that in the world below us the world of the trees and the shrubs and the flowers and the plants this evolutionary force is working after precisely the same method that i have just been indicating. all the fair, the beautiful things have been developed under this process, in accordance with this method, out of the first bare and rough and crude manifestations of vegetable life. nothing has been thrown away that was of any value. take it, for example, in regard to the wild weeds which have become the oats and the wheat and the barley and the rye of the world. all the old that was of value has been kept and has been developed into something higher and finer and sweeter. the aboriginal crab-apple has become a thousand luscious kinds of fruits; and the flowers all their beauty, all their fragrance, all their color and form? are the result of the working of this method of god's power that we have called evolution. nothing of any value is left behind in the uncounted ages of the past. all that is of worth to-day has been transformed and lifted to some higher level and made a part of the wondrous life that is all around us. so, when you come to the animal life, you find the same thing. the swift foot, the flashing wing, the beauty of color, all the wonders of animal life have simply been developed in accordance with this method and under this impelling force which we call evolution, which is only a name for the working of god. when we come up to the level of man, what do we find? man as an animal is not the equal of a good many of the other animals in the world. he is not as swift as the deer, he is not as strong as the lion, he cannot fly in the air like a bird, he cannot live in the sea like the fishes. he is restricted to the comparatively contracted area of the surface of the land. he is not as perfect as an animal; but what has evolution done? it has given him power of conquest over all these, because the evolutionary force has left the bodily structure, we need expect no more marked changes there, and has gone to brain. so this feeblest of all the animals physically speaking he would be no match for a hundred different kinds of animals that are about us is able to outwit them all, that is, to outknow, he has become the ruler of the earth. and not only has this evolutionary force gone to brain, it has gone to heart; and man has become a being whose primest characteristic is love. the one thing that we think of as most perfect, that we dream of as characterizing his future development, is summed up in his affectional nature. then, too, he has become a moral being. there are times, like the present, when it seems as though the animal were at the top, and the affectional nature suppressed, and the conscience were ruled out of court; and yet you study the methods of modern warfare as compared with those of the past, you see how pity and tenderness and care walk by the side of every gun, hide in the rear of every battlefield to attend to the wounded and suffering. and you know what talk there has been of pity for the hungry, the desire of the world to feed those that need; and the one dominant note in the discussion of the war all over the world has been the question as to its being right. no matter how we may have decided, whether the decision be correct or not, the civilized world bows itself in the presence of its ideal of right, and demands that no war shall be fought the issue of which is not to be a better condition of mankind. evolution, then, tends to the development of brain, heart, conscience, and the spiritual nature of man. it has left nothing behind that is of any value to us. it has transformed or sublimed or lifted all up into the higher range of the life that we are living to-day, and contains within itself a promise of the higher and the grander life that we reach forward to to-morrow. i wish now, for a moment, to illustrate the working of this in regard to some of the institutions of the world. if i had time, i could show you that the same law is apparent in the development of the arts, sculpture, painting, poetry. i must pass them by, however. as illustrating what i mean, let me take the one art of music. from the very beginning man has been interested in making some sort of sounds which, i suppose, have been regarded as music by him. most of those that are associated with the barbaric man would be anything but music to us. the music, for example, that they give in connection with a play in a chinese theatre would not be acceptable to the cultivated ear of americans. we have left behind much that the world called music. we have left behind any number of musical instruments. we do not now have those that the psalmist makes so much of, the old-time harp, the sackbut, the psaltery. i do not know, though you may, what kind of instruments they were. the world has completely forgotten them, and left them out of sight. and yet no musical note, no musical chord, no musical thought, no musical feeling, has been forgotten or dropped along the advancing pathway of the world's progress; and in our organs all the attempts at instruments of that kind from the beginning of the world are preserved, transformed and glorified. in our magnificent orchestras all the first feeble beginnings are developed until we have a conception of music to-day such as would have been utterly incomprehensible to the primeval man. what i wish you to note is and this is the use of my illustration that the advancing growth of the music of the world has forgotten nothing that it was worth while to keep. let me give you one more illustration. take it in the line of government. the first tribes were governed by two forces, brute force and superstitious fear. these were the two things that kept the primal tribes of the world in order, such order as was maintained in those far-off times. the world has gone on developing different types of government, different types of social order. i need not stop to outline them for you this morning: you know what they are; and i only wish you to catch the thought i have in mind. i suppose that every time one of the old types was about to pass away the adherents of that type have been in a panic lest anarchy was threatening the world. believers in these types have said that it was absolutely necessary to keep them, in order to preserve social order. take the attitude of the monarchy to-day, for example, as towards the republic. when we attempted to establish our republic here in this western world, it was freely said by the adherents of the old political idea in europe that it would of necessity be a failure, that there was no possibility of a stable human order without a hierarchy of nobles with a king at the top; and i suppose they believed it. but we have proved beyond question that we can have a strong government, an orderly government, without either nobility or king. there is less government in the united states here to-day than in almost any other country of the world, a nearer approach to what the philosopher would call anarchy. anarchy does not mean disorder, when a philosopher is talking: it means merely the absence of external government. and that is the ideal that we are approaching. paul says, you know, that the law was made for wicked people, for the disobedient and the disorderly, not for good people. how many people are there in new york to-day, for example, who are honest, who pay their debts, who did not commit a burglary last night, who do not propose to be false to wife and home, on account of the law, the existence of courts and police? the great majority of the citizens of america to-day would go right on being honest and kind and loving and helpful, whether there were any laws or not. they are not kept to these courses of conduct by the law. they have learned that these are the fitting ways of life that these are the things for a man to do; and they despise themselves if they are less than man. in other words, this governmental order, which exists as an outside force, at last gets written in the heart and becomes a law of life. now precisely the same process is going on in other departments of the world: it is going on in religion. and now let me come to religion, and illustrate the working of the law here. the old types of religious thought and life and practice, the first ones that the world knew, are long since outgrown. we regard them as barbaric, as cruel. we have learned that there are not a million gods of whom we need stand in awe. we have learned that god is no partial god. we have learned that god does not want us, as universal man once believed, to sacrifice the dearest object of our love. we have learned that he does not want us to sacrifice our first-born child, as the old hebrews used to, and the remains of which custom are plainly visible throughout the old testament everywhere. we have left behind these old types of religious thought and life; but the world has lost nothing in the process. the world has not left religion behind. the whole process of growth and development in the sphere of the religious life and the development of man has been one of outgrowing crude and partial and inadequate thoughts and feelings about the universe and god and man and duty and destiny. we do not care so much about ceremony as the world did once. the most civilized people in the world are not so given to these things in their religious development. we do not care so much about creed as they did a thousand or five hundred years ago. we do not believe that god is going to judge us by our intellectual conceptions of him and of our fellow- men. and i suppose it is true, always has been true as it is to-day, that the adherent of any particular form or theory of the religious life has the feeling that, when that is threatened, religion is threatened; and he defends it passionately, fights for it, perhaps bitterly, feels justified in opposing, perhaps hating, those he regards as the enemies of god and his great and sacred and religious hopes. and yet we know, as we study the past, whether we can quite appreciate it as true in regard to the theories which i am voicing to-day, that the truth has never been in any danger, and the highest and finest and sweetest things in the religious life have never been in any danger, are not in any danger to-day. let me indicate in two or three directions. there has been a class of thinkers, which has done a good deal of talking and writing in this direction, who are telling us that the poetry, the romance, the wonder, the mystery, of the world those things that tend to bring a man to his knees and to lift his eyes in awe and reverence are passing away; that science is going to explore everything; that there is going to be no more unknown; and that, when we have completed this process, one of the great essentials of religious thought and feeling and life will have perished from among men. i venture to say to you that there has never been a time in the history of the world when there was so much of mystery, so much of wonder, so much of reverence, so much of awe, as there is to-day. we are apt to fool ourselves in our thinking, and, when we have observed a fact, and labelled it, to think we know it. for example, here is this mysterious force that we call electricity, which is flashing such light in our homes and through our streets as the world has never known before. the cars, loaded, are speeding along our highways with no visible means of propulsion. we step up to a little box, and put a shell to our ear, and speak and listen, and converse with a friend in boston or chicago, recognizing the voice perfectly, as though this friend were by our side. we send a message over a wire, under the deep, and talk to london and all round the globe; and we have labelled this force electricity. and, instead of getting down on our knees in reverence, we get impatient if our communication is delayed two minutes or three. we fool ourselves with the thought that, because we have called it electricity, we know it, we have taken the mystery out of the fact. why, friends, do you know anything about electricity? do you know what it is? do you know why it works as it does? i do not; and i do not know of anybody on the face of the earth who does. the wonder of the "arabian nights" is cheap and tame and theatrical compared to the wonder of this everyday workaday world of ours, in the midst of which and by means of which we are carrying on our business and our daily avocations. the wonder of the carpet that would carry the person through the air who sat upon it and wished is nothing compared with the power of electricity, steam, any one of these invisible, intangible powers that are thrilling through the world to-day. there never was so much room for mystery, for awe, for poetry, for romance, as there is in the midst of our commercial life in this nineteenth century. this element of religion, then, is in no danger. we know nothing ultimately. who can tell me what a particle of matter is? who can tell me what a ray of light is, as it comes from a star? who can tell me how the movements in the particles of air striking my eye run up into nerve and brain, and become translated into thought, into light, into form, into motion, into all this wondrous universe that surrounds us on every hand? then take the element of trust. people used to think they could trust in their gods. rebecca, for example, stole her father's gods, and hid them in the trappings of her camel, and sat on them. she thought, then, that she had a god near her who would care for her. the old hebrew, with an ox-team, carried his god, in a box that he called the ark, into battle, and supposed that he had a very present help in time of need. but we have the eternal stability and order of the universe, a god that never forgets, a god on whom we can lean, in whom we can trust, who is not away off in heaven, but here, closer to us than the air we breathe, a god in whom we live and move and have our being. and has this evolution of the religious life of the world threatened the stability of truth? there never was a time on earth when there was such a passion for truth as there is today. what means all this intense activity of the scientific world? these men that devote their lives to some little fraction of the universe which they study through their microscope, not for pay, to find one little fragment of the truth of god; these critics that are rummaging the dust-heaps of the ages in the hope that they may find one little, bright-glittering particle of truth in the midst of the rubbish? there never was such a passion for truth as there is here and now. are we going to lose the sense of righteousness which is the very heart of religion? there never was a time since the world began when the average man cared so much for righteousness, when he laid so much emphasis on human conduct, on kindness, on help, on all those things that make this life of ours desirable and sweet. the ideal of character and behavior has risen step by step from the beginning, and is higher to-day than it ever was before. not because men fear a whipping, not because they are threatened with hell in another world, not because a god of vengeance is preached to them, because they have grown to see the beauty of righteousness, because they know that obedience to the laws of god means health, means sanity, means peace, means prosperity, means well-being, means all high and good and noble things. this righteousness is not driven into one by blows from outside: it blossoms out from the intellect and the conscience and the heart, as the recognized law of all fine and desirable and human living. what are we losing, then, as the result of this growth of the world in accordance with the law of evolution? are we losing our hope of the future? the form of that hope is passing away. we no longer believe in an underground world of the dead, as the hebrews did. we no longer believe in a heaven just above the blue, as christendom has believed for so long. we no longer believe in a heaven where all struggle and thought and study and growth are left out, where there is to be only a monotonous enjoyment that would pall upon any living rational soul. the form of it is passing away; but there never was a time when there was such a great and inspiring hope, not simply for myself and my friends, not simply for my neighbors, not simply for my particular church. there never was a time when there was such a great hope, including humanity for this world and for the next, as that which inspires us now. nothing, then, in religion that is of any worth has the world forgotten or is it likely to forget. all the old reverences and loves and trusts and inspirations and hopes and tendernesses are here intermingled. they are in the highest and noblest people; and they are being carried on and refined and purified and glorified as the world goes on. and now let me suggest one thought more that may be of comfort to some. a great many people have been accustomed to associate so much of their religion with the forms of their religious expression that they fancy that the world's outgrowing these means that religion is being outgrown. i said, you remember, when touching upon government as an illustration of the working of the law of evolution, that governmental forms were being outgrown just as fast as the world was becoming civilized. if this world ever becomes perfect, government will cease to be, in the sense of these external forms, simply because there will be no need of it; just as you take down a staging when you have completed a house. so i look forward to less and less care for the external forms of the religious life. i believe they will remain, and they ought to remain, just as long as they are any practical help to anybody; but, because a person ceases to need them, you must not think that he has ceased to be religious. when the world gets to be perfectly religious, there will be no need of any churches, there will be no need any more of preachers, there will be no need of any of the external ceremony of religion. you remember what the old seer says in the book of revelation, as he looks forward to the perfect condition of things. he is picturing that ideal city which he saw in his vision coming down from god out of heaven. this was his poetical way of setting forth his idea of the perfected condition of humanity; and he said, speaking of that city, "and i saw no temple therein, for the lord god was the temple of it." the external forms pass away when the life needs them no more. take, for example, the condition of things when jesus came to jerusalem. you know how they put him to death. and what did they put him to death for? they put him to death because he preached of a time when there would be no need of any temple, no need of any priesthood, no need of any of the external things that they regarded as essential to religious life. they thought he was blaspheming, they thought he was an enemy of god and of his fellowmen, because he talked that way. he said to the woman of samaria, you think you must worship god on this mountain, gerizim, and the jews think they must worship him on mount moriah; but god is spirit, and the time will come when you will not care whether you are in this place or that, but will worship him in spirit and in truth. you see it was just along these lines that jesus was preaching and working in his day. so, when humanity becomes perfected, external forms, that have helped mould and shape man into his perfection, will be needed no more. they will fall off, pass away, and be forgotten; but that will not mean that humanity has forgotten or left behind any great essential to the religious life. it will mean simply that he has taken them up into his own heart, absorbed them into his life. he naturally drops them when he is no longer in need of external supports. this law of evolution, then, is simply the method of god's progress from the beginning, the same method which was to be found in the lowest, the method which has lifted us to where we are, the method which looks out with promise towards the better things which are to come. the one life thrilled the star-dust through, in nebulous masses whirled, until, globed like a drop of dew, shone out a new-made world. the one life on the ocean shore, through primal ooze and slime, crept slowly on from less to more along the ways of time. the one life in the jungles old, from lowly creeping things, did ever some new form unfold, swift feet or soaring wings. the one life all the ages through pursued its wondrous plant till, as the tree of promise grew, it blossomed into man. the one life reacheth onward still; as yet no eye may see the far-off fact, man's dream fulfill? the glory yet to be. why are not all educated people unitarians? the religious opinions of the average person in any community do not count for much, if any one is studying them with the endeavor to find out their bearing on what is true or what is false. this is true not only of popular religious opinions, but of any other set of opinions whatever; and for the simple reason that most people do not hold their opinions as the result of any study, of any investigation, because they have seriously tried to find out what is true, and have become convinced that this, and not that, represents the reality of things. let us note for a moment and i do this rather to clear the way than because i consider it of any very great importance how it is that the great majority of people come by the religious opinions which they happen to hold. i suppose it is true in thousands of cases that a man or a woman is in this church rather than that merely as the result of inheritance and childhood training. people inherit their religious ideas. they are taught certain things in their childhood, they have accepted them perhaps without any sort of question; and so they are where they happen to be to-day. if you stop and think of it for just a moment, you will see that this may be all right as a starting-point, but is not quite an adequate reason why we should hold permanently, and throughout our lives, a particular set of ideas. if all of us were to accept opinions in this sort of fashion, and never put them behind us or make any change, where would the growth of the world be? how would it be possible for one generation to make a little advance on that which preceded it, so that we could speak of the progress of mankind? then, when persons do make up their minds to change, to leave one church and go to another, it is not an uncommon thing for them simply to select a particular place of worship or a special organization for no better reason than that they happen to like it, to be attracted to it for some superficial cause. how many people who do leave one church for another do it as the result of any earnest study, or real endeavor to find the truth? and yet, if you will give the matter a moment's serious consideration, you will see that we have no sort of right to choose one theory rather than another, one set of ideas rather than another, because we happen to like one thing, and not something else. liking or disliking, a superficial preference or aversion, is an impertinence when dealing with these great, high, and deep questions of god and the soul, of the true or the false. then i have known a great many people in my life who went to a particular church for no better reason than mere convenience. it was easily accessible, it was just around the corner, they did not have to make any long journey, and did not have to put themselves out any to get up a little earlier on sunday morning, which they would otherwise need to do. a mere matter of convenience! and this is so many times allowed to settle some great question of right or wrong. then you will find those who select a particular church or a particular church organization, become identified with it, merely because on a casual visit to the place they were taken with the minister, happened to like his appearance, his method of speaking, the way he presented his ideas. or perhaps they were attracted by the music. there are persons who decide these great questions of god and truth and the soul for no more important a reason than the organization and the capacity of the church choir. it is not an uncommon thing for people to attend some particular church because it promises to be socially advantageous to them. it is fashionable in a particular town. i have a friend, i still call him friend, a boston lawyer, who told me in conversation about this subject one day that he deliberately went to the largest church he could find, and that, if in the particular city in which he was residing the roman catholic church was in the majority, he should attend that. there are thousands of persons who wish to be in the swim, and who are diverted this way or that by what seems to them socially profitable. think of it, claiming to be followers of the nazarene, who was outcast, spit upon, treated with contempt, on whom the scribes and pharisees of his day looked down with bitterness and scorn, and who led the world for the sake of his love for god out into a larger truth, who made himself of no reputation, claim to be followers of him, and let a matter of fashion decide whether they will go this way or walk in some other path i think of the irony of a situation like that! then, again, there are those who attach themselves to some one church rather than to another because, after looking over the ground, they made up their minds that it would be to their business advantage. they will become associated with a set of people who can help them on in the world. it is all very well, if there be no higher consideration, for a person to be governed in his action by motives like these; but is it quite right to decide a question of truth or falsehood, of god or duty, of the consecration of the human soul, of the service of one's fellow- men, on the basis of supposed financial advantage? there is hardly a year goes by that persons do not come to me, considering the question as to whether they will attend my church. i can see in a few minutes' conversation with them that they have some purpose to gain. they wish to be helped on in the prosecution of some scheme for their own advancement. if they succeed, they are devout unitarians and loyal followers of mine. if not, within a few weeks i hear of them as devoted attendants somewhere else, where they have been able to make their personal plans a success. these are some of the reasons there are worthier ones than these which influence the crowd. there are, i say, worthier ones. let me hint one or two. i do not think it is any sacrilege, or betrayal of confidence, for me to speak a name. the late frances e. willard, one of the ablest, truest, most devoted women i have ever known, frankly confessed to me in personal conversation that she was more in sympathy with my religious ideas than of those of the church with which she was connected, but her love, her tender love and reverence for her mother and the memory of her mother's religion were such that she could not find it in her heart to break away. she loved the services her mother loved, she loved the hymns her mother sung, she loved the associations connected with her mother's life. all sweet, beautiful, noble; but, if nobody from the beginning of the world had ever advanced beyond mothers' ideas where should we be to-day? is it not, after all, the truest reverence for mother, in the spirit of consecration she showed to follow the truth as you see it to-day, as she followed it as she saw it yesterday? so much to justify the statement i made, that the average popular belief on any subject is not a reliable guide to a person who is earnestly desiring to find the simple truth. now let us come to the answer of the specific question which i have propounded. why are not all educated people unitarians? i ask this question, not because i originated it, but because it has been put to me, i suppose, a hundred times. people say, you claim to have studied these matters very carefully, you have tried to find the truth, you think you have found it. you have followed what you regard as the true method of search. if you have found the truth, and if other people, using this same method and being as unbiased as you, could also find it, how does it happen that unitarians are in the minority? why do not all persons who study and who are educated accept the unitarian faith? this question, i say, has been asked me a great many times; and it is a question that deserves a fair, an earnest and sympathetic answer. such an answer i am now to try to give. in the first place, let me make a few assertions. i have not time to prove them this morning; but they are capable of proof. the advantage of a scientific statement is that, though you do not stop to prove it, you know it can be proved any time, whenever a person chooses to take the time or trouble. for example, if i state the truth of the copernican system, or that the earth revolves around the sun, and you challenge me to prove it in two minutes, i may not be able to; it may take longer than that; but i know it can be demonstrated to-morrow or next week or any time, because it has been demonstrated over and over again. i wish now to assert the truth of certain fundamental principles; and these principles, you note, are those which constitute the peculiarity of the unitarian people as a body of theological believers. for example, that this which is all around us and of which we are a part is a universe is demonstrated beyond question. it is one, the unity of the universe. the unity of force, the unity of substance or matter, the unity of law, the unity of life, the unity of humanity, the unity of the fundamental principles of ethics, the unity of the religious life and aspiration of the world, these, i say, are demonstrated. and do you not see that demonstrating these carries along with it the unquestioned, the absolute demonstration of the unity of the power that is in the universe and manifests itself through it? the unity of god? the lord our god is one! and this is no question of speculation, it is demonstrated truth. now, as to any speculative or metaphysical division of god's nature into three parts or personalities, there is not, and there cannot be, in the nature of things, one slightest particle of proof. the unity is demonstrated: anything else is incapable of demonstration. next, the unitarian contention i say unitarian, not because we originated it by any means, but simply because we first and chiefly among religious bodies have accepted it as to the origin and nature of man as science has unfolded it to us, thus precluding the possibility of the truth of any doctrine of any fall. this is not speculation, it is not whim. it is not something picked up by the way, that a man chooses because he likes it, and because he does not like something else. this is demonstrated truth, as clearly and fully demonstrated as is the law of gravity or the fact that water will freeze at a certain temperature. then the question of the bible. the unitarian position in regard to the origin, the method of composition, the authenticity and the authority of biblical books, is a commonplace of scholarship. there is no rational question in regard to it any more. next, the question of the origin and nature of jesus the christ. the naturalness of his birth, the naturalness of his death, his pure humanity, are made clearer and surer by every new step which investigation takes; and there is nothing in the nature of proof that is conceivable in regard to any other theory. if any one chooses to accept it, well; but nobody claims, or can claim, to prove it, to settle it, to demonstrate it as true. it becomes an article of faith, a question of voluntary belief; but there is no possibility of holding it in any other way. so as to the nature of salvation. it is a matter of character; a man is saved when he is right. and that he cannot be saved in any other way is demonstrable and demonstrated truth. now, these are the main principles which constitute the beliefs of unitarians; and in any court of reason they are able to make good their claim against any corner. and, if there be no other motive at work except the one clear-eyed, simple desire to find the truth, there can be no two opinions concerning any of them. why, then, are not all thoughtful, educated people unitarians? well may the listener ask, in wonder, if the statements i have just been making are true. now i propose to offer some suggestions, showing what are some of the influences at work which determine belief, and which have very little to do with the question as to whether the beliefs are capable of establishing themselves as true or not. in the first place, let us raise the question as to what is generally meant by education. we assume that all educated people ought to agree on all great questions; and they ought, note now what i am saying, they ought, if they are really and truly educated, and if with a clear and single eye they are seeking simply the truth. but, in order to understand the situation, we need to note a good many other things that enter into this matter of determining the religious path in which people will walk. now what do we mean by education? popularly, if a man has been to school, particularly if he is a college graduate, if he can read a little latin and speak french, and knows something of music, if he has graduated anywhere, he is spoken of as educated. but is that a correct use of language? are we sure that a man is educated merely because he knows a lot of things or has been through a particular course of study? what does a human education mean? does it not mean the unfolding, the development of our faculties in such a way that in the intellectual sphere we can come into contact with and possession of the reality of things, the truth? intellectually, is there any other object of education than to fit a man to find the truth? and yet let me give you a case. here is a man, i take it as an illustration simply, not because i have anything particular against the catholic church any more than against any other body of believers, who has been through a catholic college, has made himself master of catholic doctrine, become familiar with theological and ecclesiastical literature; suppose he knows all the languages, or a dozen of them, having them at his fingers' ends. do you not see that as a truth-seeker in a free world he may not be educated at all? he may be educated, as we say, or trained is the better word, into acceptance of a certain system of traditional thought, that can give no good reason for itself; for his prejudices, his loves and hates may be called into play. he may be trained into the earnest conviction that it is his highest duty to be loyal to a particular set of ideas. take the way i was educated. i grew up reading the denominational reviews, and the denominational newspapers. i was taught that it was dangerous and wicked to doubt. i must not think freely: that was the one thing i was not permitted to do. i went to a theological school, and had drilled into me year after year that such beliefs, about god and man and jesus and the bible and the future world, were unquestionably true, and that i must not look at anything that would throw a doubt upon them. and i was sent out into the world graduated, not as a truth-seeker, but to fight for my system, as a west point graduate is taught that he must fight for his country without asking any questions. do you not see that this, which goes under the name of education, instead of fitting a man to find the truth, may distinctly and definitely unfit him, make it harder for him to find any truth except that which is contained in the system which has been drilled into him from his childhood up and year after year? education, in order to fit a man to be a truth-seeker, must be something different from this merely teaching a man a certain system, a certain set of ideas, and drilling him into the belief that he must defend these ideas against all corners. a good many people, then, who are called educated, are not educated at all. i have had this question asked me repeatedly: if your position is true, here is a college graduate, and here is another; and here is a minister of such a denomination, or a priest of the catholic church; why do they not accept your ideas? do you not see, however, that this so-called education may stand squarely in the way? now, in the second place, i want to dwell a little on the difficulty of people's getting rid of a theory which possesses their minds, and substituting for it another theory. and i wish you to note that it is not a religious difficulty nor a theological difficulty nor a baptist difficulty nor a presbyterian difficulty: it is a human difficulty. there is no body of people on the face of the earth that is large enough to contain all the world's bigotry. it overflows all fences and gets into all enclosures. discussing the subject a little while ago, by correspondence with a prominent scientific man in new england, i got from him the illustrations which i hold in my hand, tending to set forth how difficult it is for scientific men themselves to get rid of a theory which they have been working for and trying to prove, and substitute for it another theory. i imagine that there may be a physiological basis for the difficulty. i suggest it, at any rate. we say that the mind tends to run in grooves of thought. that means, i suppose, that there is something in the molecular movements of the brain that comes to correspond to a well-trodden pathway. it is easy to walk that path, and it is not easy to get out of it. let it rain on the top of a hill; and, if you watch the water, you will see that it seeks little grooves that have been worn there by the falling of past rains, and that the little streams obey the scientific law and follow the lines of least resistance. there comes a big shower, a heavy downfall; and perhaps it will wash away the surface and change the beds of these old watercourses, create new ones. so, then, when there comes a deluge of new truth, it washes away the ruts along which people have been accustomed to think; and they are able to reconstruct their theories. now let me give you some of these scientific illustrations. first, that heat is a mode of motion was proved by sir humphry davy and count rumford before . in joule, of manchester, england, proved the quantitative relation between mechanical energy and heat. in note the dates tyndall gave a course of lectures on heat as a mode of motion, and was even then sneered at by some scientific men for his temerity. tait, of glasgow, was particularly obstreperous. to-day nobody questions it; and we go back to sir humphry davy and count rumford for our proofs, too. it was proved scientifically proved then; but it took the world all these years, even the scientific world, to get rid of its prejudices in favor of some other theory, and see the force of the proof. now, in the second place, it was held originally that light was a series of corpuscles that flew off from a heated surface; but thomas young, about the year , demonstrated the present accepted theory of light. but it was fought for years. only after a long time did the scientific world give up its prejudice in favor of the theory that was propounded by newton. but to-day we go back to young, and see that he demonstrated it beyond question. in the third place, take another fact. between and faraday worked out a theory of electrical and magnetic phenomena. it was proved to be correct. maxwell, a famous chemist in london, looked over the matter, and persuaded himself that faraday was right; but nobody paid much attention to either of them; until after a while the scientific world, through the work of its younger men, those least wedded to the old-time beliefs, conceded that it must be true. the nebular theory was proved and worked out by kant more than a hundred and thirty years ago. in laplace worked it out again; but it was a long time before it was accepted. and now we go back to kant and laplace for our demonstration. darwin's "origin of species" was published in . but it was attacked by scientists as well as theologians on every hand. huxley even looked at it with a good deal of hesitancy before he accepted it. to-day, however, everybody goes back to the "origin of species," and finds the whole thing there, demonstration and all. lyell published a book on the antiquity of man in . it was twenty- five years before all the scientific men of the world were ready to give up the idea that man had been on the earth more than six or eight thousand years. so we find that it is not theologians only; it is scientists, too, that find it difficult to accept new ideas. i know scientific men among my personal friends who are simply incapable of being hospitable to an idea that would compel them to reconstruct a theory that they have already accepted. why are not all educated men unitarians? why do not scientific men accept demonstrated truth when it is first demonstrated as truth? it puts them to too much trouble. it touches their pride. they do not like to feel that they have thrown away half their lives following an hypothesis that is not capable of being substantiated. then, in the third place, there are men, and educated men as the world goes, who deliberately decline to study new truth; and they are men in the scientific field and in the religious field. they purposely refuse to look at anything which would tend to disturb their present accepted belief. in my boyhood i used to hear dr. john o. fiske, a famous preacher in maine. he told a friend of mine, in his old age, that he simply refused to read any book that would tend to disturb his beliefs. professor william g. t. shedd, one of the most distinguished theologians of this country, a leading presbyterian divine, published so i am not slandering him by saying it a statement that he did not consider any book written since the seventeenth century worth his reading. and yet we have a new world since the seventeenth century, a new revelation of god and of man. to follow the teaching of the seventeenth century would be to go wrong in almost every conceivable direction. what is the use of paying any attention to the theological or religious opinions of a man who avows an attitude like that? faraday, to come now to a scientific illustration, so that you will not think i am too hard on theologians, faraday belonged to one of the most orthodox sects in england; and he used to say deliberately that he kept his religion and his science apart. he says, "when i go into my closet, i lock the door of my laboratory; and, when i go into my laboratory, i lock the door of my closet." he did very wisely to keep them apart; for, if they had got together, there would certainly have been an explosion. another scientific illustration is agassiz. agassiz unconsciously wrought out and developed some of the most wondrous and beautiful proofs of evolution that the world has ever known; and yet he fought evolution to the last day of his life, simply because he had accepted the other theory. and he got it into his head that there was something about evolution that tended to injure religion and degrade man, not a rational objection, not a scientific objection, but a feeling, a prejudice. there is another class of people that i must refer to. institutions and organizations come into being, created, in the first place, as the embodiment and expression of new and grand truths; and after a arile their momentum becomes such that the persons who are connected with them cannot control their movements, and these persons become victims of the organizations and institutions to which they belong. so, when a new truth appears, the old organization rolls on like a juggernaut car, and crushes the life, so far as it is possible, out of everything in its way. take, for example, and note what a power it is and what an unconscious bribe it is to those who belong to it, the great anglican church. a man's ambitions, if he has learning, power, ability, tell him that there is the archbishopric of canterbury ahead of him as a possibility. his hopes, the chances of promotion and power, are with the institution. and, then, it is such a tremendous social influence. it is no wonder, then, that men who are not over-strong, who have not the stuff in them out of which heroes are made, should cling to the institution and remain loyal to it, even while they are false to the truth that used to animate it and for which alone any institution ought to exist. let me give you another illustration. edward temple, late bishop of london, and who is now the archbishop of canterbury, had a priest of the established church come to him and make a confession of holding certain beliefs which he knew were heretical. the archbishop said to him frankly: as edward temple, i believe them, i am in sympathy with your views. as the head of the english church, i must be opposed to them; and the opinions which you hold cannot be tolerated. that is what the influence of a great organization may come to. let me give you another concrete illustration. here is our american bible society, which publishes and circulates millions of bibles all over the world. it is obliged, as at present organized, to print and distribute the king james version of the bible; but there is not a scholar or a minister connected with the organization anywhere who does not know at least, since the revision at any rate that in many important respects the king james version is not an accurate translation of the original, even if that is conceded to be infallible. so that this organization stands to-day in the position of being obliged to circulate all over the world for god's truth any number of teachings that are simply blunders of the translator, of the copyist, or interpolated passages that have come down from the past. so men in every direction become persuaded that they must be loyal to the organization. i know cases where a minister in conversation with a friend has said: so long as i remain a member of this church, i have got a great institution back of me, and i can accomplish so much socially and in every way on account of it. i know i do not believe half of the creed, but any number of other ministers are in the same box. and so they stay true to the organization, while truth to the truth is sacrificed. one other influence that keeps so many of these old ideas alive or prolongs their existence beyond the natural term is right in here. any number of men, educated, strong, prominent men, give their countenance and influence to the support of old-time religious organizations because they believe that somehow or other they are serviceable as a police force in the world, they keep people quiet, they help preserve social order. i have had people over and over again say that they believed it would be a great calamity to disturb the roman catholic church, because it keeps so many people quiet. do you know, friends, i regard this as the worst infidelity that i know of on the face of the earth. it is doubt of god, his ability to lead and manage his world without cheating it. it is doubt of truth, as to whether it is safe for anybody except very wise people, like a few of us! it is doubt of humanity, its capacity to find the truth, and believe in it and live on it. do you believe that god has made this universe so that it is healthier for the masses to live on a lie than it is for them to live on the truth? is that your confidence in god? is that the kind of god you worship? it is not the kind i worship. there is no danger of the ignorant masses of the world getting wise too fast, judging by the experience of the past up to the present time. there is only one thing that is safe; and that is truth. do you know what the trouble was at the time of the french revolution? it was not that the people began to reason and think, and lost their faith, as so frequently said by superficial historians: it was that they waked up at last to the idea that the aristocracy and the priesthood had not only been fleecing them financially and keeping them down socially, but had been fooling them religiously, until at last they broke away, having no confidence left in god or priest or educated people or nobility or anything. no wonder they made havoc. if you want to make a river dangerous, dam it up, keep the waters back, until by and by the pressure from the hills and the mountains becomes so great that it can be restricted no longer; and it not only breaks through the dam, but bursts all barriers, floods the country, sweeps away homes, farms, cattle, human beings, towns, cities, leaving ruin in its path. let rivers flow as god meant them to; and they will be safe. so let the world learn,-- learn gradually, and adapt itself to new truth as it learns, and there will be an even and orderly march of human progress. the danger is in our setting ourselves up as being wiser than god, wiser than the universe, and doling out to the multitude the little fragments of truth that we think are fitted for their digestion. the impertinence of it, and the impiety of it! i must not stop to deal with other reasons which lie in my mind this morning. you can think along other channels for yourselves. i have simply wished to suggest that, in the kind of world we are living in, you may not be sure, at any particular age in history, that a set of ideas is going to be accepted by the multitude merely because they are true; and, because they are not accepted at once, you are not, therefore, to come to the conclusion that they are not true. there never has been a time in the history of the world when the truth was not in the minority. go back to the time of jesus: do you not remember how the people asked whether any of the scribes or the pharisees believed on him? they were ready to accept him if they could go with the crowd; but it never occurred to them to raise the question as to whether it was their duty to go with him while he was alone, as to whether two or three might not represent some higher conception of god, some forward step on the part of humanity. consider for just a moment, let it be in literature, in art, in government, in ethics, anywhere, find out where the crowd is, and you will find where the truth is not. disraeli made a very profound remark when he said that a popular opinion was always the opinion which was about to pass away. by the time a notion gets accepted by the crowd, the deeper students are seeing some higher and finer truth towards which they are reaching. the pioneers are always in the minority. the vanguard of an army is never so large as the main body that comes along behind after the way has been laid out for it. "then to side with truth is noble when we share her wretched crust." that is lowell's suggestion, in that famous poem of his. if we care for truth, we shall not wait until it becomes popular. the truth in any direction to-day, if we had the judgment of the world, would be voted down. christianity would be voted down among the religions; protestantism would be voted down in christianity; and the highest and finest thinkers in the protestant churches would be voted down by the majority of the members. do not be disturbed, then, or troubled, because you have not the crowd and the shouting accompanying you on your onward march; and remember that there must be something of heroism in this consecration to truth. i wish to quote to you, as bearing on this truth, a wonderfully fine word which i have just come across in a recent number of the cosmopolitan magazine, the word of the hon. thomas b. reed, the speaker of the house of representatives. he says, "one with god may be a majority; but crucifixion and the fagot may antedate the counting of the votes." but, if it means crucifixion and the fagot, and we claim to be followers of the nazarene and worthy of him, even for that we shall not shrink. it is our business simply to raise the question, and try to answer it or ourselves, which way must i go to follow the truth? and that way i must tread, whether it means life or death, whatever the consequences; for the truth-seeker is the only god-seeker. where is the evangelical church? as you are aware, there are certain churches that have taken the name of evangelical, thereby, of course, putting forth the claim that in some special or peculiar way they have the gospel in keeping. for "evangel" is the word translated "gospel," "evangelist" is a "preacher of the gospel," "evangelical" is the appropriate name for the church whose ministers preach the gospel. and the word "gospel," as you know, translated, means good news. it is the proclamation of hope, of something that the world has been groping in darkness for, a message that should lift the burden off the human heart, make men stronger to endure, fill them with cheer in the midst of life's difficulties and dangers, and give them a trust with which to walk out into the darkness that lies at the end. a certain section, i say, of the christian church has appropriated this name; and by common consent it has been conceded to it. and as usage makes language, and the dictionaries only record the results of popular usage, why, of course, we must confess that this use of words is right. right in that sense, i say. but i wish to go back of this popular usage this morning, and raise the question as to whether these churches that claim the title are the ones to whom it peculiarly or exclusively belongs. i wish to put forward the claim that we, though the idea is entirely against popular thought, are really the ones who are preaching the gospel of god, and that the liberals of the world come nearer today to proclaiming the actual original gospel of jesus the christ than do any other body of christians in the world. i wish to do this, not in any spirit of antagonism, but simply by way of clear definition, and that we may understand where we are, and may unfalteringly and trustingly and loyally and hopefully go on to do the highest work that was ever committed to human hands. at the outset, though it will necessitate my saying certain things which i have said to you before, i must outline briefly that body of doctrine which goes by the name of "evangelical." i will not go back two or three hundred years to include in it such dogmas as foreordination, election, the damnation of non-elect or non-baptized infants, though these doctrines still remain in the creeds. i will take what must be considered the simpler and fairer course of confining myself to setting forth those beliefs which are generally accepted, and which are made a part of the creed of the so-called "evangelical alliance" that is, an organization including representatives of all the great so-called evangelical churches. these beliefs, in brief, are that god created the world perfect in the first place, but that in a very short time it was invaded by the evil powers, and mankind rebelled against the creator, and became the subjects of the devil as the god of this world. then man, by thus rebelling against god, lost his intellectual power to discern truth, became mentally unable to discover spiritual truth, to find the divine way in which he ought to walk; and that he became morally incapable, so that, even when the truth was presented to him, he felt an aversion towards it, and was disinclined to accept it. the next point is this being the condition of things that god began to reveal himself to the world, first, by angel messengers, by prophets, by inspired men, and that then at last, through certain chosen mediums, he wrote a book telling men the truth about their condition, about his feeling towards them, about what they ought to do, and the destiny involved in the kind of life they should live here. after the world had been in existence about four thousand years, according to this teaching, and very little headway had been made even among the chosen people, the few that had been selected from the great outside and wandering nations, god himself comes down to earth, by means of a woman specially prepared to be his mother he is born without a human father. he lives, he suffers, he dies. this, after one theory or another, i need not go into them, to make it possible for god to forgive, and to enable him to save those who should accept the terms which he should offer. then, after his withdrawal from the earth, his church is organized under the special guidance of the holy spirit. its mission is to proclaim the gospel among all nations. that proclamation has gone on; but after two thousand years not a third of the world has heard the gospel, not a third of the people who walk the planet knows anything about the book that has been written. but they still stumble along in darkness, worshipping anything except the one only and true god. so that this effort up to the present time would strike us, if we judged it as a human device, as being a sad and lamentable failure. the upshot of this, according to the evangelical creed, is that the great majority of the world is to be permanently lost. only a few, those who are converted or those becoming members of the true church, connected with it sacramentally or in some way, only the few are to be saved, and the great majority outcast forever. this, in substance, makes up what has been called the gospel; and those who claim that they are preaching the gospel are preaching these things as true. i am well aware and i would not have anybody suppose that i overlooked it that this creed is undergoing very striking and marked changes, and that a great many of those things which some of us look upon as more objectionable are being left out of sight, and not preached, as they used to be, though they still remain in the creeds. i am aware, for example, that what it is to be orthodox or evangelical has been reduced to very low terms as compared with those which i have just set forth; that is to say, reduced to very low terms in certain quarters. for instance, dr. lyman abbott, of brooklyn, tells us that we need not believe in the infallibility of the bible any more; that we need not believe in the old-time trinity; that we need not believe that jesus was essentially different from a man; we need not believe in the virgin birth, unless we find it easy to accept it. but the two things which he tells us we must believe in order to be orthodox, or evangelical, are that in some way, though he does not define how, the bible contains a special message from god to the world, and that in some way jesus particularly and specially represents god, and that he reveals him to men, so that, when he speaks, he speaks with authority, as representing divine truth. everlasting damnation eliminated, foreordination not referred to, the trinity transformed, infallibility no longer insisted on, the humanity of jesus granted, to be orthodox, according to dr. abbott, has become a comparatively simple thing. in my conversations with clergymen of other churches during the past winter i have discovered that there, too, among certain men, the conditions of being orthodox are a great deal simpler than they were a hundred years ago. an episcopalian tells me it is only necessary to accept the nicene and the apostles' creeds, and that even then one is at liberty to interpret them as he pleases; that this is what constitutes orthodoxy and makes one evangelical. but this process of eliminating the hard doctrines has not gone on in any authoritative way on the part of the church itself. there has been no proclamation of any such liberty allowed; and i am not aware that the most of these men have made any public statement in their own churches of these positions. it may be known through personal conversations that they hold these views; and, if they are rendering good service, they may not be disturbed by the church authorities in their positions. so much, then, for a statement as to what constitutes the evangelical church, as to what must be the message of the minister who is to preach "the gospel of christ." now i wish to call your attention for a moment to another way of looking at these doctrines. i am not to question their truth. i simply wish to ask you to note as to whether, considering them true, we should be inclined to speak of them as good news. are they a gospel? can we with gladness proclaim them to men? for example, suppose god, after creating the world, loses control of it, an evil power comes in, his enemy, takes possession of his fair earth, alienates from him the hearts of the only two of his children who are in existence here, and who are to be the parents of a countless race. suppose that is true. is it something we would like to believe? is it good news? can we call it an integral part of a gospel? suppose, again, that god writes a book, an infallible book, and gives it to whom? to a few people, to the little company of jews who lived on that little narrow strip of land on the eastern shore of the mediterranean. he does not give it to anybody else. he has given, indeed, according to this theory, the old testament and the new to christendom since that day. but think a moment. according to what we know to be true now, man was on this planet for two or three hundred thousand years before god revealed himself at all; and the race went stumbling on and falling in darkness, no light, no hand stretched out to help, no voice speaking out of the silent heavens, the world, apparently, absolutely forgotten, so far as god's truth was concerned. suppose that, after two or three hundred thousand years, god did give an infallible book to the world. as i had occasion to say a moment ago, comparatively a very small part of his children have heard anything about it. and, then, what is very striking, the proofs of its having come from him are so weak that most of the wisest, the best, the noblest of the world, cannot accept any such claim on its behalf. is this, if it be true, good news? would we speak of it as a gospel, something of which to be glad, something to proclaim to mankind as a cheer, a message from on high? once more, suppose, after the world had been in existence for two or three hundred thousand years, god comes down, incarnates himself, wears a human body, and does what he can to save men. if it is true, in the economy of the divine government, that human souls could be saved in no other way, is that good news? would we think of it as a gospel to proclaim to mankind, that god himself must suffer, must be outcast, be spit upon, be reviled, be put to death, and that only so could he forgive one of his wandering children, and bring him back to himself? then, once more, suppose all this to be true, and suppose that, as the outcome of it all, the countless millions of men and women and children that have walked the earth during the last three hundred thousand years, until the jews received their first light from heaven, suppose that they have been lost: that is a part of this gospel. suppose that since that time all the nations outside of christendom have been lost: that is a part of this gospel. suppose that not only this be true, but that all people in christendom who have not been members of churches have been lost. suppose even, as i used to hear it preached when i was a boy, that large numbers of those who were church members were not really children of god, and would be lost. suppose this most horrible doctrine be true. is it good news? could we proclaim it with any heart of courage as a part of the gospel of god? it seems to me, then, that i am bringing no railing accusation when i say that those churches that claim to be evangelical are not proclaiming a gospel to the world. but, though this be literally true, they may claim that they are delivering the message of jesus the christ, and that, from their point of view, this is relatively a piece of good news, good news, at any rate, to the few who are going to be saved. so i ask you now to turn, while i examine with you for a few moments the essence of the gospel which jesus proclaimed. note its terms. jesus came into galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of god, and saying: "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of god is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel;" that is, this proclamation of good news, the coming of god's kingdom. was this the essential thing in the gospel of christ? let me ask you now to look with me for a few moments. you are perfectly well aware of the fact that the jews cherished a belief in the coming of a messiah and the establishment of god's kingdom here on earth and among men. you are not so well aware, perhaps, unless you have made a study of it, that a belief like this has not been confined to the jews. in many other nations a similar expectation has been cherished. we find it, for example, among some of the tribes of our north american indians. it is world-wide, in other words, in its range. it is no peculiarity of the jews. but let us confine ourselves a moment to their particular hope. it is a perfectly natural belief. it required no revelation in order for it to grow up. they believed that the god of the world, of the universe, was their god; that they were his chosen people. do you not see what a necessary corollary would be a belief in their ultimate prosperity and triumph? god would certainly bless and give the kingdom to that people which he had specially selected for his own. and so, as the coming of the kingdom was postponed, they believed that it was because they had not complied with the divine conditions, they had not kept the law or they had not been good, they had not obeyed him. somehow, they had done wrong; and that was the reason the kingdom so long delayed. remember another thing. we have come, in this modern time, to place the kingdom away off in another world after the close of this life. the jews had no such belief about it. they expected it to come right here on this poor little planet of ours; and they expected that a kingdom was to be set up which was not only to place them at the head of humanity, but through them was to bless all mankind. different thinkers among them held different views, but this in substance was the belief; and they were constantly looking for signs of this imminent revolution which was to make the kingdoms of this world the kingdoms of our god and of his christ, that is, his anointed one. john the baptist preached that this kingdom was coming. but he was imprisoned and beheaded, having come into conflict with the civil authority. jesus, then, having come from nazareth, where he had studied and thought and brooded over the divine will, takes up this broken work of john, and begins a proclamation of the gospel; and the one thing which constituted that gospel was: the kingdom of god is at hand, repent and believe; accept this statement. and note that "repent" on the lips of jesus did not mean what we have been accustomed to associate with it. the new testament word translated "repent" means change your purpose, change your method of life. you have not been in accord with the truth, you have not been obedient to god; turn about, come into accord with the divine law, become obedient to the divine message. jesus taught no kingdom in any other world. he believed that the kingdom was to be here. for, even after he had disappeared from the sight of men, and this reflects in the clearest possible way the burden of his message, his disciples expected, not that they were to be transferred to some other planet or into an invisible world to find the kingdom, but that jesus was to come back, to return in the clouds of heaven, and establish the kingdom here. the kingdom, then, that jesus preached was a kingdom of righteousness here on this earth, among just the kind of people that we are. and, note, he said, this kingdom of god does not come by observation. you are not to say, lo here, lo there, look for wonders. he says, the kingdom of god is within you, or among you. it is translated both ways; and, i suppose, nobody knows which way it ought to be. i believe both. the kingdom of god that jesus preached is essentially in us. it is also, after it is in a few of us, among us, right here already, so far as it extends, and reaching out its limits and growing as rapidly as men discern it and become obedient to its laws. now i have been asked a great many times how i can be sure, or practically sure, as to what sayings in the gospels are really those of jesus and what are traditional in their authority, what are doubtfully his. i cannot go into a long explanation this morning; but i want to suggest one line of thought. and i do this because i wish it to be the basis of a statement that jesus has not made any of these things that are to-day labelled "evangelical" any essential part of his gospel at all. jesus, for example, does not preach any garden of eden or any fall of man. jesus says nothing about any infallible book. jesus says not a word about any trinity. he nowhere makes any claim to be god. his doctrine concerning the future is doubtful. but one thing which i wish to insist upon is perfectly clear: the conditions of citizenship in the kingdom of god are the simplest conceivable. he says, not those that say, lord, lord, not those that multiply their services and ceremonies, but those that do the will of my father shall enter the kingdom. the only condition that jesus ever established for membership in the kingdom of heaven is simple human goodness, never anything else. i am perfectly well aware that somebody may quote to me, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned." but the reply to that would be, the acknowledged statement to-day on the part of all competent scholars is that jesus never uttered those words. they are left out of the revised version of the new testament: they are no authentic part of the story of his life or his teaching. how can we find his words? in the first place there are the great central, luminous truths which jesus uttered, the fatherhood of god, the brotherhood of men, goodness as the condition of acceptance on the part of god. and, on the theory that he did not contradict himself, we are at liberty to waive one side those statements which grew up under the influence of later tradition, popish or ecclesiastical, and which plainly contradict these. but the main point i have in mind is one which scholars have wrought out under the name of the triple tradition. it takes for its central thought, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." we know that the gospels grew up through a long process of accretion after a good many years. they were not written or planned by any one person; and, so far as we know, they may not have been written by anybody whose name is traditionally connected with them to-day. if, however, we find that three of the four witnesses agree in reporting that he said or did a certain thing, we feel surer about it than when only one witness reports it. and if two report, why, even then we feel a little more certain than we do when the report is from only one. and yet, of course, the three may have omitted that which only one has recorded, and which is true. but scholars have wrought out along this line what is called the triple tradition; that is, they have constructed a complete story of the life and the teaching and the death of jesus out of the words which are common to three of the gospel writers. all of them tell this same story; and this story of the triple tradition has no miraculous conception, it has no resurrection of the body, no ascension into heaven. the miracles are reduced to the very lowest terms, becoming almost natural and easy to be accounted for. in this story jesus teaches none of the things of which i have been speaking. i say, then, that along the lines of the very best critical scholarship, coming as near to the teaching of jesus as we possibly can to-day, we are warranted in saying that this which has usurped the name of the gospel of christ is not only not good news, but it is not the news which jesus brought and preached. as has been said a good many times, it is a gospel about christ instead of being the gospel of christ. i am ready now to make the claim that we liberals of the modern world are the ones who come nearer to preaching the gospel of christ than any other part of the so-called christian church. for what is it that we preach? we preach that the kingdom of god is at hand. we preach that there is not a spot on the face of the earth where we are not at the foot of a ladder like that which jacob saw in his dream, and which leads up to the very throne of the almighty. jesus taught that the kingdom of god might begin anywhere and at any time in any human heart. note what matthew arnold has called the secret and the method of jesus. he says, the secret of jesus is that he who selfishly seeks his life shall lose it: he who throws it away for good and god finds it. do we need to go very deeply into human life to discover the profound truth of that saying? seek all over the world for good and happiness, and forget to look within, and you do not find it. the kingdom of heaven is within. it is in the spirit, the temper of the heart, the disposition, the life. and the secret of it is in cultivating love and truth and tenderness and care, those things which bring us into intimate connection with which we mean when we say, be unselfish, and that in doing this we find our own souls. for the man who gives out of himself love and tenderness and care, of necessity cultivates the qualities of love and tenderness and care; and those are the ones which are the essence of all soul-building. and he who looks outside for the greatest things of life misses them; while he who looks within, and cultivates the spirit, finds god and happiness and truth. this gospel, then, that the kingdom of god is at hand, is always ready to come, is the gospel which we proclaim. and now i wish to extend that idea a little. the form in which jesus held his dream of human good has changed in the process of the centuries. we no longer expect a miraculous revelation of a kingdom coming out of the heavens to abide on earth. the form of it is changed; but the essence of it we hold still, the same perfect condition of men here on earth and in the future which jesus held and proclaimed. now let me hint to you a few of the elements that make up this hope for man which we liberals proclaim everywhere as the gospel, the good news of the coming kingdom of god. in the first place, we proclaim the possibility of human conquest over this earth. what do i mean by that? i mean that man is able and he is showing that ability ultimately to control the forces of this planet, and make them his servants. within the last seventy-five years this increasing conquest has changed the face of the planet. we now use water power not only, but steam, electricity, magnetism. all these secret forces that thrill from planet to planet and sun to sun we use as our household and factory drudges, our every-day servants. and it needs only a little imagination, looking along the lines of past progress, to see the day when man shall stand king of the earth. he shall make all these forces serve him. i believe that we have only just begun this conquest. already the wonders about us eclipse the wonders of novelist and dreamer; and yet we have only begun to develop them. what follows from this? when we have completed the conquest of the earth, when we have discovered god's laws of matter and force and are able to keep them, it means the abolition of all unnecessary pain, unnecessary pain, i say; for all that pain which is not beneficent, which is not inherent in the nature of things, is remedial. and we preach the gospel, the coming of god's kingdom when pain shall be abolished, and shall pass away. another step: we preach the gospel of the abolition of disease. we have already, in the few civilized centres of the world, made the old epidemics simply impossible. they are easily controlled. nearly every one of those that rise to threaten europe and america to-day come from the religious, ignorant, wild fanaticism of asia, beyond the range of our civilized control. the conditions of disease are discoverable; and the day will come when, barring accidents here and there, well-born people may calmly expect to live out their natural term of years. we preach this gospel, then, of the kingdom of god in which disease shall no more exist. we preach a gospel that promises a time when war shall be no more. at present wars are now and then inevitable; but they are brutal, they are unspeakably horrible. and how any one who uses the sympathetic imagination can rejoice, not over the victory, but over the destruction of life and property which the victory entails, i cannot understand. we have reached a time when civilized man no longer thinks he must right his wrong with his fists or a club or a knife or a pistol. on the part of individuals we call this a reversion to barbarism. the time will come, and we are advancing towards it, when it will be considered just as much a reversion to barbarism on the part of families, states, nations, and when we shall substitute hearts and brains for bruises and bullets in the settlement of the world's misunderstandings. we preach, then, a gospel of the coming of the kingdom in which there shall be no more war. and then life under the fair heavens will be sweet. there shall be no more hunger in that kingdom. to-day see what confronts us, bread riots in spain and in italy, thousands of people hungry for food. and yet, if we would give ourselves to the development of the resources of this planet instead of to their destruction, this fair earth could support a hundred times its present population in plenty and in peace. there shall be no more famine in that kingdom the gospel of which we preach. then, when men have lived out their lives, learned their lessons, and stand where the shadow grows thicker, so that we try in vain to see beyond, what then? we preach a gospel of life, of an eternal hope. we believe that death, instead of being the end, is only a transition, the beginning really of the higher and the grander life. we cannot look through the gateway of the shadow; but we catch a gleam of light beyond that means an eternal day, when the sun shall no more go down. this we believe. and we do not partition that world off into two parts, the immense majority down where the smoke of their torment ascendeth forever, and only a few in a city gold-paved and filled with the light of peace. rather we believe it is a human life there just as here, that we are under the law of cause and effect, that salvation is not a magical thing, that we are saved only in so far as we come into accord with the divine law and the divine life. and, if anybody says we preach an easy gospel because we eliminate an arbitrary hell, let him remember we preach a harder gospel, a more difficult salvation, not a salvation that can be purchased by a wave of emotion or by the touch of priestly fingers, a salvation that must be wrought out through co-working with god in the building of human character, a salvation that is being right. this is our gospel; but it is a gospel of eternal and universal hope, because we believe that every single soul is under doom to be saved sometime, somewhere. we preach the inevitable results of law-breaking, are they to last one year, five, a hundred, a thousand, a million, ten millions? there is no possibility of heaven except as people are in perfect accord with the divine law and the divine life; for that is what heaven means. you can no more get heaven out of a disordered character than you can get music out of a disordered piano. this salvation which we preach is the constituent element of life. you cannot have a circle if you break the conditions of a circle. you cannot have a river if you break the conditions the very existence of which constitutes a river. so of anything in god's natural world. there are certain essential things that go to make these what they are. so heaven, righteousness, happiness, the constituent elements of these are right thinking, right feeling, right acting, obedience to the laws of god, which make them possible. we believe that god, through pain, through suffering, down through the winding ways of darkness and ignorance, one year, a million years, must pursue the soul of any one of his children until that child learns that suffering follows wrong, and must follow it, and that god himself cannot help it, and so, learning the lesson, by and by turns, comes back, and says: father, i have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am not worthy to be thy son: make me at least as one of thy hired servants. and then the love that has pursued all the way, that has been in the light and that has been in the dark, shall go out to meet him, and fall on his neck in loving embrace, and rejoice that he who was dead is alive again, and he who was lost is found. this is the gospel we preach, a gospel of god's eternal, boundless love, the good news that every human being is god's child; that here on earth, co-operating with god and discovering his laws, we may begin the creation of his kingdom now; that we may broaden and enlarge it until it encloses the world; and that it reaches out into the limitless ages of the future. and this, as i said, is the gospel of the christ, changed in its form, if you please, but one in its essence; for he came, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of god, and saying: the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of god is at hand. change your purpose, accept the message, and come into accord with the divine life. this is the gospel that the christ preached: this is the gospel we preach to-day. do i make, then, an extraordinary claim when i say that we are the evangelical church, that the church which preaches the gospel is here? unitarianism w.g. tarrant london contents introduction some terms explained the earlier movement in england: i. the unitarian martyrs ii. influences making for 'latitude' iii. the old nonconformists iv. the 'unitarian tracts' v. the old dissent new england: i. before the 'great awakening' ii. the liberal reaction english unitarianism recognized by law questions of inheritance modern unitarianism: i. the communities ii. ideas and tendencies iii. methods and teachings unitarians and other religious liberals introduction in certain quiet nooks of old england, and, by contrast, in some of the busiest centres of new england, landmarks of religious history are to be found which are not to be easily understood by every passer-by. he is familiar with the ordinary places of worship, at least as features in, the picture of town or village. here is the parish church where the english episcopal order has succeeded to the roman; yonder is the more modern dissenting chapel, homely or ornate. but, now and then, among the non-episcopal buildings we find what is called distinctively a 'meeting house,' or more briefly a 'meeting,' which may perhaps be styled 'old,' 'new,' or 'great'. its architecture usually corresponds with the simplicity of its name. plain almost to ugliness, yet not without some degree of severe dignity, stand these old barn-like structures of brick--occasionally of stone; bearing the mellowing touch of time, surrounded by a little overshadowed graveyard, they often add a peculiar quaintness and solemnity to the scene. mrs. gaskell has described one such in her novel _ruth_, and admirers of her art should know well that her own grave lies beside the little sanctuary she pictured so lovingly. sometimes, however, the surroundings of the ancient chapel are less attractive. it stands, it may be, in some poverty-stricken corner or court of a town or city. whatever picturesqueness it may have had once has long since vanished. unlovely decay, an air of desolation, symptoms of neglect, present a mournful sight, and one wonders how much longer the poor relic will remain. many places of the kind have already been swept away; others have been renovated, enlarged, and kept more worthy of their use. not all the meeting houses are of one kind. independents, baptists, and friends, each possess some of them. now and again the notice-board tells us that this is a 'presbyterian' place of worship, but a loyal scot who yearns for an echo of the kirk would be greatly surprised on finding, as he would if he entered, that the doctrine and worship there is not calvinistic in any shape whatever, but--_unitarian_. a similar surprise awaits the visitor to new england, it may be even a greater. for if he should tread in the footsteps of the pilgrim fathers and find the 'lineal descendants' of their original places of worship at plymouth, salem, or boston, he will find _unitarians_ in possession. so it is in many of the oldest towns founded by the american colonists of the seventeenth century. in their centres the parish churches, 'first,' 'second,' or otherwise, stand forth challenging everybody's attention. there is no lack of self-assertion here, nothing at all like the shrinking of the old english presbyterian into obscure alleys and corners. spacious, well appointed, and secure, these _unitarian_ parish churches, in the words of a popular unitarian poet, 'look the whole world in the face, and fear not any man.' the object of the present brief sketch is to show how these landmarks have come to be where they are, to trace the thoughts and fortunes of unitarians from their rise in modern times, to indicate their religious temper and practical aims, and to exhibit the connections of the english-speaking unitarians with some closely approximating groups in europe and asia. before entering upon a story which is extremely varied and comprehensive, one or two important points must be emphasized. in the first place the reader must bear in mind that the term 'unitarianism' is one of popular application. it has not been chosen and imposed as sect-name by any sect-founder, or by any authoritative assembly. there has never been a leader or a central council whose decisions on these matters have been, accepted by unitarians as final. even when most closely organized they have steadily resisted all attempts so to fix the meaning of 'unitarianism' as to exclude further growth of opinion. consequently there is always room for variety of opinion among them; and every statement of their principles and teachings must be taken as a sort of average estimated from a survey more or less extended. thus the significance of unitarianism as a feature of modern religious development cannot be grasped apart from its history as a movement of thought. nowhere is it more necessary than here to reflect that to know what a thing is we must know what it has been and consider what its future naturally involves. secondly, amid all the varieties of thought referred to, complicated as they are by the eager advance of some and the clinging to survivals by others, there are two notes to be found undeniably, if unequally, characteristic of unitarianism. it is both _rationalist_ and _mystical_. if the historian seems more attentive to the former than to the latter, this must not be taken as indicating their relative importance. obviously, it is easier to record controversies than to unfold the wealth of profound conceptions. perhaps we may fairly suggest the true state of the case by the mere juxtaposition of such earlier names as socinus, bidle, and locke, with those of channing, emerson, and martineau; or by a reference to the earlier unitarian hymns in contrast with those of the later stages. some terms explained a brief explanation at the outset may help the reader to follow more intelligently the history of unitarianism. as is well known, the chief issue between trinitarians and unitarians arises in connection with the relation of jesus christ to god, questions concerning the holy spirit being usually less discussed. there are consequential issues also, bearing upon man's nature, atonement, salvation, and other subjects, but these call for no remark here. in its full statement, as given for instance in the 'athanasian creed,' the trinitarian dogma presents the conception of three 'persons' in one god--father, son, and holy spirit--'persons' with different: functions, but all equal and co-eternal. the eastern (greek orthodox) church differs from the western (roman catholic) in holding that the third person 'proceeds' from the father alone; the western adds--'and from the son' (_filioque_). the full dogma as given in the 'athanasian creed' is not thought to be earlier than the fifth century; debates as to the 'two natures' in christ, and the 'two wills,' and other abstruse points involved in the dogma, continued for centuries still. at an earlier period discussion was carried on as to whether the son were of the 'same substance' (_homo-ousion_) or 'similar substance' (_homoi-ousion_) with the father. the latter view was held by arius and his party at the council of nicaea, a.d. . athanasius held the former view, which in time, but only after many years of controversial strife and actual warfare, became established as orthodox. the arians regarded the son, as a subordinate being, though still divine. another variety of opinion was put forth by sabellius (_c._ a.d.), who took the different persons to be so many diverse modes or manifestations of the one god. this sabellian idea, though officially condemned, has been often held in later times. socinianism, so far as regards the personality and rank of christ, differed from arianism, which maintained his pre-existence, though not eternal; the socinian doctrine being that the man jesus was raised by god's approving benignity to 'divine' rank, and that he thus became a fit object of christian 'worship.' the humanitarian view, finally, presented jesus as a 'mere man,' i.e. a being not essentially different in his nature from the rest of humankind. modern unitarianism, however, usually avoids this kind of phrase; 'all minds,' said channing, 'are of one family.' the earlier movement in england i. the unitarian martyrs the rise of any considerable body of opinion opposed to the cardinal dogma of orthodoxy was preceded in england by a very strongly marked effort to secure liberty of thought, and a corresponding plea for a broadly comprehensive religious fellowship. the culmination of this effort, is reached, for the period first, to be reviewed, in the writings of _john locke_ ( - ). this celebrated man, by his powerful arguments for religious toleration and his defence of the 'reasonableness' of the christian religion, exerted an influence of the most important kind. but we must reach him by the path of his predecessors in the same line. the principles of liberty of thought and the broadest religious fellowship are warmly espoused by unitarians, and they look upon all who have advanced these principles as in spirit related to them, however different their respective theological conclusions may have been. at the time of the reformation a great deal of speculation broke forth on points hitherto closed by the church's authority, including the fundamental doctrine of the trinity. but, while this new ferment led to departures from the received opinions in many countries, especially in poland and the netherlands, the protestant leaders maintained that upon the great articles of the creeds they were still one with rome, and in fact they soon displayed an eagerness to stifle heresy. men often fail to see the logic of their own position, and many who claimed the right to differ from rome on points which rome considered vital were unable to grant that others had an equal right to differ from luther, calvin, or an english state church. the outrageous cruelty of calvin towards the anti-trinitarian _servetus_, whom he caused to be burned at geneva in , affords a glaring instance of this inconsistency. but a sad proof is given that, about that time, even anti-trinitarians themselves were not always tolerant. among the countries where the orthodox dogma was most freely questioned was transylvania, adjacent to hungary proper. here the sovereign, john sigismund, took sides with the anti-trinitarians, and issued in an edict permitting four recognized types of doctrine and worship--romanist, lutheran, calvinist, and unitarian. the transylvanians were at this time largely under the influence of their polish brethren in the faith, who still practised the invocation of christ. _francis david_, a powerful religious leader in hungary, having arrived at a 'humanitarian' view of christ two centuries before it was held by english unitarians, opposed christ-worship. in , when a catholic had succeeded to the throne, david was denounced for an intolerable heretic by the polish party, and, being imprisoned, died the same year. this blot on the record has long been deplored, and david is held in honour as a martyr by the transylvanian unitarian church, which still flourishes, and forms a third member in alliance with the unitarians of great britain and america. as, however, these transylvanian (popularly called 'hungarian') unitarians had until the nineteenth century little or no connection with the english and americans, and have not materially affected the development of the movement, we omit the details of their special history. in england a number of anti-trinitarians suffered burning in the sixteenth century, being usually, but loosely, described as 'arians.' the last two in england who died by fire as heretics were men of this class. in march, , bartholomew legate was burned at smithfield, and a month later edward wightman had the same fate at lichfield. so late as a youth named pakenham was hanged at edinburgh on the charge of heretical blasphemy. although these were the only executions of the kind here in the seventeenth century, the evidence is but too clear that the authorities conceived it to be their duty to put down this form of opinion with the severest rigour. in a letter sent by archbishop neile, of york, to bishop laud, in , reference is made to wightman's case, and it is stated that another man, one trendall, deserves the same sentence. a few years later, paul best, a scholarly gentleman who had travelled in poland and transylvania and there adopted anti-trinitarian views, was sentenced by vote of the house of commons to be hanged for denying the trinity. the ordinance drawn up in by the puritan authorities was incredibly vindictive against what they judged to be heretical. happily, oliver cromwell and his independents were conscious of considerable variety of opinion in their own ranks, and apparently the protector secured best's liberation. it was certainly he who saved another and more memorable unitarian from the extreme penalty. this man was _john bidle_, a clergyman and schoolmaster of gloucester. his biblical studies led him to a denial of the trinity, which he lost no occasion of making public. during twenty years, broken by five or six imprisonments, he persisted in the effort to diffuse unitarian teachings, and even to organize services for unitarian worship. his writings and personal influence were so widely recognized that it became a fashion later to speak of unitarians as 'bidellians.' cromwell was evidently troubled about him, feeling repugnance to his doctrine yet averse to ill-treat a man of unblemished character. in , ten years after bidle's first imprisonment, the protector sent him to the scilly islands, obviously to spare him a worse fate, and allowed him a yearly sum for maintenance. a few months before cromwell's death, he was brought back to london, and on being set at liberty at once renewed his efforts. finally, he was caught 'conventicling' in and sent to gaol, and in september of that year he died. ii. influences making for 'latitude' the foregoing sufficiently illustrates the position confronting those who at that time openly avowed their departure from the trinitarian dogma. those who dared and suffered were no doubt but a few of those who really shared in the heretical view; the testimony of orthodox writers is all in support of this surmise. equally clear is the fact that while the religious authorities were thus rigorous a steadily deepening undercurrent of opinion made for 'latitude.' how far this latitude might properly go was a troublesome question, but at any rate some were willing to advocate what many must have silently desired. apart from the extremists in the great struggle between high church and puritans there existed a group of moderate men, often of shrewd intellect, ripe scholarship, and attractive temper, who sought in a wider liberty of opinion an escape from the tyrannical alternatives presented by the two opposing parties. even in connection with these very parties there were tendencies peculiar to themselves, which could not fail in the end to mitigate the force of their own contentions. the high church was mostly 'arminian,' i.e. on the side of the more 'reasonable' theology of that age. the puritans were wholly committed to the principle of democratic liberty, as then understood, and in religious matters set the bible in the highest place of authority. it could not be but that these several factors should ultimately tell upon the solution of the problem of religious liberty. but the immediate steps toward that solution had to be taken by the advocates of latitude. among them were lord falkland, john hales, and william chillingworth, the last of whom is famous for his unflinching protest that 'the bible, the bible only, is the religion of protestants,' a saying which was as good as a charter to those who based their so-called heresies on the explicit words of scripture. in the second half of that seventeenth century the work of broadening the religious mind was carried forward by others of equal or even greater ability; it is sufficient here to name jeremy taylor among churchmen, and richard baxter among nonconformists. there was, of course, a good deal of levity, the temper of the gallio who cares for none of these things. but this was not the temper of the men to whom we refer. their greatest difficulty, indeed, arose from their intense interest in religious truth. they could not conceive a state which should not control men's theology in some real way. even locke did not advocate toleration for the atheist, for such a man (in his opinion) could not make the solemn asseverations on which alone civil life could go forward. nor would he tolerate the roman catholic, but in this case political considerations swayed the balance; the catholic introduced the fatal principle of allegiance to a 'foreign prince.' taking for granted, then, the necessity for some degree of state supervision of religion, how could this be rendered least inimical to the general desire for liberty? the reply to this question brought them very close to the position taken up by _faustus socinus_ long before, viz. that the 'essentials' of a christian faith should be recognized as few and, as far as possible, simple. of course, it is from his name that the term 'socinian' is derived, a term that has often been applied, but mistakenly, to unitarians generally. the repeated and often bitter accusation brought against the advocates of latitude that they were 'socinians,' or at least tainted with 'socinianism,' renders appropriate some short account of socinus himself. this man was one of the sixteenth-century italian reformers who were speedily crushed or dispersed by the vigilance of the inquisition. those who escaped wandered far, and some were at different times members of the church for 'strangers,' or foreigners, to which edward vi assigned the nave of the great augustine church, still standing at austin friars in the heart of the city of london. it is interesting to observe here that a dutch liberal congregation lineally inherits the place to-day. careful investigation has shown that among the refugees here in the sixteenth century were some whose opinions were unsound on the trinity; possibly they affected english opinion in some small degree. _loelius socinus_ ( - ), uncle of _faustus_ ( - ), was for a short time in london, but interesting thinker as he was, his nephew who never set foot in england really exerted much more influence upon english thought. it was, however, in poland especially that the influence of faustus socinus first became prominent. that country, then flourishing under its own princes, early became (as we have seen) the home of an anti-trinitarian form of protestantism. socinus joined this group, and during the latter half of the sixteenth century effected much improvement among them, organizing their congregations, establishing schools, promoting a unitarian literature. the educational work thus begun achieved great success; but in his own lifetime socinus met with fierce opposition and even personal violence. he died in ; the polish unitarian church fell under the persecution of both catholics and orthodox protestants, and was finally crushed out in . important for our present study is the fact that the literary output of these polish socinians was both large and of high quality. their 'racovian catechism' was translated into different languages, and early found its way into england. james i promptly had it burned, despite the fact that the latin version was dedicated to himself! other books and pamphlets followed, and even if we abate something as due to the exaggerating fears and suspicions of the authorities, there would seem to have been no time as the seventeenth century went on when socinian literature was not widely circulated here, albeit at first in secret. into the details of this literature there is no need to go; it is sufficient to observe its outstanding features. they correspond in the main to the temper of the master mind, socinus, a man who in the absence of imaginative genius displayed remarkable talent as a reasoner, and a liberal disposition considerably in advance of his times. the later socinian writings, preserved in eight large volumes issued by the 'polish brethren' (amsterdam, ), exhibit in addition the results of much diligent research and scholarship, in which the wide variety of opinion actually held by the fathers and later church authorities is proved, and the moral is drawn. in the presence of so much fluctuating teaching upon the abstruser points of the creeds was it not desirable to abandon the pretence of a rounded system complete in every detail? would it not he better to simplify the faith--in other and familiar words, to reduce the number of 'essentials'? in order to discover these essentials, surely the inquirer must turn to the bible, the record of that miraculous revelation which was given to deliver man's unassisted reason from the perils of ignorance and doubt. at the same time, man's reason itself was a divine gift, and the bible should be carefully and rationally studied in order to gather its real message. as the fruit of such study the socinians not only propounded an anti-trinitarian doctrine derived from scripture, but in particular emphasized the arguments against the substitutionary atonement as presented in the popular augustinian scheme and philosophically expounded in anselm's _cur deus homo_. socinus himself must be credited with whatever force belongs to these criticisms on the usual doctrine of the death of christ, and it may be fairly said that most of the objections advanced in modern works on that subject are practically identical with those of three centuries ago. now there is good reason for believing that towards the end of the seventeenth century this socinian literature really attracted much attention in england, and probably with considerable effect. but as a matter of fact no english translation of any part of it was made before john bidle's propagandist activity in the middle of the century, and we have the explicit testimony of bidle himself and most of the earlier unitarians that they were not led into their heresy by foreign books. it was the bible alone that made them unorthodox. a famous illustration of this is the case of _john milton_ ( - ). in a long-forgotten ms. of his was found in a state office at westminster, and two years later it was published under the editorship of dr. sumner, afterwards bishop of winchester. the work is entitled _a treatise of christian doctrine_. it was a late study by the poet, laboriously comparing texts and pondering them with a mind prepared to receive the verdict of scripture as final, whether in agreement with orthodoxy or not. the most ardent of milton's admirers, and even the most eager unitarian, must find the book a trial; but the latter can at least claim the author of _paradise lost_ as an anti-trinitarian, and the former may solace himself by noticing that here, as in all the rest, milton's soul 'dwelt apart.' he emphatically denies that it was the works of 'heretics, so called,' that directed and influenced his mind on the subject. we may notice here the interesting fact that another great mind of that age, _sir isaac newton_, has left evidence of his own defection from the orthodox view; and his correspondent _john locke_, whose views appear to have been even more decided, is only less conspicuous on this point because his general services to breadth and liberality of religious fellowship are more brilliantly striking. locke's _plea for toleration_ is widely recognized as the deciding influence, on the literary side, which secured the passage of the toleration act in . deferring for the moment further allusion to the position created by this act, we must at once observe the scope of one of locke's works which is not so popularly known. this is his _reasonableness of christianity_, which with his rejoinders to critics makes a considerable bulk in his writings. in pursuance of the aim to 'reduce the number of essentials' and to discover that in the christian religion which is available for simple people--the majority of mankind--locke examines the historical portion of the new testament, and presents the result. practically, this amounts to the verdict that it is sufficient for the christian to accept the messiahship of christ and to submit to his rule of conduct. the orthodox critics complained that he had omitted the epistles in his summary of doctrine; his retort is obvious: if the gospels lead to the conclusion just stated, the epistles cannot be allowed, however weighty, to establish a contrary one. of course, locke was called a 'socinian'; but the effect of his work remained, and we should remark that if it looked on the one hand toward the orthodox, on the other it looked toward the sceptics and freethinkers who began at that time a long and not ineffectual criticism of the miraculous claims of christianity. locke endeavoured to convince such minds that christianity was in reality not an irrational code of doctrines, but a truly practical scheme of life. in this endeavour he was preceded by richard baxter, who had written on the 'unreasonableness of infidelity,' and was followed during the eighteenth century by many who in the old dissenting chapels were leading the way towards an overt unitarianism. iii. the old nonconformists the reader must be reminded here of a few salient facts in the religious history of the seventeenth century. all these undercurrents of heterodox thought, with but few and soon repressed public manifestations of its presence, were obscured by the massive movement in church and state. during the commonwealth the episcopal system was abolished, and a presbyterian system substituted, though with difficulty and at best imperfectly. after the restoration of charles ii the act of uniformity re-established episcopacy in a form made of set purpose as unacceptable to the puritans as possible. thereupon arose the rivalry of conformist and nonconformist which has ever since existed in england. severely repressive measures were tried, but failed to extinguish nonconformity; it stood irreconcilable outside the establishment. there were distinct varieties in its ranks. the presbyterians, once largely dominant, were gradually overtaken numerically by the independents. perhaps it is better to say that, in the circumstances of exclusion in which both were situated, and the impossibility of maintaining a presbyterian order and organization, the dividing line between these two bodies of nonconformists naturally faded out. there was little, if anything, to keep them apart on the score of doctrine; and in time the presbyterians certainly exhibited something of the tendency to variety of opinion which had always marked the independents. besides these bodies, the baptists and quakers stand out amid the sects comprised in nonconformity. in both of these there were distinct signs of anti-trinitarianism from time to time; as to the former, indeed, along with the earlier baptist movements in england and on the continent (especially in the netherlands) there had always gone a streak of heresy alarming to the authorities. among the quakers, william penn is specially notable in connection with our subject. in he was imprisoned for publishing _the sandy foundation shaken_, in which sabellian views were advocated. it need hardly be pointed out that among the still more eccentric movements, if the term be allowed, heterodoxy as to the trinity was easy to trace. when the toleration act was passed the old nonconformity became 'dissent,' that being the term used in the statute itself. dissenters were now granted freedom of worship and preaching, but only on condition that their ministers subscribed to the doctrinal articles of the church of england, including, of course, belief in the trinity. unitarians, therefore, were excluded from the benefit of the act, and the general views of dissenters upon the subject are clear from the fact that they took special care to have unitarians ruled out from the liberty now being achieved by themselves. locke and other liberal men evidently regretted this limitation, but the time was not ripe, and in fact the penal law against unitarians was not repealed till . unluckily, too, for the unitarians, a sharp controversy, due to their own zeal, had broken out at the very time that the toleration act was shaping, and as this had other important results we must give some attention to it. iv. the 'unitarian tracts' there are six volumes, containing under this title a large number of pamphlets and treatises, for and against the new views, published about this period. it is the first considerable body of unitarian literature. its promoter was _thomas firmin_, a disciple of john bidle, on whose behalf he interceded with oliver cromwell, though himself but a youth at the time. firmin, a prosperous citizen of london, counted among his friends men of the highest offices in the church, some of whom are said to have been affected with his type of thought. apart from his unitarianism he is remarkable as an enlightened philanthropist of great breadth of sympathy. men of very different theological bent who were fain to seek refuge in london from persecutions abroad were aided by funds raised by him. we should notice also that, ardent as he was in diffusing unitarian teachings, he had no wish at first to set up separate unitarian chapels; his desire was that the national church should include thinkers like himself. we are thus pointed into a path which for a time at least promised more for unitarian developments than anything very evident in the dissenting community. the situation is aptly illustrated by a little book of pages which is included in the first volume of the _tracts_. this work is specially noteworthy as one of the first english books to use the name 'unitarian,' though the use is here so free and without apology or explanation that we must suppose it had already attained a certain vogue before , the date of the book. the title is _a brief history of the unitarians, called also socinians_. neither author nor publisher is named, but the former is known to have been the rev. stephen nye, a clergyman, whose grandfather, philip nye, was noted in his day as one of the few independents in the westminster assembly. stephen nye's book takes the form of four letters, ostensibly written to an unnamed correspondent who has asked for an account of the unitarians, 'vulgarly called socinians.' the opening letter states their doctrine, after the model of socinus--god is one person, not three; the lord christ is the 'messenger, servant, and creature of god,' also the 'son of god, because he was begotten on the blessed mary by the spirit or power of god'; 'the holy ghost or spirit, according to them, is the power and inspiration of god.' (we may notice here that bidle, otherwise agreeing with socinus, regarded the holy spirit as a living being, chief among angels.) nye, writing as if an impartial observer, presents the scripture argument in support of the doctrine of the unitarians, 'which,' says he, 'i have so related as not to judge or rail of their persons, because however learned and reasonable men (which is their character among their worst adversaries) may be argued out of their errors, yet few will be swaggered or chode out of them.' he traces the doctrine to the earliest christian times, and shows the stages of trinitarian growth. incidentally he says that arian doctrines are openly professed in transylvania and in some churches of the netherlands, and adds that 'nazarene and arian churches are very numerous' in turkish, mahometan, and pagan dominions where liberty of conscience is allowed. he mentions celebrated scholars who have 'certainly been either arians or socinians, or great favourers of them,' such as erasmus, grotius, petavius, episcopius, and sandius--the last-named a learned historian who had made a special point of collecting admissions by orthodox writers of the invalidity of all the texts in turn usually quoted in support of the trinity. in the subsequent chapters nye deals _seriatim_ with such texts, and the book ends with a commendation from 'a gentleman, a person of excellent learning and worth,' to whom the publisher had sent it for remark. upon such levels the discussion proceeded, the skill and adroitness of the heretics contrasting with the obvious perplexity of the orthodox, who soon fell to accusing one another of stumbling into erroneous statements. dons, deans, and even bishops joined in the fray, and some of them, notably dr. sherlock, master of the temple, got into sad trouble with their brethren. finally, the clergy were forbidden to prolong the discussion, which indeed promised little satisfaction to any but the heretics who enjoyed the difficulties of the orthodox champions. the traditional formularies were there, and these must suffice. in the presence of the restrictions imposed by the toleration act speculation outside the church turned towards 'deism'--perhaps the best modern equivalent would be 'natural religion.' speculation inside the church had to accommodate itself to the creeds and articles, and thus there grew up an arianism among the clergy which was really largely diffused and produced some important books. one of these was dr. samuel clarke's _scripture doctrine of the trinity_ ( ), a work which appears to have helped many a clergyman to ease his conscience while reciting the authorized trinitarian expressions, though in substance his opinions were no less heretical than those for which men had suffered under the law. a contemporary case of such suffering was that of _thomas emlyn_ ( - ), an irish clergyman who was sentenced at dublin in to imprisonment which lasted for two years. this gross treatment, excited keen criticism at home and in the american colonies, whither our attention must soon turn. emlyn was the first minister to call himself a 'unitarian,' but under the pressure of the times, and in accordance with the spirit of clarke and the other arianizing clergy, he found it expedient to declare himself a 'true scriptural trinitarian.' v. the old dissent it is estimated that about a thousand meeting houses were erected by dissenters in the twenty years following the passing of the toleration act. after the death of queen anne others were built, but in no great numbers. the prevailing impression of the state of religion in england during the first half of the eighteenth century is a gloomy one. formalism and apparently an insincere repetition of the doctrinal phrases imposed by the law was but too evident in the state church. dissent had its bright features, but these grew dim as years went on. it must be admitted that the odds were heavy against that party. without conforming no one could be appointed to public office, and the 'occasional conformity' of sharing the communion service at an established church now and again in order to qualify was at length forbidden by the act of . the sons of the dissenting gentry and manufacturers were excluded from the universities, and though a shift was made by 'academies' here and there, the excellence of the education they might impart could not compensate for the deprivation of the social advantages of oxford and cambridge. by an act of schools for more than a rudimentary education were forbidden to be taught by dissenters. thus, we are not surprised to hear, considerable defection went on, and early in the century congregations began to dwindle. as it proceeded some became very small indeed, and many died out altogether. the trusts upon which the meeting houses were founded were frequently free from any close definitions of the doctrines supposed to be held by the congregation. much discussion arose in later years as to the purport of this freedom; perhaps there was some expectation of changing opinion in the future, but more probably the doctrinal status was taken for granted. it must be remembered that no dissenting preacher could legally officiate without previously 'subscribing' to the doctrinal articles of the church of england or their equivalents in the westminster assembly's catechisms. thus, while the dissenter might alter the terms of his liturgy to a degree not allowed to the churchman (though the latter would in those lax days go pretty far sometimes), he was still supposed to be 'sound' on the fundamental creeds. it would appear to be a fortunate accident for unitarian development in some of these old dissenting congregations that, either the prevalent understanding or a hope for speedy inclusion in the national church, or a prevision on the part of liberal-minded men here and there, left so largely undefined the basis of religious union among them, as congregations. however that may be, it is certain that a degree of reluctance to 'subscribe' began to show itself, and this, we surmise, was often due to other reasons than liberality pure and simple. that there were broad-minded men who, while conscientiously orthodox themselves, refused to exclude unorthodox ministers from their fellowship is shown by a notable instance among the baptists. before , matthew caffyn, one of their body, being charged with anti-trinitarian opinions, was still retained in membership by vote of the general baptist assembly, this being the first instance of any organization's formal acceptance of latitude respecting the trinity. in ireland, deterred no doubt by the harsh punishment of emlyn, there was natural hesitation in avowing such latitude; but in a division began in ulster between those who insisted on 'subscribing' the creed anew and those who opposed; and a few years later the 'non-subscribers,' being excluded from the synod, formed a new presbytery which in course of time became distinctly unitarian. the historic event for english 'non-subscription' was a declaration made at a meeting of dissenting ministers, independents, baptists, and presbyterians, held in at salter's hall, london. certain exeter ministers had become unsound in doctrine, and refused to renew their subscription to the creeds and articles, claiming to believe 'the scripture'--a well-understood expression in those days. the question of their exclusion was referred to london, and there again the point of renewed 'subscription' was raised before the vote on the exeter case was taken. by seventy-three to sixty-nine it was decided that the declaration of faith should be confined to 'the words of scripture'--as sir joseph jekyll put it, 'the bible carried it by four.' this was widely recognized as setting open the door for liberty in matters of religion, and the interesting fact should be recorded that independents and presbyterians were found on both sides. here, then, we may for the present leave the english development; it was slow, tentative, for the most part obscure. in one direction and another the movement of thought might be perceived, in the church, among the 'congregationals,' or baptists, or presbyterians, as the case might be. it was only long after that much preponderance of heretical opinion was distinctive of presbyterian congregations. in the academies men like _philip doddridge_ ( - ), the hymn writer, were affording room at least for ample discussion among the students, and moderate as his own opinions were he is credited with having made so-called 'orthodoxy' a byword. the independents, caleb fleming and _nathaniel lardner_ ( - ), led the way to 'humanitarian' views, the latter being a learned writer of much influence. it is said that another great hymn writer, isaac watts, finally shared the humanitarian view. on the whole, with some notable exceptions, the dissenting preachers seem to have been decorously dull, and uninspiringly ethical. without the zeal of the 'enthusiast,' whom they severely scanned from afar, and seeking in all things to prove that christianity was so 'reasonable' as to be identical with 'rational philosophy,' it is little wonder that when the popular mind began to be stirred by a religious 'revival' they were not its apostles, but mostly its critics. this is precisely the point where we may fitly turn to consider the growth of unitarianism in new england. new england i. before the 'great awakening' as in the old country, so in the colonies of north america, a great evangelical revival took place towards the middle of the eighteenth century. john wesley the arminian, and george whitefield the calvinist, were the great apostles of this movement, and the latter especially was very influential in america. the english revivalists were not alone, however; among the most powerful leaders in the colonies was jonathan edwards, whose name ranks very high in the records of religious philosophy in the states. despite preliminary obstacles this preacher of the most stern and unflinching determinism produced a quite extraordinary effect at last. as usually happens, his dogmas were more easily repeated by others than his reasoning; violent excitement ran through the colonies, and it was this that gave a decisive turn to the liberalism which ultimately developed into a very memorable phase of unitarianism. the preceding steps may be briefly indicated. a familiar epigram preserves the acid truth that the puritan emigrants who left england in the seventeenth century went to north america in order to worship god in their own way, and to compel everyone else to do the same. religious liberty was certainly not understood by them as it is understood to-day. the sufferings of the baptists and quakers, for example, make a sad chapter of new england history. about the middle of the century, _roger williams_ ( - ), having ventilated opinions contrary to the general calvinism, was driven out of salem, where he had ministered to a grateful church. his pleas for a real religious freedom were in vain, and he was forced to wander from the colonial settlements and find a precarious home among the indians. after much privation, he succeeded in establishing a new colony at rhode island, where a more liberal atmosphere prevailed. it does not appear that williams had much influence in the general world of religious thought, but two things at least were favourable to the modification of orthodoxy. on the one hand there was inevitably a looser system of supervision in a new country, and the pressure of penal law could not be exerted so effectually as in england. on the other hand the organization of worship and teaching, though intended to be strict and complete, an intention fairly successful in practice, was actually founded upon broad principles. each township maintained its 'parish church,' but this, originally of a low church or 'presbyterian' type, was usually accommodated as years went on to a congregational model. these churches were looked upon as centres of religious culture for the respective communities by whose regular contributions they were supported and endowed. the 'covenants' by which the members bound themselves were often expressed in terms quite simple, and even touching; the colonists were in the main faithful to the parting injunction of the famous pastor john robinson, who sped the 'pilgrim fathers' on their way with the assurance that the lord had 'more light and truth to break forth from his holy word.' occasionally, it is expressly declared by the covenanting members that theirs is an attitude of devout expectation of religious growth. as would naturally be expected, the conditions of the earlier generations in the colonies were not in favour of a deeply studious ministry; the leaders were more frequently men of shrewd and practical piety than profound scholars. as things became more settled, and especially after the toleration act had secured a more assured state of feeling at home, the minds of men were set at liberty in a greater degree. locke's works were carried across the sea, and dr. clarke's arianizing writings soon followed. apparently, the first stir of any importance was produced by the scandal of the punishment of thomas emlyn, the irish clergyman who has been previously referred to. emlyn's writings received a great advertisement, and although he managed, like clarke, to avoid further legal difficulties by publishing a statement of his adherence to a 'scriptural trinity,' his defection from the orthodox dogma was clear enough and his arguments against that dogma remained. another case which was notorious in those days was that of _william whiston_ ( - ), the well-known translator of the works of josephus, who was dismissed from his professorship at cambridge in for arianism. a prolific writer and a shrewd debater, whiston played no small part in the general leavening of opinion. but probably the most direct of the literary influences in this direction came from the pen of _dr. john taylor_ ( - ), one of the most able and learned of the presbyterian divines. his treatises on _original sin_ ( ) and the _atonement_ ( ) dealt with subjects of the profoundest importance in relation to the usual trinitarian scheme of doctrine. preferring, for his own part, to be known by no sectarian name but to be reckoned among 'christians only,' taylor was recognized far and wide as a writer extremely 'dangerous' to the ordinary type of belief. when the american revivalists were at their height, there were many quiet and staid new england ministers who found in taylor a welcome ally against the extravagances which they witnessed and deplored. the more logical the calvinist was, the more vivid in depicting the horrors of predestined damnation, the more vigorous these men became in denouncing such a doctrine. perhaps the growing sense of individual liberty and personal rights had much to do with the reaction. a theory based upon the postulate of an absolute and unconditioned sovereignty divine did not accord with the growing democratic temper. preachers began to insist, and hearers to agree, that, whatever 'salvation' is, it must be reasonable if reasonable creatures are to enjoy its benefits. here also, as among the english latitude-men, the conviction grew that the essentials of a christian belief must be few and simple and these such as plain men could understand and discuss; and here, as among the sober dissenters at home, men looked askance on unintelligent outbursts of emotion. the process of change was not very fast, and a good many who were sensible of change in their opinions were reluctant to accept new doctrinal designations. arians they might be, but they preferred to be known as standing by a 'scriptural christianity.' for, whatever new books might be written, the bible remained their chief study and their support in discussion. keen, rational rather than mystical, yet deeply interested in moral progress and human elevation, these american divines were much of a mind with their english brethren whose path lay in the same direction. one of the most influential preachers was _charles chauncey_ ( - ); who for sixty years was minister at the 'first church,' boston. his theology was arian and 'universalist' (i.e. holding the doctrine of a final universal salvation); his anti-calvinism came out forcibly in his protests against the revivalist excesses. it is recorded of him that in his youth, disgusted by noisy fanatics, he prayed god never to make him an orator. his prayer was granted--and still he was a power! ii. the liberal reaction with the rise of the new liberalism in the american colonies no name is more conspicuous than that of _jonathan mayhew_ ( - ), whose eloquence was of a more modern type than most of his day. he is credited with having deeply moved many who became leaders in turn, whether as ministers or laymen. after the interruption of normal development inevitable during the war of independence, things moved more rapidly. the french revolution evoked the warmest sympathy in the united states, and its effect on religion there was largely to increase a sense of the worth of man. 'universalism,' the final restoration of all, became a conspicuous doctrine with some. the need for practical measures to uplift the general life here was a theme more to the mind of others. the distinctly 'unitarian' trend was from the first associated with this eager attention to the higher culture. harvard college, in the very heart of new england, rapidly developed into a fruitful source of the newer ideas, which were embodied in the lives of 'statesmen, merchants, physicians, lawyers, and teachers'; and thus the community, in all its more vigorous members, became charged with a fresh conception of life and religion. in the first decade of the nineteenth century we begin to trace publications more or less distinctly unitarian. one of these was the _monthly anthology_, the pioneer among american literary magazines. one of its two editors was the rev. william emerson, father of ralph waldo emerson. as the divergence of ideas grew more distinct debate began to be fierce. the new magazine took a bold line, while many liberals were still hesitating. in the trouble came to the surface. harvard was denounced by the orthodox party, in consequence of the appointment of a liberal minister, henry ware, to a professorship involving pastoral care of the students. an orthodox rival school was set up at andover. a few years later a pamphlet appeared giving letters alleged to have been sent to england by boston ministers reporting that a certain number were unitarians. the name was unwelcome at the time, especially because it was associated with the 'humanitarianism' then becoming widely taught in england. the implicated ministers, being charged with cowardly evasion, replied with warmth; they were, in fact, mostly arians, and thus their views really were different from the english type. moreover, again in contrast with the english, they expressed strong dislike of controversy; all they asked was to be left alone to proclaim the 'simple christianity' in which they believed. the upshot showed, however, that controversy was not to be avoided, and during twenty years from onwards it raged more or less severely. an epoch in this long and regrettable warfare was marked by a sermon preached at baltimore in . the preacher was one of the most famous men on the unitarian roll, _william ellery channing_ ( - ). already eminent, he continued to hold a position unique in the religious life of new england; his saintly character and his noble if simple eloquence made him a leader in spite of himself. for a long time he had maintained a mediating position--all through his life he resolutely disclaimed sectarianism; but in , after years of discussion, it was obvious that, for good or evil, the old dogma and the new spirit lay far apart. from that date liberals and conservatives in the old congregational system of new england were divided, and 'unitarian christianity,' which was the subject of channing's discourse, was a recognized type in the land. in the american unitarian association was founded. it was but a struggling society at first, not for lack of sympathy with its principle, but because many unitarians, like channing, so strongly disliked the notion of forming a new sect that they took little interest in methods of propagandism common to most religious bodies. english unitarianism recognized by law by a mere coincidence the british and foreign unitarian association was founded almost on the same day in as the american unitarian association. this step evidently implies a great change in unitarian affairs since the times of that early dissent towards which attention has been previously directed. we must now endeavour to trace the change in detail. it will be remembered that tendencies to anti-trinitarian thought--using that term to cover all the varieties of heretical opinion on the subject--were manifested both within the established church and without. as regards the latter phase, the evidence is clear that, whatever the doctrinal 'subscription' was worth which dissenting preachers had to make, there was a decided lapse from the orthodox standard on the part of a considerable number. this lapse, however, was for the most part left obscure while the pulpits resounded with 'plain, moral discourses.' now and again, one bolder than the rest ventured to discuss controverted points of doctrine. such a man was _joseph priestley_ ( - ), whose career is interesting as an illustration of the growth of opinion, and especially important in regard to the denominational advance of unitarianism. he began life as a calvinistic independent, and became arminian, arian, and humanitarian in turn. his devotion to science is well known, and he ranks with lavoisier as an original discoverer of oxygen. he was an indefatigable student, a voluminous writer, a ready controversialist; and though his speaking was marred by imperfect utterance he attained to considerable influence in public address. no unitarian leader hitherto has displayed more activity, and few, if any, have possessed greater controversial ability than he. his opinions, indeed, were in some respects peculiar to himself; he called himself a socinian, but it was with a difference, and no unitarian to-day would endorse some of his main positions. but his work for the cause was invaluable, and his personal character is held in the highest esteem. originally he would have preferred that the unitarians should remain as a 'liberal leaven' in the churches; eventually he became the chief organizer of unitarian worship and propaganda. the first 'unitarian church,' however, was due to a clergyman, _theophilus lindsey_ ( - ). after long and arduous efforts to secure relaxation from the doctrinal subscription imposed on the clergy, lindsey resigned his living at catterick, in , facing poverty and hardship with a courage that elicited warm commendations, though few were found to imitate the example. in spite of the terrors of the law, now becoming a dead letter, he opened a unitarian chapel in essex street, london, in . the service was on the episcopal model, but with a liturgy adapted to 'the worship of the father only.' this feature has been claimed to be the distinctive characteristic of modern unitarianism. it will be remembered that socinus inculcated a sort of subordinate worship of christ, and the arians of course held to the same practice, humanitarianism, the view that jesus christ was truly a man and in no sense a deity, obviously made it impossible to offer him the adoration due to god alone. this view had been slowly spreading since the days of lardner; priestley, lindsey, and the active men of the party generally shared it. there were exceptions still, however. _dr. richard price_ ( - ), a london presbyterian divine of great eminence, remembered as one of the founders of actuarial science, held by his arianism to the last; this did not prevent him from lending a hand in the organization of the unitarian forces, but there was for a time some difficulty on the subject. the more ardent professors of the new doctrine of 'the sole worship of the father' were for excluding the arians from fellowship, and one of the societies then formed actually adhered to a rather offensive formula on the subject till about . a considerable number of liberal churchmen of the laity, including some of rank, supported lindsey's movement. an indication of changing moods is given in the fact that in an act was passed permitting the dissenting ministers to preach provided that they made a declaration of belief in the scriptures as containing the revealed will of god. this was considered by many a welcome relief from the requirement of the toleration act that the minister must subscribe to the doctrinal articles of the established church, and it was certainly a much less definite test. priestley, for his part, however, regretted the change; the old subscription was in reality ceasing to be enforced, and he was afraid lest persecuting vigilance would set in again. as a matter of fact, the act of , long obsolete, has never been repealed, but very few people are aware of its existence. priestley's many controversies tended to excite a good deal of interest, some of it more than unfriendly, in the new movement. in , when a party of unitarians dined at birmingham in celebration of the french revolution, serious riots broke out, and priestley, who was then minister of the new meeting there, was made a principal victim though he was not one of the diners. his house and library were burned, and he barely escaped the violence of the mob. other residences were also destroyed, and the old and new meetings were burnt down. ultimately, in , priestley sought asylum in america from the ill-will that pursued him even in london. bishop horsley, one of his sturdiest opponents in controversy, said, 'the patriarch of the sect is fled.' it was earlier in the same year that the first organized unitarian propaganda took shape in a _unitarian society for promoting christian knowledge_. district unions were soon formed, and in a unitarian fund was raised by means of which the first itinerant missionary of the body, _richard wright_ ( - ), was sent literally from end to end of great britain. in , unitarians were set free from legal penalties by the repeal, so far as they were concerned, of the exceptive clauses of the toleration act, this relief coming twenty years after charles james fox had tried to secure it for them. the member who was successful was mr. william smith, who sat for norwich, and whose granddaughter was florence nightingale. in an association was founded to protect and extend the civil rights of unitarians. it was by combining the three societies--the society for promoting christian knowledge, the fund, and civil rights society, that the british and foreign unitarian association was formed, as has been said, in . in order to understand fairly the scope and spirit of that earlier unitarian period, thus at last organized in full legal recognition, though still suffering from the prejudice inevitably created by more than a century of legal condemnation, a few salient points should be kept in view. first, the heterogeneous elements in the 'body,' if it could be called such, were a source of weakness in regard to united action. instead of belonging, as their american brethren did, to one ecclesiastical group, and that the dominant one, the english unitarians included dissenters of different tendencies and traditions, with a few recruits from the state church. the 'presbyterian' congregations, as they were not very strictly called, were the backbone of the 'body'; many of these, however, were very weak, and in the course of a few decades some were destined to follow those which had died out in the eighteenth century. converts not infrequently lent new force in the pulpit, but at the risk of substituting an eager missionary spirit for the usual staid decorum of the old families. in these the ideals of breadth, simplicity, and moral excellence were stronger than the desire, natural in a convert, to win the world to one's opinion. again, it must be borne in mind that then, as generally, there were men whose thoughts ran ahead of those of the majority. priestley, for example, while adhering to the idea that the christian revelation had been guaranteed by miracles, had abandoned belief in the virgin birth as early as , and went so far as to maintain that jesus was not impeccable and had certainly entertained erroneous ideas about demoniacal possession. probably there were very few who had arrived at these conclusions even thirty years later; some unitarians repudiated them at a much later period. the miraculous element, however, was formerly accepted by all. so was the authority of scripture, though here again men like priestley were ahead of the rest in bringing to the study of the bible the principles of historical criticism. _thomas belsham_ ( - ), a typical unitarian scholar and divine at this period, was one of several who carried forward the science of biblical interpretation, and by the use of a vigorous and fearless intellect anticipated views of genesis and the pentateuch which did not find general acceptance till much later. it is customary for unitarians themselves to-day to look back on these years of early zeal and controversy with but a qualified sympathy, so much was still cherished in the body as a whole that is no longer tenable, and again so much that was undreamed then is indispensable to modern thought. one of the greatest of unitarians, dr. martineau, whose important share in the development of their ideas and life must be considered farther on, referred in a discourse of about forty years ago to three distinct stages in unitarian theology. first, he pointed to the significance of the struggle for the principle of 'unity in the divine causation,' as against a doctrine which, as unitarians maintain, endeavours in vain by words to prevent a triplicity of 'persons' from sliding into a group of three divine beings. this struggle marks in great part the whole track by which the reader has come thus far in the present story. the second stage, according to dr. martineau, is that in which the conscience of man is emphasized, in virtue of the belief in a real responsibility and an actual power to choose the right or the wrong. this 'religion of conscience' he sees especially illustrated in the principles enunciated and the work accomplished by channing; perhaps it would be fair to say that many who had preceded the american leader were imbued with a measure of his wisdom when they insisted, as we have seen, on the adaptability of the pure gospel message to the needs and understanding of men everywhere, and declared that its aim was 'to make men good and keep them so.' the third stage, which dr. martineau considered to be fully begun at the time of his sermon ( ), is that of the 'religion of the spirit,' in which the ideas of the divine sovereignty and the human duty are rounded into vital beauty and completeness by the idea of the actual relation of man to god as a son to a father. we have referred in advance to this compendious view in order to show whither the sequel is to lead us, but before this all-important development can be traced there remains one more piece of external history to be supplied. happily it may be dealt with summarily. questions of inheritance the bitterness of theological discussion which troubled the earlier decades of the nineteenth century received new provocation in the shape of litigation about property. both in england and america the right of unitarianism was challenged to hold those meeting houses and parish churches respectively, to which allusion was made in our opening pages. in new england the chief matter of contention was settled as early as . in the old country the struggle was much more protracted, and was only brought to an end by special legislation in . the american dispute may be briefly stated. in consequence of the growing and unconcealed departure of the liberal congregationalists from the doctrinal standards of the past there arose a feeling among the conservatives that the former group should go out of fellowship, but the communal conditions of the parish made this out of the question. all the citizens had a right to share in the provision for religion which was made at the general cost. an acute difficulty, however, presented itself in regard to the choice of minister. should he be of the orthodox or the heterodox type? the appointment being for life made an election most critical. an incident of this kind occurred at dedham, mass., and coming into the courts led to a decision in favour of the liberals, i.e. of the 'unitarianizers.' the case was argued in this way: a majority of members on the register being in favour of one type, are they at liberty to choose as they will? or have the citizens at large, being contributories to the maintenance funds, a right to vote? it was decided by the courts that the popular right was valid as against the wishes of any inner and covenanted group of worshippers. this meant, in substance, that orthodox voters were outvoted by heterodox voters who had not enrolled themselves by a religious pledge. the chagrin of the defeated conservatives was naturally great, and harsh language ensued. the upshot was unaffected, of course, and time alone has had to soften the angry feelings which for a long time kept the two wings of new england congregationalism hostile, to the regret of good men on each side. in recent years very friendly relationships have been happily set up, while the unitarians remain undisputed heirs of the old parish churches. it should be carefully noted, however, that in the communal support of religion was abolished, and all religious bodies in the united states have been dependent since then upon private resources. in england the orthodox opponents of unitarianism tried to oust the heterodox congregations of the old meeting houses. a suit for possession of endowment funds which was finally decided against the unitarians of wolverhampton began in ; and a strongly organized attack followed in . a rich fund for ministerial support, lady hewley's charity, was, after actions carried to the highest court, declared not to be applicable to the assistance of unitarians. this decision, in , looked like the beginning of the end for the tenure of the meeting houses themselves, the wolverhampton case being now decided on the lines of the hewley judgment. but an act of parliament--the _dissenters' chapels act_--passed in (owing in some part to the powerful support of mr. w.e. gladstone), secured the congregations in undisturbed possession. the principle of this law applies to all places of worship held upon 'open,' i.e. non-doctrinal trusts; where the congregation can show that the present usage agrees substantially with that of the past twenty-five years, it is not to be ejected. at the time of this litigation the term 'english presbyterian' came much into vogue among unitarians, and for some time there was a marked abatement of propagandist zeal. modern unitarianism i. the communities having now followed the fortunes of the unitarians up to the point where they obtained a recognized position among religious organizations, we need not enter into the minute details of their denominational history. less than seventy years have elapsed since the passing of the dissenters' chapels act, and less than a century since the judgment in the dedham case. the congregational increase, though substantial, has not been great; unitarians claim rather to have influenced the advance of thought in other denominations than to have created one more sect. at present their numerical strength may be estimated from the following particulars. in the british isles and colonial centres there are nearly four hundred places of worship, and a similar number of ministers; in many cases the congregations are small, and the list of ministers includes some that are retired and others who are regarded as 'lay-workers' only. there are about five hundred ministers and congregations in the united states. two or three colleges in england and a similar number in america train students for the ministry, but many join the ranks from other denominations. women are eligible as ministers, but actual instances are rare. local unions exist to a fairly adequate extent. in england and america national conferences meet at intervals; the unitarian associations continuously publish literature, send out lecturers, and promote new congregations. there are several periodicals. the most noteworthy in england is the _hibbert journal_, which follows in the line of other reviews of high standard in past years, and which specially illustrates the spirit animating a large and influential section of the body. it is promoted for free and open intercourse between serious thinkers of all schools of theological and social philosophy, and is reported to have a circulation quite beyond that of any similar publication. the 'hibbert lectures,' connected with the trust founded in for the diffusion of 'christianity in its simplest and most intelligible form,' further exemplify the broad interpretation of this duty. scholars of different churches have contributed to the series of volumes well known to religious students. the principle followed in general is stated in the oft-quoted phrase--'free learning and free teaching in theology.' it is needful, perhaps, to guard against the inference that the unitarian movement is only, or in the main, an intellectual one. since , in consequence of a visit by _dr. joseph tuckerman_, from boston, 'domestic missions' were founded, to promote the religious improvement of the neglected poor, and to-day this kind of work still goes on with much social benefit in our larger cities. similar benevolence has marked the american side. many congregations, too, are composed largely of working-people, and in recent years a van mission has carried the unitarian message into the country villages, mining districts, and other populous parts. these aspects of their activity are apt to be obscured owing to a pardonable disposition of unitarianism to point to the 'great names' associated with their churches. in the american list, for example, we find emerson, longfellow, o.w. holmes, bryant, hawthorne--whittier and lowell had close affinities; bancroft, motley, prescott, parkman; margaret fuller, louisa alcott; and statesmen, jurists, merchants, and scientists too numerous to set down here. obviously, the english side cannot rival such a brilliant roll; the _élite_ of society has not been here, as in new england, on the side of the newer theology. yet english unitarianism has its eminent names also, alike in literature, science, politics, philanthropy, and scholarship of various kinds; and the body is credited with a civic strength out of proportion to the number of its avowed adherents, while its philanthropies have been of the same broad and enlightened kind as those which enrich the american record. ii. ideas and tendencies more important to the general public is the question of ideas which now prevail among unitarians. our preceding sketch has shown some of the results of the freedom claimed by them in one generation after another. we have now to see in what respects the nineteenth century effected a further change. in the first third of the century there can be no doubt that unitarians adhered tenaciously, but with discrimination, to the idea of the final authority of the bible. in this respect they were like protestants generally, and though they nevertheless brought 'reason' to bear on their reading of the scriptures, other protestants did the same, if to a less degree. both in the united states and in england this attitude was still common up till nearly the middle of the century, and instances could easily be found later still. the miraculous element was thus retained, though as we have seen as early as in priestley's case there was a tendency to eliminate some part of the supernatural. that a thoroughgoing belief could be stated in good round terms is evident from the following sentence taken from a book issued by _dr. orville dewey_ ( - ), one of the most eloquent pulpit orators of his day. the book is entitled _unitarian belief_, its date is . referring to the bible the author says, 'enough is it for us, that the matter is divine, the doctrines true, the history authentic, the miracles real, the promises glorious, the threatenings fearful.' there is good ground for taking this as a fair example of the ideas prevalent among american unitarians at that time. perhaps the statement was made the more emphatic in view of some remarks recently uttered by two young men whose influence, along with more general tendencies, proved fatal to the old doctrine. one of these young men was _james martineau_ ( - ), who at the age of thirty-one was already known as a writer and preacher far above the average. he was then resident in liverpool, where he wrote a remarkable little book with the title _the rationale of religious inquiry_ ( ). more than fifty years later he published an even more remarkable book, _the seat of authority in religion_. there is, indeed, half a century of development between the two books, yet the germinal thought of the second may be detected in the first. the point at issue is where the ultimate appeal should lie in matters of religion. with the keen eye for the weaknesses of his fellow-worshippers which always characterized him, martineau said, 'the unitarian takes with him [to the study of the bible] the persuasion that nothing can be scriptural which is not rational and universal.' this fixed opinion, which he ranks along with the foregone conclusions of other types of theologian, was just that which we have observed in the general course of liberals from locke onwards. though in a note martineau concedes that his words may somewhat strongly accentuate the common opinion, he represents unitarians as virtually saying, 'if we could find the doctrines of the trinity and the atonement, and everlasting torments in the scriptures, we should believe them; we reject them, not because we deem them unreasonable, but because we perceive them to be unscriptural. for my own part, i confess myself unable to adopt this language'--not, he says, but that he does think them actually 'unscriptural.' 'but i am prepared to maintain, that if they were in the bible, they would still be incredible.... reason is the ultimate appeal, the supreme tribunal, to which the test of even scripture must be brought.' it abates nothing from the force of these declarations that then, and for some time afterwards, martineau himself accepted the miracles. the 'old school' perceived the sharp edge of such a weapon, and its wielder was during many years regarded as a 'dangerous' innovator. the other young writer to whom reference has been made was _ralph waldo emerson_ ( - ), son and grandson of ministers of the liberal congregational type in new england and himself for a short time minister of the second church, boston. preferring the freedom of the lecturing platform, emerson had already withdrawn from the ministry, but in he gave an 'address to the senior class' in the divinity school, harvard, which proved a second landmark in the history of american unitarianism. nineteen years before, channing had decisively pointed out that unitarianism and orthodoxy are two distinct theologies. in the divinity school address, emerson maintained that the idea of 'supernaturalism' is rendered obsolete by a recognition of the reality of things. bringing a gift of pungent prose to the service of a poetic imagination, emerson startled the decorously dignified authorities of the new england pulpit; he 'saved us,' says lowell, 'from the body of this death.' he pointed from the record of miracles past to an ever-present miracle. to the illumination of 'reason,' which unitarians had followed so loyally--within the proviso of a special revelation--he brought the light of a mystic intuition. some of his elders judged it to be 'false fire' perilously akin to the 'enthusiasm' which their predecessors had so often condemned. in daring simplicity he urged that there had been 'noxious exaggeration about the _person_ of jesus.' 'the soul knows no persons.' the divine is always latent in the human. revelation is not ended--as if god were dead! the shock to the old-fashioned minds was immense. long and far-sounding debate followed, though emerson, with provoking self-possession, declined to argue. he simply 'announced.' this oracular attitude certainly affected some of the younger men greatly, but fortunately for the success of the new gospel one of these younger men translated the oracular into a more popular and reasoned form. three years after emerson's address, _theodore parker_ ( - ) completed the unitarian trilogy by a sermon on _the transient and the permanent in theology_. it may be said to have done for emerson's message the kind of service rendered by huxley to darwin's. parker at once became a marked man; most unitarian pulpits were closed against him, but a large hall accommodated the vast crowds that came to hear him. it is doubtful if such numerous congregations ever listened to a unitarian before or since. he continued an arduous work for some fifteen years, but it wore him out before his time. he was an erudite scholar and a prolific writer. discarding the claims of christianity to be the only 'divine revelation,' he based his clear and always optimistic theism on the broad facts of human experience. ardently interested in social and political questions, he poured satire without stint on the religious defenders of slavery, and himself dared all risks along with the foremost abolitionists. such a man could not but count for much; and though his radical views in theology greatly disturbed for many years the conservatives in the body--for unitarianism itself had by this time a well-defined conservative type--they could not fail to permeate the minds of the masses. of emerson's own life-work this is hardly the place to speak at large, but in connection with the development of that 'religion of the spirit' in which dr. martineau sees the culmination of the theological progress of unitarianism, emerson's share must be allowed to be a large one. when dean stanley visited america he is said to have reported that he had heard sermons from many pulpits, but 'emerson was the one preacher in them all.' it is certain that at one time the style, if not also the thought, of emerson was extensively copied by the preachers, not always to the gain of solidity. a degree of jauntiness appears in the worse specimens of these imitations, and lord morley's criticism that emerson himself was too oblivious of the dark side of human suffering and guilt would doubtless apply to much of the unitarian eloquence at one time inspired by his witching voice. this, however, is but one side of the american message in the nineteenth century; evidence abounds that a 'christocentric' type of teaching, with adhesion to much of old material of the gospels, held its own till a generation ago, and its peculiar accent is not without echoes to-day. on the whole it is probable that, as at the beginning of the century, the 'liberals' in new england congregationalism were somewhat shocked at some of the daring views of the priestleyan unitarians in england, so even towards its close the general position of thought was more conservative there than was the rule here. certainly, also, there was a deep, tender tone manifested even where opinion was most radical among the american unitarians, and of this no better proof can be cited than the large number of hymns of a high order both of thought and expression which have been written among them. they serve to show that a frank acceptance of the evolutionary philosophy by no means necessarily entails the decay of devout personal piety or the loss of beautiful ideals. among the american hymnists the following are specially eminent, and their productions are often to be found in 'orthodox' collections: _samuel longfellow_ (brother to h.w.l.), _samuel johnson_, _w.c. gannett_, _j.w. chadwick_, and _f.l. hosmer_. on the english side other sweet singers have appeared: 'nearer, my god, to thee,' by _sarah flower adams_, is a world-renowned hymn; and if the names of channing, emerson, and parker cannot be equally matched here in their several spheres, there has been no lack of able and scholarly representatives, and one name at least is of universal reputation. that name, of course, is _martineau_. the effective changes from the old unitarianism to the modern type are best displayed in the story of his long life and the monumental books which bear his name. reference has been made to his early brilliance; its promise was amply fulfilled in the course of a career more than usually prolonged. the note of original thought sounded in the _rationale_ (see p. [*]) was to be heard again and again in other and more permanent utterances, and not seldom to the perplexity and dismay of many of his unitarian brethren. alike in religious philosophy, in attitude to the scriptures, and in matters of church organization, he found himself from time to time at variance with most of those close around him. his philosophical and critical influence was in large measure victorious; in regard to organization the results were less satisfactory to himself. it will be instructive to observe his progress. [*: third paragraph of modern unitarianism: ii. ideas and tendencies.] as regards philosophy, it is necessary to remember the influence of priestley and belsham. these unitarian leaders, following hartley's psychology, stood for a _determinism_ which was complete. god was the great cause of all; not the 'first cause' of the deistic conception, operative only at the beginning of the chain of events and now remote from man and the world, but present and immediate, exhibiting his divine purposes in all the beings created by him. christianity, in the view of this school, was the means by which god had been pleased to make known the grand consummation of this life in a perfected life to come; jesus, the messiah, was the chosen revealer of the divine will, and his resurrection was the supreme and necessary guarantee that his message was true. martineau, like the rest of his generation, was brought up in this necessarianism; but its tendency, as he reviewed and tested it, was to do violence to certain irrepressible factors of the spiritual life. it is only fair to say, there was even in this priestleyan school room for a mystical mood; but on the whole it appeared dry and intellectual, lacking the warm and operative forces of a deeper devotion. it is interesting to find that martineau himself confessed that the freshening touch upon his own inner life came in a closer contact with evangelical piety. his mind was to the end of his many years readily responsive to congenial impulses, let them come whence they would, and no small part of his service to unitarianism consists in the broader sympathies which he generated in its circles. to channing, also, he expressed gratitude for helping to wake in him a new sense of the meaning of life and religion. it was channing's characteristic to insist on the significance of personality. the worth, the depth, and also the rights of the human made so vivid an appeal to his mind as to react on his conceptions of the divine. within, a few years after the _rationale_ was published, martineau is found making an obvious change of base. he has realized that the externally communicated religion of the old school, however sublime in its proportions, fails to meet the needs or, indeed, to fit the facts of the inner life. man's personality rises, in his thought, into touch with god's; the revelation from without can only be recognized as such by the aid of a revelation within; a real activity, a genuine moral choice, and a resulting character, the marks of a truly living soul, these are indispensable to an adequate view of the religious life. but all this involves two significant positions, each far asunder from those hitherto put forth--there must be freedom, at least in the moral world; and the divine assurances of moral values and of loving aid to win them are no longer confined to an outer record. such a record may yield invaluable service as a heightener and interpreter of individual experience; to the last we find martineau attaching a profound and quite special significance to the revelation in jesus of the life of sonship to god, and retaining tenaciously the christian attitude in preference to one of simple theism. but his system is based on the internal; all the rest, the church, the bible, nature, however august and charged with meaning, is supplementary to that. in the american field, under the influence of emerson and the german philosophy, what is called 'transcendentalism' flourished midway in the century, and there as well as in england its extravagances were deplored. martineau himself, while approaching so nearly to the egoistic centre, was safeguarded from all such vagaries by an all-pervading sense of duty. in his volumes of sermon the _endeavours after the christian life_, and _hours of thought on sacred things_, which remain among the choicest of their kind in our language, his austerity of moral tone is only relieved by an elevation of poetic mysticism till then unknown in unitarian literature. it was, indeed, his conviction that the body would not write poetry for a generation or two, so dry and prosaic did he find it; but at that very time his own efforts in hymnody on one side and on the other his lyric prose, almost too richly ornate for general wear, were touching new springs of feeling. by and by, he issued in conjunction with others a set of liturgical services, which did much to lend dignity to congregational worship. and what gave unique influence to his ideas was his intimate connection from to with 'manchester college,' london, one of the successors to the old 'academies' (now after its several migrations handsomely housed at oxford). at this college, as professor of mental and moral philosophy and for many years as principal, he made a deep and lasting impression on the minds of most of the leading scholars and preachers. his great works. _types of ethical theory_ and _a study of religion_, gathered up the harvest of long study and exposition in these subjects, and are the most important of their kind given by unitarians to the world. in accordance with what has been indicated, the later attitude of martineau, and naturally of his pupils--though the principle of free and independent judgment is and always has been insisted upon--has been radical in respect to biblical, and especially to new testament, studies. an influence in this department more direct than his own was formerly found in the writings and lectures of _john james tayler_ ( - ), his predecessor as principal. this ripe and fearless scholar brought home to unitarians the wealth of continental literature on the subject. the 'old school' stood aghast as the tide of 'german criticism' overflowed the old landmarks of thought; and when tayler himself issued a work strongly adverse to the apostolic authorship of the fourth gospel distress was extreme. in these matters, however, the tide proved irresistible, and the next generation of preachers and students were among the most ardent translators and popularizers of the new views of jewish and christian origins. the 'free' character of the pulpits has made the way easier than in most other denominations for the incoming of modern thought in this and other directions. the influence of natural science upon the trend of unitarian opinion has hardly been second to that of biblical criticism. some names in the list of prominent unitarians are celebrated in this connection--_louis agassiz_ ( - ), for example, on the american side, _sir charles lyell_ ( - ) and _dr. w.b. carpenter_ ( - ) on the english side. a son of the last named, _dr. j. estlin carpenter_, a man of wide and varied scholarship, is now principal of manchester college. a field in which he is specially expert is that of comparative religion, and here also is a source of many considerations that have transformed unitarianism into one of the most liberal types of thought in the modern religious world. it is not to be inferred, however, that the 'radical' tendencies, while predominant, have everywhere prevailed among unitarians. the 'conservative' side continued in the third quarter of the nineteenth century to yield important signs of its existence and fruitfulness, and its vitality is far from exhausted still. the miraculous element has even here been reduced to a minimum, but it has left a tinge on the picture of jesus which fills the imagination and kindles the reverent affection of many. among the more gifted representatives of this school we may name the americans _dr. h.w. furness_ ( - ) and _dr. j. freeman clarke_ ( - ), and the english _john hamilton thom_ ( - ). thom's sermons are ranked among the highest for spirituality and penetration; they certainly had profound effect in stimulating the wise and generous philanthropy of _william rathbone_ and _sir henry tate_. a celebrated representative of this side of unitarianism is _dr. james drummond_, still living, the author of several works of european repute among new testament scholars, one being a defence of the johannine authorship of the fourth gospel. he succeeded martineau as principal of manchester college. his volume. _studies of christian doctrine_, is the most important statement of the unitarian view published in recent years. as time went on, it fell to martineau and other leading unitarians to take up a defensive attitude against the extreme forces of negation. in particular, he came to be recognized as a champion of theism against materialist evolution. four volumes of 'essays' contain some of his acutest writings on the subject. an address presented to him on his eighty-third birthday celebrated his eminence in this and other ways; it bore the signatures of six hundred and fifty of the most brilliant of his contemporaries, at their head being tennyson and browning. all this strenuous progress, however, was for martineau dogged by a shadow of peculiar disappointment. in youth he was as ardent a 'unitarian' as any; but, about the time of the dissenters' chapels act ( ), he and tayler and some others felt increasing dissatisfaction with the tendency of the more active unitarians to degenerate into a sect. as we have seen, the same divergence of feeling arose in america, and channing always strove to keep unitarianism there from succumbing to denominationalism. the ardour of those especially who had newly espoused the unitarian view and found it precious to themselves may be easily understood, and they might be forgiven some impatience with the apparent apathy of those who had no great desire to multiply proselytes. some of these eager spirits strove to rescue the body from what they evidently regarded as a paralysing indefiniteness. from time to time it was argued that unitarianism must be 'defined' authoritatively; then, and then only, might a triumphant progress be secured. mixed with such notions was apparently a desire to keep the imprudent and 'advanced' men from going 'too far.' in one form or other this opposition has persisted till the present; but its acrimony has sensibly lessened as, on the one hand, the 'denominational' workers have more fully accepted the principle of unfettered inquiry, and on the other, the lessons of experience have shown that, however eager the unitarians may be for the widest possible religious fellowship, they are, in fact, steadily left to themselves by most of the other religious bodies, especially in this country. martineau himself about forty years ago tried to form, along with tayler, a 'free christian union' which should ignore dogmatic considerations; but tayler died, and so little encouragement was met with outside the unitarian circle that the thing dropped after two years. nearly twenty years later, at the triennial conference (held in at leeds), a remarkable address was given by the now venerable 'leader' (whom, as he mournfully said, no one would follow), in favour of setting up again an english presbyterian system which should swallow up all the many designations and varieties of association hitherto prevailing among unitarians. the proposal was considered impracticable, and the dream of a 'catholicity' which should embrace all who espoused the free religious position, whatever their doctrines, seemed farther than ever from fulfilment. in later years the idea has, however, continued to be mooted, and some unitarians hope still to see the development of a 'free catholicism' in which the traditional distinction between unitarian and trinitarian will be lost. meanwhile, as has been said, the extension of unitarian worship and the diffusion of literature goes on with a fair amount of success. in america, thanks largely to the sagacious toil of a remarkable organizer, _dr. h.w. bellows_ ( - ), the unitarian association has proved a strong and effective instrument for this purpose, and the british association, whose headquarters are now in the building where lindsey opened the first unitarian church in , has also thriven considerably in recent years. it is said that the rate of growth in the number of congregations in the united kingdom has been about per cent during the past half-century; in america the rate is somewhat higher. iii. methods and teachings it will not be surprising to the reader to learn that a religious body having such a past and being so variously recruited to-day is far from stereotyped in method. at the same time there is practical agreement on the main lines of doctrine. in worship different forms are used. many churches have liturgies, adopted at discretion and usually supplemented by free prayer. in others the free service alone is preferred. lessons are chiefly taken from the bible, but selections are sometimes read from other devotional literature. several hymnals have wide acceptance; a few are peculiar to single congregations. the large majority of sermons are read, though extempore address is now less infrequent than formerly. 'sacraments' are not considered indispensable, but the lord's supper is retained in many cases and is regarded as a memorial. the baptism (or 'dedication') of infants is also practised. ministerial ordination is not considered as imparting supernatural gifts, but as a solemnity marking the entrance of the accredited person into full recognition and office. the congregation makes its own choice of a minister, though in case of its dependence upon outside financial assistance the advice of the managers of the fund may be offered. the support of the churches and sunday-schools, etc., is generally by voluntary contributions; endowments exist in some instances. church membership is usually granted without insistence upon any religious declaration. new buildings are invariably associated with the 'open trust' principle, the way being thus left open for such changes in worship and opinion as may hereafter seem right. some churches decline to be known as 'unitarian,' and where that name is adopted it is usual to find with it the explanation that this does not pledge or limit future development or bar the widest religious sympathy in the present. reference has been made to sunday-schools. in this field unitarians have always been pioneers, and their aims have usually been to promote culture without sectarian zeal. many large schools continue, as in the past, to form centres of education of the widest type, not only to children but adults. much interest is taken in social amelioration; some observers have asserted that this interest is more vivid in many quarters than any in matters theological or philosophical. statements of the teachings usually accepted in the churches are numerous. one here quoted will fairly represent the general type. it was drawn up by _richard acland armstrong_ ( - ), an eager social reformer, a powerful preacher and author, and memorable especially as a popularizer of martineau's religious philosophy. of course, from what has been already said, such a statement is not regarded as an authoritative creed, but simply takes its place as one out of many summaries for popular diffusion. 'unitarian christianity teaches that god is our father, full of love for all of us. it learns from jesus that the father listens to our prayers and watches over us with even more tender care than over the lilies of the field and the birds of the air. 'it learns from jesus too, that however important it may be to have correct views concerning religious matters, it is much more important to love god with all our heart and mind and soul and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves. for he says that these are the first two commandments, and that there is no other whatever that is greater than these. 'it learns from jesus, also, that the way to enter the kingdom of heaven is, not merely to hold a correct theology or to receive any outward sacraments, but to "be converted and become as little children"--simple-hearted, loving, pure. 'unitarian christianity teaches that god our father claims us all as children, and that when jesus speaks of himself as god's son, he means us all to remember that we are god's children too, though unhappily we have stained our sonship and daughterhood with many unworthy thoughts and deeds. 'unitarian christianity loves the parable of the prodigal son, because it shows so clearly and so beautifully the love and forgiveness of god, and with what tender pity he looks on us when we have sinned. 'unitarian christianity believes that god speaks to his children now as truly as he did to the prophets of old and to jesus christ, comforting, strengthening, enlightening them. conscience itself is his holy voice. 'unitarian christianity sees in jesus christ a supremely beautiful life and character, a marvellous inspiration for us all, an ideal after which we may strive; and it loves to think of him as our elder brother, of the same nature as ourselves. 'unitarian christianity does not believe that god will plunge any of his children into everlasting woe. such a thought of god is a contradiction of his fatherhood. he is leading us all, by different ways, towards the pure and holy life for which he brought us into being.' along with this may be taken the declaration adopted, as a result of somewhat protracted discussions, at the national conference of unitarians in america, ; it would probably be accepted in all similar assemblies. 'these churches accept the religion of jesus, holding in accordance with his teaching that practical religion is summed up in love to god, and love to man; and we invite to our fellowship any who, while differing from us in belief, are in general sympathy with our spirit and our practical aims.' unitarians and other religious liberals the broadly sympathetic spirit which has been observed at work in the foregoing story has led to interesting relationships between unitarians and some other religious bodies. the universalists, who are strongest in the united states, are cordially fraternal with them; and a large proportion of the 'christians'--a non-dogmatic body--are equally close in sympathy. the hicksite friends, named after elias hicks, who early in the nineteenth century avowed anti-trinitarian views, and some other religious bodies less conspicuous are more or less directly included in the unitarian forces, though not organically in union. with the french liberal protestants there has been warm co-operation for many years, and the same is true of dutch, german, and swiss reformers. since the visit of rammohun roy, the indian reformer, in , the english in particular have developed kindly relations with the indian theist movement, and students from india and japan are regularly educated at oxford for the ministry of free religion in their own countries. it is in this way, more than by the ordinary types of missionary activity, that unitarians have hitherto attempted to influence the non-christian races. during recent years there have been held international congresses promoted by the unitarians of great britain, america, and transylvania, and attended by representatives of the various sections just named as well as by others from the orthodox churches, including anglican and romanist, who venture to brave the authorities thus far. proposals have already been made for a world-wide union of religious liberals, in view of the remarkable success of these great congresses; but the circumstances of the different groups, especially in germany and holland, seem to forbid expectation of such a development within any near period. on the whole, unitarians appear to be encouraged by the signs of the times, and to do their share of religious culture and benevolent work while cultivating the friendship of 'modernists' of all kinds, christian, jewish, moslem, and hindoo. chronology - . many trials and executions for denying the trinity; notably _servetus_ ( ); four east anglians, - ; legate and wightman, . . francis david founds the unitarian church in hungary. - . faustus socinus active in poland. . the racovian catechism. other socinian works follow. . canon against socinian books in england. - . john bidle's career. and onward. anti-trinitarians among baptists, independents, friends, etc. books against 'socinianism.' . act of uniformity--ejection of nonconformists. . milton d., leaving his _treatise of christian doctrine_ in ms.; discovered and published. . stephen nye's _brief history of the unitarians_, etc. . toleration act--unitarians excluded. - . the 'unitarian controversy.' being suppressed, 'arianism' developed among clergy, 'deism' among other writers. . presbyterian academy (now college, carmarthen) founded. . locke's _reasonableness of christianity_. . general baptist assembly accept anti-trinitarian membership. . thomas emlyn imprisoned for denying the trinity. . 'non-subscription' vote at salter's hall, london. +. arianism diffused; humanitarianism incipient. . the 'great awakening' revival in new england, followed by a liberal reaction. - . joseph priestley's career. . theophilus lindsey's unitarian chapel, london. . manchester academy (now college, oxford) founded. +. unitarian propaganda active in england. . controversy in new england congregationalism. . toleration act extended to unitarians. . proceedings begun against unitarians in respect of inherited chapels, etc. . the 'dedham case,' massachusetts. . dr. channing's 'baltimore sermon.' . founding of associations in great britain and u.s.a. . martineau's _rationale_. . emerson's _divinity school address_. . theodore parker's _discourse_. . dissenters' chapels act. . hibbert trust founded. . unitarian home missionary board (now college, manchester) founded. . national triennial conferences begun. . martineau's _seat of authority_. . international congresses founded. authorities r. wallace. _anti-trinitarian biography_, vols., lond., . a. gordon. _heads of english unitarian history_, vol., lond., . j.h. allen. _unitarianism since the reformation_, vol., new york, . j.j. tayler. _retrospect of the religious life of england_, vol., lond. ( rd ed.), . w.g. tarrant. _story and significance of the unitarian movement_, vol., lond., . (gives more detailed references.) for statistics and special characteristics of the various liberal religious bodies in general accord with unitarians see the following records of the international congresses:-- _liberal religious thought at the beginning of the twentieth century._ ed. by w. copeland bowie, lond., . _religion and liberty._ ed. by p.h. hugenholtz, jun., leyden, . _actes du iii'me congrès international du christianisme libéral et progressif._ ed. by e. montet, geneva, . _freedom and fellowship in religion._ ed. by c.w. wendte, boston, . _fifth international congress of free christianity and religious progress._ ed. by wendte and davis, berlin (and london), . speeches, addresses, and occasional sermons, by theodore parker, minister of the twenty-eighth congregational church in boston. in three volumes. vol. i. boston: horace b. fuller, (successor to walker, fuller, and company,) , washington street. . entered according to act of congress, in the year , by theodore parker, in the clerk's office of the district court of the district of massachusetts. to francis jackson, the foe 'gainst every form of wrong, the friend of justice, whose wide humanity contends for woman's natural and unalienable right; against his nation's cruelty protects the slave; in the criminal beholds a brother to be reformed; goes to men fallen among thieves,-- whom priests and levites sacramentally pass by,-- and seeks to soothe and heal and bless them that are ready to perish: with admiration for his unsurpassed integrity, his courage which nothing scares, and his true religion that would bring peace on earth and good-will to man, these volumes are thankfully dedicated by his minister and friend, theodore parker. preface. i have collected in these volumes several speeches, addresses and occasional sermons, which i have delivered at various times during the last seven years. most of them were prepared for some special emergency: only two papers, that on "the relation of jesus to his age and the ages," and that on "immortal life," were written without reference to some such emergency. all of them have been printed before, excepting the sermon "of general taylor," and the address on "the american scholar;" some have been several times reprinted. i do not know that they are worthy of republication in this permanent form, but the leading ideas of these volumes are very dear to me, and are sure to live as long as the human race shall continue. so i have published a small edition, hoping that the truths which i know are contained in these pages will do a service long after the writer, and the occasion of their utterance, have passed off and been forgot. i offer them to whom they may concern. theodore parker. august , . contents of volume i. i. the relation of jesus to his age and the ages.--a sermon preached at the thursday lecture, in boston, december , page ii. the true idea of a christian church.--a discourse at the installation of theodore parker as minister of the twenty-eighth congregational church in boston, on sunday, january , iii. a sermon of war.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, june , iv. a speech delivered at the anti-war meeting in fanueil hall, february , v. a sermon of the mexican war.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, june , vi. a sermon of the perishing classes in boston.--preached at the melodeon on sunday, august , vii. a sermon of merchants.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, november , viii. a sermon of the dangerous classes in society.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, january , ix. a sermon of poverty.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, january , x. a sermon of the moral condition of boston.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, february , i. the relation of jesus to his age and the ages.--a sermon preached at the thursday lecture, in boston, december , . john vii. . "have any of the rulers, or of the pharisees, believed on him?" in all the world there is nothing so remarkable as a great man; nothing so rare; nothing which so well repays study. human nature is loyal at its heart, and is, always and everywhere, looking for this its true earthly sovereign. we sometimes say that our institutions, here in america, do not require great men; that we get along better without than with such. but let a real, great man light on our quarter of the planet; let us understand him, and straightway these democratic hearts of ours burn with admiration and with love. we wave in his words, like corn in the harvest wind. we should rejoice to obey him, for he would speak what we need to hear. men are always half expecting such a man. but when he comes, the real, great man that god has been preparing,--men are disappointed; they do not recognize him. he does not enter the city through the gates which expectants had crowded. he is a fresh fact, brand new; not exactly like any former fact. therefore men do not recognize nor acknowledge him. his language is strange, and his form unusual. he looks revolutionary, and pulls down ancient walls to build his own temple, or, at least, splits old rocks asunder, and quarries anew fresh granite and marble. there are two classes of great men. now and then some arise whom all acknowledge to be great, soon as they appear. such men have what is true in relation to the wants and expectations of to-day. they say, what many men wished but had not words for; they translate into thought what, as a dim sentiment, lay a burning in many a heart, but could not get entirely written out into consciousness. these men find a welcome. nobody misunderstands them. the world follows at their chariot-wheels, and flings up its cap and shouts its huzzas,--for the world is loyal, and follows its king when it sees and knows him. the good part of the world follows the highest man it comprehends; the bad, whoever serves its turn. but there is another class of men so great, that all cannot see their greatness. they are in advance of men's conjectures, higher than their dreams; too good to be actual, think some. therefore, say many, there must be some mistake; this man is not so great as he seems; nay, he is no great man at all, but an impostor. these men have what is true not merely in relation to the wants and expectations of men here and to-day; but what is true in relation to the universe, to eternity, to god. they do not speak what you and i have been trying to say, and cannot; but what we shall one day years hence, wish to say, after we have improved and grown up to man's estate. now it seems to me, the men of this latter class, when they come, can never meet the approbation of the censors and guides of public opinion. such as wished for a new great man had a superstition of the last one in their minds. they expected the new to be just like the old, but he is altogether unlike. nature is rich, but not rich enough to waste any thing. so there are never two great men very strongly similar. nay, this new great man, perhaps, begins by destroying much that the old one built up with tears and prayers. he shows, at first, the limitations and defects of the former great man; calls in question his authority. he refuses all masters; bows not to tradition; and with seeming irreverence, laughs in the face of the popular idols. how will the "respectable men," the men of a few good rules and those derived from their fathers "the best of men and the wisest,"--how will they regard this new great man? they will see nothing remarkable in him except that he is fluent and superficial, dangerous and revolutionary. he disturbs their notions of order; he shows that the institutions of society are not perfect; that their imperfections are not of granite or marble, but only of words written on soft wax, which may be erased and others written thereon anew. he shows that such imperfect institutions are less than one great man. the guides and censors of public opinion will not honor such a man, they will hate him. why not? some others not half so well bred, nor well furnished with precedents, welcome the new great man; welcome his ideas; welcome his person. they say, "behold a prophet." * * * * * when jesus, the son of mary, a poor woman, wife of joseph the carpenter, in the little town of nazareth, when he "began to be about thirty years old," and began also to open his mouth in the synagogues and the highways, nobody thought him a great man at all, as it seems. "who are you?" said the guardians of public opinion. he found men expecting a great man. this, it seems, was the common opinion, that a great man was to arise, and save the church, and save the state. they looked back to moses, a divine man of antiquity, whose great life had passed into the world, and to whom men had done honor, in various ways; amongst others, by telling all sorts of wonders he wrought, and declaring that none could be so great again; none get so near to god. they looked back also to the prophets, a long line of divine men, so they reckoned, but less than the awful moses; his stature was far above the nation, who hid themselves in his shadow. now the well-instructed children of abraham thought the next great man must be only a copy of the last, repeat his ideas, and work in the old fashion. sick men like to be healed by the medicine which helped them the last time; at least, by the customary drugs which are popular. in judea, there were then parties of men, distinctly marked. there were the conservatives,--they represented the church, tradition, ecclesiastical or theocratical authority. they adhered to the words of the old books, the forms of the old rites, the tradition of the elders. "nobody but a jew can be saved," said they; "he only by circumcision, and the keeping of the old formal law; god likes that, he accepts nothing else." these were the pharisees, with their servants the scribes. of this class were the priests and the levites in the main, the national party, the native-hebrew party of that time. they had tradition, moses and the prophets; they believed in tradition, moses and the prophets, at least in public; what they believed in private god knew, and so did they. i know nothing of that. then there was the indifferent party; the sadducees, the state. they had wealth, and they believed in it, both in public and private too. they had a more generous and extensive cultivation than the pharisees. they had intercourse with foreigners, and understood the writers of ionia and athens which the pharisee held in abhorrence. these were sleek respectable men, who, in part, disbelieved the jewish theology. it is no very great merit to disbelieve even in the devil, unless you have a positive faith in god to take up your affections. the sadducee believed neither in angel nor resurrection--not at all in the immortality of the soul. he believed in the state, in the laws, the constables, the prisons and the axe. in religious matters, it seems the pharisee had a positive belief, only it was a positive belief in a great mistake. in religious matters the sadducee had no positive belief at all; not even in an error: at least, some think so. his distinctive affirmation was but a denial. he believed what he saw with his eyes, touched with his fingers, tasted with his tongue. he never saw, felt, nor tasted immortal life; he had no belief therein. there was once a heathen sadducee who said, "my right arm is my god!" there was likewise a party of come-outers. they despaired of the state and the church too, and turned off into the wilderness, "where the wild asses quench their thirst," building up their organizations free, as they hoped, from all ancient tyrannies. the bible says nothing directly of these men in its canonical books. it is a curious omission; but two jews, each acquainted with foreign writers, josephus and philo, give an account of these. these were the essenes, an ascetic sect, hostile to marriage, at least, many of them, who lived in a sort of association by themselves, and had all things in common. the pharisees and the sadducees had no great living and ruling ideas; none i mean which represented man, his hopes, wishes, affections, his aspirations and power of progress. that is no very rare case, perhaps, you will say, for a party in the church or the state to have no such ideas, but they had not even a plausible substitute for such ideas. they seemed to have no faith in man, in his divine nature, his power of improvement. the essenes had ideas; had a positive belief; had faith in man, but it was weakened in a great measure by their machinery. they, like the pharisee and the sadducee, were imprisoned in their organization, and probably saw no good out of their own party lines. it is a plain thing that no one of these three parties would accept, acknowledge, or even perceive the greatness of jesus of nazareth. his ideas were not their notions. he was not the man they were looking for; not at all the messiah, the anointed one of god, which they wanted. the sadducee expected no new great man unless it was a roman quæstor, or procurator; the pharisees looked for a pharisee stricter than gamaliel; the essenes for an ascetic. it is so now. some seem to think that if jesus were to come back to the earth, he would preach unitarian sermons, from a text out of the bible, and prove his divine mission and the everlasting truths, the truths of necessity that he taught, in the unitarian way, by telling of the miracles he wrought eighteen hundred years ago; that he would prove the immortality of the soul by the fact of his own corporeal resurrection. others seem to think that he would deliver homilies of a severer character; would rate men roundly about total depravity, and tell of unconditional election, salvation without works, and imputed righteousness, and talk of hell till the women and children fainted, and the knees of men smote together for trembling. perhaps both would be mistaken. so it was then. all these three classes of men, imprisoned in their prejudices and superstitions, were hostile. the pharisees said, "we know that god spake unto moses; but as for this fellow, we know not whence he is. he blasphemeth moses and the prophets; yea, he hath a devil, and is mad, why hear him?" the sadducees complained that "he stirred up the people;" so he did. the essenes, no doubt, would have it that he was "a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." tried by these three standards, the judgment was true; what could he do to please these three parties? nothing! nothing that he would do. so they hated him; all hated him, and sought to destroy him. the cause is plain. he was so deep they could not see his profoundness; too high for their comprehension; too far before them for their sympathy. he was not the great man of the day. he found all organizations against him; church and state. even john the baptist, a real prophet, but not the prophet, doubted if jesus was the one to be followed. if jesus had spoken for the pharisees, they would have accepted his speech and the speaker too. had he favored the sadducees, he had been a great man in their camp, and herod would gladly have poured wine for the eloquent galilean, and have satisfied the carpenter's son with purple and fine linen. had he praised the essenes, uttering their shibboleth, they also would have paid him his price, have made him the head of their association perhaps, at least, have honored him in their way. he spoke for none of these. why should they honor or even tolerate him? it were strange had they done so. was it through any fault or deficiency of jesus, that these men refused him? quite the reverse. the rain falls and the sun shines on the evil and the good; the work of infinite power, wisdom and goodness is before all men, revealing the invisible things, yet the fool hath said, ay, said in his heart, "there is no god!" jesus spoke not for the prejudices of such, and therefore they rejected him. but as he spoke truths for man, truths from god, truths adapted to man's condition there, to man's condition everywhere and always, when the pharisees, the sadducees, the essenes went away, their lips curling with scorn; when they gnashed on one another with their teeth, there were noble men and humble women, who had long awaited the consolation of israel, and they heard him, heard him gladly. yes, they left all to follow him. him! no, it was not him they followed; it was god in him they obeyed, the god of truth, the god of love. there were men not counted in the organized sects; men weary of absurdities; thirsting for the truth; sick, they knew not why nor of what, yet none the less sick, and waiting for the angel who should heal them, though by troubled waters and remedies unknown. these men had not the prejudices of a straightly organized and narrow sect. perhaps they had not its knowledge, or its good manners. they were "unlearned and ignorant men," those early followers of christ. nay, jesus himself had no extraordinary culture, as the world judges of such things. his townsmen wondered, on a famous occasion, how he had learned to read. he knew little of theologies, it would seem; the better for him, perhaps. no doubt the better for us that he insisted on none. he knew they were not religion. the men of galilee did not need theology. the youngest scribe in the humblest theological school at jerusalem, if such a thing were in those days, could have furnished theology enough to believe in a life-time. they did need religion; they did see it as jesus unfolded its loveliness; they did welcome it when they saw; welcome it in their hearts. if i were a poet as some are born, and skilled to paint with words what shall stand out as real, to live before the eye, and then dwell in the affectionate memory for ever, i would tell of the audience which heard the sermon on the mount, which listened to the parables, the rebukes, the beautiful beatitudes. they were plain men, and humble women; many of them foolish like you and me; some of them sinners. but they all had hearts; had souls, all of them--hearts made to love, souls expectant of truth. when he spoke, some said, no doubt, "that is a new thing, that the true worshipper shall worship in spirit and in truth, as well here as in jerusalem, now as well as any time; that also is a hard saying, love your enemies; forgive them, though seventy times seven they smite and offend you; that notion that the law and the prophets are contained, all that is essentially religious thereof, in one precept, love men as yourself, and god with all your might. this differs a good deal from the pharisaic orthodoxy of the synagogue. that is a bold thing, presumptuous and revolutionary to say, i am greater than the temple, wiser than solomon, a better symbol of god than both." but there was something deeper than jewish orthodoxy in their hearts; something that jewish orthodoxy could not satisfy, and what was yet more troublesome to ecclesiastical guides, something that jewish orthodoxy could not keep down, nor even cover up. sinners were converted at his reproof. they felt he rebuked whom he loved. yet his pictures of sin and sinners too, were any thing but flattering. there was small comfort in them. still it was not the publicans and harlots who laid their hands on the place where their hearts should be, saying, "you hurt our feelings," and "we can't bear you!" nay, they pondered his words, repenting in tears. he showed them their sin; its cause, its consequence, its cure. to them he came as a saviour, and they said, "thou art well-come," those penitent magdalens weeping at his feet. it would be curious could we know the mingled emotions that swayed the crowd which rolled up around jesus, following him, as the tides obey the moon, wherever he went; curious to see how faces looked doubtful at first as he began to speak at tabor or gennesareth, capernaum or gischala, then how the countenance of some lowered and grew black with thunder suppressed but cherished, while the face of others shone as a branch of stars seen through some disparted cloud in a night of fitful storms, a moment seen and then withdrawn. it were curious to see how gradually many discordant feelings, passion, prejudice and pride were hushed before the tide of melodious religion he poured out around him, baptizing anew saint and sinner, and old and young, into one brotherhood of a common soul, into one immortal service of the universal god; to see how this young hebrew maid, deep-hearted, sensitive, enthusiastic, self-renouncing, intuitive of heavenly truth, rich as a young vine, with clustering affections just purpling into ripeness,--how she seized, first and all at once, the fair ideal, and with generous bosom confidingly embraced it too; how that old man, gray-bearded, with baldness on his head, full of precepts and precedents, the lore of his fathers, the experience of a hard life, logical, slow, calculating, distrustful, remembering much and fearing much, but hoping little, confiding only in the fixed, his reverence for the old deepening as he himself became of less use,--to see how he received the glad inspirations of the joiner's son, and wondering felt his youth steal slowly back upon his heart, reviving aspirations, long ago forgot, and then the crimson tide of early hope come gushing, tingling on through every limb; to see how the young man halting between principle and passion, not yet petrified into worldliness, but struggling, uncertain, half reluctant, with those two serpents, custom and desire, that beautifully twined about his arms and breast and neck, their wormy folds, concealing underneath their burnished scales the dragon's awful strength, the viper's poison fang, the poor youth caressing their snaky crests, and toying with their tongues of flame--to see how he slowly, reluctantly, amid great questionings of heart, drank in the words of truth, and then, obedient to the angel in his heart, shook off, as ropes of sand, that hideous coil and trod the serpents underneath his feet. all this, it were curious, ay, instructive too, could we but see. they heard him with welcome various as their life. the old men said, "it is moses or elias; it is jeremiah, one of the old prophets arisen from the dead, for god makes none such, now-a-days, in the sterile dotage of mankind." the young men and maidens doubtless it was that said, "this is the christ; the desire of the nations; the hope of the world, the great new prophet; the son of david; the son of man; yes, the son of god. he shall be our king." human nature is loyal, and follows its king soon as it knows him. poor lost sheep! the children of men look always for their guide, though so often they look in vain. how he spoke, words deep and piercing; rebukes for the wicked, doubly rebuking, because felt to have come out from a great, deep, loving heart. his first word was, perhaps, "repent," but with the assurance that the kingdom of god was here and now, within reach of all. how his doctrines, those great truths of nature, commended themselves to the heart of each, of all simple-souled men looking for the truth! he spoke out of his experience; of course into theirs. he spoke great doctrines, truths vast as the soul, eternal as god, winged with beauty from the loveliness of his own life. had he spoken for the jews alone, his words had perished with that people; for that time barely, the echo of his name had died away in his native hamlet; for the pharisees, the sadducees, the essence, you and i had heard of him but as a rabbi; nay, had never been blest by him at all. words for a nation, an age, a sect, are of use in their place, yet they soon come to nought. but as he spoke for eternity, his truths ride on the wings of time; as he spoke for man, they are welcome, beautiful and blessing, wherever man is found, and so must be till man and time shall cease. he looked not back, as the pharisee, save for illustrations and examples. he looked forward for his direction. he looked around for his work. there it lay, the harvest plenteous, the laborers few. it is always so. he looked not to men for his idea, his word to speak; as little for their applause. he looked in to god, for guidance, wisdom, strength, and as water in the wilderness, at the stroke of moses, in the hebrew legend, so inspiration came at his call, a mighty stream of truth for the nation, faint, feeble, afraid, and wandering for the promised land; drink for the thirsty, and cleansing for the unclean. but he met opposition; o, yes, enough of it. how could it be otherwise? it must be so. the very soul of peace, he brought a sword. his word was a consuming fire. the pharisees wanted to be applauded, commended; to have their sect, their plans, their traditions praised and flattered. his word to them was, "repent;" of them, to the people, "such righteousness admits no man to the kingdom of heaven; they are a deceitful prophecy, blind guides, hypocrites; not sons of abraham, but children of the devil." they could not bear him; no wonder at it. he was the aggressor; had carried the war into the very heart of their system. they turned out of their company a man whose blindness he healed, because he confessed that fact. they made a law that all who believed on him, should also be cast out. well they might hate him, those old pharisees. his existence was their reproach; his preaching their trial; his life with its outward goodness, his piety within, was their condemnation. the man was their ruin, and they knew it. the cunning can see their own danger, but it is only men wise in mind, or men simple of heart, that can see their real, permanent safety and defence; never the cunning, neither then, neither now. jesus looked to god for his truth, his great doctrines not his own, private, personal, depending on his idiosyncracies, and therefore only subjectively true,--but god's, universal, everlasting, the absolute religion. i do not know that he did not teach some errors also, along with it. i care not if he did. it is by his truths that i know him, the absolute religion he taught and lived; by his highest sentiments that he is to be appreciated. he had faith in god and obeyed god; hence his inspiration, great, in proportion to the greater endowment, moral and religious, which god gave him, great likewise in proportion to his perfect obedience. he had faith in man none the less. who ever yet had faith in god that had none in man? i know not. surely no inspired prophet. as jesus had faith in man, so he spoke to men. never yet, in the wide world, did a prophet arise, appealing with a noble heart and a noble life to the soul of goodness in man, but that soul answered to the call. it was so most eminently with jesus. the scribes and pharisees could not understand by what authority he taught. poor pharisees! how could they? his phylacteries were no broader than those of another man; nay, perhaps he had no phylacteries at all, nor even a broad-bordered garment. men did not salute him in the market-place, sandals in hand, with their "rabbi! rabbi!" could such men understand by what authority he taught? no more than they dared answer his questions. they that knew him, felt he had authority quite other than that claimed by the scribes; the authority of true words, the authority of a noble life; yes, the authority which god gives a great moral and religious man. god delegates authority to men just in proportion to their power of truth, and their power of goodness; to their being and their life. so god spoke in jesus, as he taught the perfect religion, anticipated, developed, but never yet transcended. * * * * * this then was the relation of jesus to his age: the sectarians cursed him; cursed him by their gods; rejected him, abused him, persecuted him; sought his life. yes, they condemned him in the name of god. all evil says the proverb, begins in that name; much continues to claim it. the religionists, the sects, the sectarian leaders rejected him, condemned and slew him at the last, hanging his body on a tree. poor priests of the people, they hoped thereby to stifle that awful soul! they only stilled the body; that soul spoke with a thousand tongues. so in the times of old when the saturnian day began to dawn, it might be fabled that the old titanic race, lovers of darkness and haters of the light, essayed to bar the rising morning from the world, and so heaped pelion upon ossa, and olympus on pelion; but first the day sent up his crimson flush upon the cloud, and then his saffron tinge, and next the sun came peering o'er the loftiest height, magnificently fair--and down the mountain's slanting ridge poured the intolerable day; meanwhile those triple hills, laboriously piled, came toppling, tumbling down, with lumbering crush, and underneath their ruin hid the helpless giants' grave. so was it with men who sat in moses' seat. but this people, that "knew not the law," and were counted therefore accursed, they welcomed jesus as they never welcomed the pharisee, the sadducee or the scribe. ay, hence were their tears. the hierarchical fire burnt not so bright contrasted with the sun. that people had a simon peter, a james, and a john, men not free from faults no doubt, the record shows it, but with hearts in their bosoms, which could be kindled, and then could light other hearts. better still, there were marthas and marys among that people who "knew not the law" and were cursed. they were the mothers of many a church. * * * * * the character of jesus has not changed; his doctrines are still the same; but what a change in his relation to the age, nay to the ages. the stone that the builders rejected is indeed become the head of the corner, and its foundation too. he is worshipped as a god. that is the rank assigned him by all but a fraction of the christian world. it is no wonder. good men worship the best thing they know, and call it god. what was taught to the mass of men, in those days, better than the character of christ? should they rather worship the grecian jove, or the jehovah of the jews? to me it seems the moral attainment of jesus was above the hierarchical conception of god, as taught at athens, rome, jerusalem. jesus was the prince of peace, the king of truth, praying for his enemies--"father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" the jehovah of the old testament, was awful and stern, a man of war, hating the wicked. the sacerdotal conception of god at rome and athens was lower yet. no wonder then, that men soon learned to honor jesus as a god, and then as god himself. apostolical and other legends tell of his divine birth, his wondrous power that healed the sick, palsied and crippled, deaf and dumb and blind; created bread; turned water into wine, and bid obedient devils come and go, a power that raised the dead. they tell that nature felt with him, and at his death the strongly sympathizing sun paused at high noon, and for three hours withheld the day; that rocks were rent, and opening graves gave up their sainted dead, who trod once more the streets of zion, the first fruits of them that slept; they tell too how disappointed death gave back his prey, and spirit-like, jesus restored, in flesh and shape the same, passed through the doors shut up, and in a bodily form was taken up to heaven before the face of men! believe men of these things as they will. to me they are not truth and fact, but mythic symbols and poetry; the psalm of praise with which the world's rude heart extols and magnifies its king. it is for his truth and his life, his wisdom, goodness, piety, that he is honored in my heart; yes, in the world's heart. it is for this that in his name churches are built, and prayers are prayed; for this that the best things we know, we honor with his name. he is the greatest person of the ages; the proudest achievement of the human race. he taught the absolute religion, love to god and man. that god has yet greater men in store i doubt not; to say this is not to detract from the majestic character of christ, but to affirm the omnipotence of god. when they come, the old contest will be renewed, the living prophet stoned; the dead one worshipped. be that as it may, there are duties he teaches us far different from those most commonly taught. he was the greatest fact in the whole history of man. had he conformed to what was told him of men; had he counselled only with flesh and blood; he had been nothing but a poor jew--the world had lost that rich endowment of religious genius, that richest treasure of religious life, the glad tidings of the one religion, absolute and true. what if he had said, as others, "none can be greater than moses, none so great?" he had been a dwarf; the spirit of god had faded from his soul! but he conferred with god, not men; took counsel of his hopes, not his fears. working for men, with men, by men, trusting in god, and pure as truth, he was not scared at the little din of church or state, and trembled not, though pilate and herod were made friends only to crucify him that was a born king of the world. methinks i hear that lofty spirit say to you or me, poor brother, fear not, nor despair. the goodness actual in me is possible for all. god is near thee now as then to me; rich as ever in truth, as able to create, as willing to inspire. daily and nightly he showers down his infinitude of light. open thine eyes to see, thy heart to live. lo, god is here. ii. the true idea of a christian church.--a discourse at the installation of theodore parker as minister of the twenty-eighth congregational church in boston, january , . for nearly a year we have assembled within these walls from week to week,--i think not idly; i know you have not come for any trivial end. you have recently made a formal organization of yourselves for religious action. to-day, at your request, i enter regularly on a ministry in the midst of you. what are we doing; what do we design to do? we are here to establish a christian church; and a christian church, as i understand it, is a body of men and women united together in a common desire of religious excellence and with a common regard for jesus of nazareth, regarding him as the noblest example of morality and religion,--as the model, therefore, in this respect for us. such a church may have many rites, as our catholic brothers, or but few rites, as our protestant brothers, or no rites at all, as our brothers, the friends. it may be, nevertheless, a christian church; for the essential of substance, which makes it a religious body, is the union for the purpose of cultivating love to god and man; and the essential of form, which makes it a christian body, is the common regard for jesus, considered as the highest representative of god that we know. it is not the form, either of ritual or of doctrine, but the spirit which constitutes a christian church. a staff may sustain an old man, or a young man may bear it in his hands as a toy, but walking is walking, though the man have no staff for ornament or support. a christian spirit may exist under rituals and doctrines the most diverse. it were hard to say a man is not a christian, because he believes in the doctrine of the trinity, or the pope, while jesus taught no such doctrine; foolish to say one is no christian because he denies the existence of a devil, though jesus believed it. to make a man's christian name depend on a belief of all that is related by the numerous writers in the bible, is as absurd as to make that depend on a belief in all the words of luther, or calvin, or st. augustine. it is not for me to say a man is not theoretically a christian because he believes that slavery is a divine and christian institution; that war is grateful to god--saying, with the old testament, that god himself "is a man of war," who teaches men to fight, and curses such as refuse;--or because he believes that all men are born totally depraved, and the greater part of them are to be damned everlastingly by "a jealous god," who is "angry with the wicked every day," and that the few are to be "saved" only because god unjustly punished an innocent man for their sake. i will not say a man is not a christian though he believe all the melancholy things related of god in some parts of the old testament, yet i know few doctrines so hostile to real religion as these have proved themselves. in our day it has strangely come to pass that a little sect, themselves hooted at and called "infidels" by the rest of christendom, deny the name of christian to such as publicly reject the miracles of the bible. time will doubtless correct this error. fire is fire, and ashes ashes, say what we may; each will work after its kind. now if christianity be the absolute religion, it must allow all beliefs that are true, and it may exist and be developed in connection with all forms consistent with the absolute religion, and the degree thereof represented by jesus. the action of a christian church seems to be twofold: first on its own members, and then, through their means, on others out of its pale. let a word be said of each in its order. if i were to ask you why you came here to-day; why you have often come to this house hitherto?--the serious amongst you would say: that we might become better; more manly; upright before god and downright before men; that we might be christians, men good and pious after the fashion jesus spoke of. the first design of such a church then is to help ourselves become christians. now the substance of christianity is piety--love to god, and goodness--love to men. it is a religion, the germs whereof are born in your heart, appearing in your earliest childhood; which are developed just in proportion as you become a man, and are indeed the standard measure of your life. as the primeval rock lies at the bottom of the sea and appears at the top of the loftiest mountains, so in a finished character religion underlies all and crowns all. christianity, to be perfect and entire, demands a complete manliness; the development of the whole man, mind, conscience, heart and soul. it aims not to destroy the sacred peculiarities of individual character. it cherishes and develops them in their perfection, leaving paul to be paul, not peter, and john to be john, not jude nor james. we are born different, into a world where unlike things are gathered together, that there may be a special work for each. christianity respects this diversity in men, aiming not to undo but further god's will; not fashioning all men after one pattern, to think alike, act alike, be alike, even look alike. it is something far other than christianity which demands that. a christian church then should put no fetters on the man; it should have unity of purpose, but with the most entire freedom for the individual. when you sacrifice the man to the mass in church or state, church or state becomes an offence, a stumbling-block in the way of progress, and must end or mend. the greater the variety of individualities in church or state, the better is it, so long as all are really manly, humane and accordant. a church must needs be partial, not catholic, where all men think alike, narrow and little. your church-organ, to have compass and volume, must have pipes of various sound, and the skilful artist destroys none, but tunes them all to harmony; if otherwise, he does not understand his work. in becoming christians let us not cease to be men; nay, we cannot be christians unless we are men first. it were unchristian to love christianity better than the truth, or christ better than man. but christianity is not only the absolute religion; it has also the ideal-man. in jesus of nazareth it gives us, in a certain sense, the model of religious excellence. it is a great thing to have the perfect idea of religion; to have also that idea made real, satisfactory to the wants of any age, were a yet further greatness. a christian church should aim to have its members christians as jesus was the christ; sons of man as he was; sons of god as much as he. to be that it is not needful to observe all the forms he complied with, only such forms as help you; not needful to have all the thoughts that he had, only such thoughts as are true. if jesus were ever mistaken, as the evangelists make it appear, then it is a part of christianity to avoid his mistakes as well as to accept his truths. it is the part of a christian church to teach men so; to stop at no man's limitations; to prize no word so high as truth; no man so dear as god. jesus came not to fetter men, but free them. jesus is a model-man in this respect: that he stands in a true relation to men, that of forgiveness for their ill-treatment, service for their needs, trust in their nature, and constant love towards them,--towards even the wicked and hypocritical; in a true relation to god, that of entire obedience to him, of perfect trust in him, of love towards him with the whole mind, heart and soul; and love of god is also love of truth, goodness, usefulness, love of love itself. obedience to god and trust in god is obedience to these things, and trust in them. if jesus had loved any opinion better than truth, then had he lost that relation to god, and so far ceased to be inspired by him; had he allowed any partial feeling to overcome the spirit of universal love, then also he had sundered himself from god, and been at discord, not in harmony with the infinite. if jesus be the model-man, then should a christian church teach its members to hold the same relation to god that christ held; to be one with him; incarnations of god, as much and as far as jesus was one with god, and an incarnation thereof, a manifestation of god in the flesh. it is christian to receive all the truths of the bible; all the truths that are not in the bible just as much. it is christian also to reject all the errors that come to us from without the bible or from within the bible. the christian man, or the christian church, is to stop at no man's limitation; at the limit of no book. god is not dead, nor even asleep, but awake and alive as ever of old; he inspires men now no less than beforetime; is ready to fill your mind, heart and soul with truth, love, life, as to fill moses and jesus, and that on the same terms; for inspiration comes by universal laws, and not by partial exceptions. each point of spirit, as each atom of space, is still bathed in the tides of deity. but all good men, all christian men, all inspired men will be no more alike than all wicked men. it is the same light which is blue in the sky and golden in the sun. "all nature's difference makes all nature's peace." we can attain this relation to man and god only on condition that we are free. if a church cannot allow freedom it were better not to allow itself, but cease to be. unity of purpose, with entire freedom for the individual, should be the motto. it is only free men that can find the truth, love the truth, live the truth. as much freedom as you shut out, so much falsehood do you shut in. it is a poor thing to purchase unity of church-action at the cost of individual freedom. the catholic church tried it, and you see what came thereof: science forsook it, calling it a den of lies. morality forsook it, as the mystery of iniquity, and religion herself protested against it, as the mother of abominations. the protestant churches are trying the same thing, and see whither they tend and what foes rise up against them,--philosophy with its bible of nature, and religion with its bible of man, both the hand-writing of god. the great problem of church and state is this: to produce unity of action and yet leave individual freedom not disturbed; to balance into harmonious proportions the mass and the man, the centripetal and centrifugal powers, as, by god's wondrous, living mechanism, they are balanced in the worlds above. in the state we have done this more wisely than any nation heretofore. in the churches it remains yet to do. but man is equal to all which god appoints for him. his desires are ever proportionate to his duty and his destinies. the strong cry of the nations for liberty, a craving as of hungry men for bread and water, shows what liberty is worth, and what it is destined to do. allow freedom to think, and there will be truth; freedom to act, and we shall have heroic works; freedom to live and be, and we shall have love to men and love to god. the world's history proves that, and our own history. jesus, our model-man, was the freest the world ever saw! let it be remembered that every truth is of god, and will lead to good and good only. truth is the seed whereof welfare is the fruit; for every grain thereof we plant some one shall reap a whole harvest of welfare. a lie is "of the devil," and must lead to want and woe and death, ending at last in a storm where it rains tears and perhaps blood. have freedom, and you will sow new truth to reap its satisfaction; submit to thraldom, and you sow lies to reap the death they bear. a christian church should be the home of the soul, where it enjoys the largest liberty of the sons of god. if fettered elsewhere, here let us be free. christ is the liberator; he came not to drive slaves, but to set men free. the churches of old did their greatest work, when there was most freedom in those churches. here too should the spirit of devotion be encouraged; the soul of man communing with his god in aspirations after purity and truth, in resolutions for goodness, and piety, and a manly life. these are a prayer. the fact that men freely hold truths in common, great truths and universal; that unitedly they lift up their souls to god seeking instruction of him, this will prove the strongest bond between man and man. it seems to me that the protestant churches have not fully done justice to the sentiment of worship; that in taking care of the head we have forgotten the heart. to think truth is the worship of the head; to do noble works of usefulness and charity the worship of the will; to feel love and trust in man and god, is the glad worship of the heart. a christian church should be broad enough for all; should seek truth and promote piety, that both together might toil in good works. here should be had the best instruction which can be commanded; the freest, truest, and most manly voice; the mind most conversant with truth; the eloquence of a heart that runs over with goodness, whose faith is unfaltering in truth, justice, purity, and love; a faith in god, whose charity is living love to men, even the sinful and the base. teaching is the breathing of one man's inspiration into another, a most real thing amongst real men. in a church there should be instruction for the young. god appoints the father and mother the natural teachers of children; above all is it so in their religious culture. but there are some who cannot, many who will not fulfil this trust. hence it has been found necessary for wise and good men to offer their instruction to such. in this matter it is religion we need more than theology, and of this it is not mere traditions and mythologies we are to teach, the anile tales of a rude people in a dark age, things our pupils will do well to forget soon as they are men, and which they will have small reason to thank us for obscuring their minds withal; but it is the great, everlasting truths of religion which should be taught, enforced by examples of noble men, which tradition tells of, or the present age affords, all this to be suited to the tender years of the child. christianity should be represented as human, as man's nature in its true greatness; religion shown to be beautiful, a real duty corresponding to man's deepest desire, that as religion affords the deepest satisfaction to man, so it is man's most universal want. christ should be shown to men as he was, the manliest of men, the most divine because the most human. children should be taught to respect their nature; to consider it as the noblest of all god's works; to know that perfect truth and goodness are demanded of them, and by that only can they be worthy men; taught to feel that god is present in boston and to-day, as much as ever in jerusalem in the time of jesus. they should be taught to abhor the public sins of our times, but to love and imitate its great examples of nobleness, and practical religion, which stand out amid the mob of worldly pretenders in this day. then, too, if one of our members falls into unworthy ways, is it not the duty of some one to speak with him, not as with authority to command, but with affection to persuade? did any one of you ever address an erring brother on the folly of his ways with manly tenderness, and try to charm him back, and find a cold repulse? if a man is in error he will be grateful to one that tells him so; will learn most from men who make him ashamed of his littleness of life. in this matter it seems many a good man comes short of his duty. there is yet another way in which a church should act on its own household, and that is by direct material help in time of need. there is the eternal distinction of the strong and the weak, which cannot be changed. but as things now go there is another inequality not of god's appointment, but of man's perversity, the distinction of rich and poor--of men bloated by superfluous wealth and men starving and freezing from want. you know and i know how often the strong abuse their strength, exerting it solely for themselves and to the ruin of the weak; we all know that such are reckoned great in the world, though they may have grown rich solely by clutching at what others earned. in christianity, and before the god of justice, all men are brothers; the strong are so that they may help the weak. as a nation chooses its wisest men to manage its affairs for the nation's good, and not barely their own, so god endows charles or samuel with great gifts that they may also bless all men thereby. if they use those powers solely for their pleasure then are they false before men; false before god. it is said of the church of the friends that no one of their number has ever received the charity of an almshouse, or for a civil offence been shut up in a jail. if the poor forsake a church, be sure that the church forsook god long before. * * * * * but the church must have an action on others out of its pale. if a man or a society of men have a truth, they hold it not for themselves alone, but for all men. the solitary thinker, who in a moment of ecstatic action in his closet at midnight discovers a truth, discovers it for all the world and for eternity. a christian church ought to love to see its truths extend; so it should put them in contact with the opinions of the world, not with excess of zeal or lack of charity. a christian church should be a means of reforming the world, of forming it after the pattern of christian ideas. it should therefore bring up the sentiments of the times, the ideas of the times, and the actions of the times, to judge them by the universal standard. in this way it will learn much and be a living church, that grows with the advance of men's sentiments, ideas and actions, and while it keeps the good of the past will lose no brave spirit of the present day. it can teach much; now moderating the fury of men, then quickening their sluggish steps. we expect the sins of commerce to be winked at in the street; the sins of the state to be applauded on election days and in a congress, or on the fourth of july; we are used to hear them called the righteousness of the nation. there they are often measured by the avarice or the ambition of greedy men. you expect them to be tried by passion, which looks only to immediate results and partial ends. here they are to be measured by conscience and reason, which look to permanent results and universal ends; to be looked at with reference to the laws of god, the everlasting ideas on which alone is based the welfare of the world. here they are to be examined in the light of christianity itself. if the church be true, many things which seem gainful in the street and expedient in the senate-house, will here be set down as wrong, and all gain which comes therefrom seen to be but a loss. if there be a public sin in the land, if a lie invade the state, it is for the church to give the alarm; it is here that it may war on lies and sins; the more widely they are believed in and practised, the more are they deadly, the more to be opposed. here let no false idea or false action of the public go without exposure and rebuke. but let no noble heroism of the times, no noble man pass by without due honor. if it is a good thing to honor dead saints and the heroism of our fathers; it is a better thing to honor the saints of to-day, the live heroism of men who do the battle, when that battle is all around us. i know a few such saints; here and there a hero of that stamp, and i will not wait till they are dead and classic before i call them so and honor them as such, for "to side with truth is noble when we share her wretched crust, ere her cause bring fame and profit, and 'tis prosperous to be just; then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside, doubting in his abject spirit, till his lord is crucified, and the multitude make virtue of the faith they once denied; for humanity sweeps onward; where to-day the martyr stands, on the morrow crouches judas, with the silver in his hands; far in front the cross stands ready, and the crackling fagots burn, while the hooting mob of yesterday in silent awe return to glean up the scattered ashes into history's golden urn." do you not see that if a man have a new truth, it must be reformatory and so create an outcry? it will seem destructive as the farmer's plough; like that, it is so to tares and thistles, but the herald of the harvest none the less. in this way a christian church should be a society for promoting true sentiments and ideas. if it would lead, it must go before men; if it would be looked up to, it must stand high. that is not all: it should be a society for the promotion of good works. we are all beneath our idea, and therefore transgressors before god. yet he gives us the rain, the snow and the sun. it falls on me as well as on the field of my neighbor, who is a far juster man. how can we repent, cast our own sins behind us, outgrow and forget them better, than by helping others to work out their salvation? we are all brothers before god. mutually needful we must be; mutually helpful we should be. here are the ignorant that ask our instruction, not with words only, but with the prayer of their darkness, far more suppliant than speech. i never see an ignorant man younger than myself, without a feeling of self-reproach, for i ask: "what have i been doing to suffer him to grow up in nakedness of mind?" every man, born in new england, who does not share the culture of this age, is a reproach to more than himself, and will at last actively curse those who began by deserting him. the christian church should lead the movement for the public education of the people. here are the needy who ask not so much your gold, your bread, or your cloth, as they ask also your sympathy, respect and counsel; that you assist them to help themselves, that they may have gold won by their industry, not begged out of your benevolence. it is justice more than charity they ask. every beggar, every pauper, born and bred amongst us, is a reproach to us, and condemns our civilization. for how has it come to pass that in a land of abundance here are men, for no fault of their own, born into want, living in want, and dying of want? and that, while we pretend to a religion which says all men are brothers! there is a horrid wrong somewhere. here too are the drunkard, the criminal, the abandoned person, sometimes the foe of society, but far oftener the victim of society. whence come the tenants of our almshouses, jails, the victims of vice in all our towns? why, from the lowest rank of the people; from the poorest and most ignorant! say rather from the most neglected, and the public sin is confessed, and the remedy hinted at. what have the strong been doing all this while, that the weak have come to such a state? let them answer for themselves. now for all these ought a christian church to toil. it should be a church of good works; if it is a church of good faith it will be so. does not christianity say the strong should help the weak? does not that mean something? it once did. has the christian fire faded out from those words, once so marvellously bright? look round you, in the streets of your own boston! see the ignorant, men and women with scarce more than the stature of men and women; boys and girls growing up in ignorance and the low civilization which comes thereof, the barbarians of boston. their character will one day be a blot and a curse to the nation, and who is to blame? why, the ablest and best men, who might have had it otherwise if they would. look at the poor, men of small ability, weak by nature, born into a weak position, therefore doubly weak; men whom the strong use for their purpose, and then cast them off as we throw away the rind of an orange after we have drunk its generous juice. behold the wicked, so we call the weak men that are publicly caught in the cobweb of the law; ask why they became wicked; how we have aimed to reform them; what we have done to make them respect themselves, to believe in goodness, in man and god? and then say if there is not something for christian men to do, something for a christian church to do! every almshouse in massachusetts shows that the churches have not done their duty, that the christians lie lies when they call jesus "master" and men "brothers!" every jail is a monument, on which it is writ in letters of iron that we are still heathens, and the gallows, black and hideous, the embodiment of death, the last argument a "christian" state offers to the poor wretches it trained up to be criminals, stands there, a sign of our infamy, and while it lifts its horrid arm to crush the life out of some miserable man, whose blood cries to god against cain in the nineteenth century, it lifts that same arm as an index of our shame. is that all? oh, no! did not jesus say, resist not evil--with evil? is not war the worst form of that evil; and is there on earth a nation so greedy of war; a nation more reckless of provoking it; one where the war-horse so soon conducts his foolish rider into fame and power? the "heathen" chinese might send their missionaries to america, and teach us to love men! is that all? far from it. did not christ say, whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, do you even so unto them; and are there not three million brothers of yours and mine in bondage here, the hopeless sufferers of a savage doom; debarred from the civilization of our age, the barbarians of the nineteenth century; shut out from the pretended religion of christendom, the heathens of a christian land; chained down from the liberty unalienable in man, the slaves of a christian republic? does not a cry of indignation ring out from every legislature in the north; does not the press war with its million throats, and a voice of indignation go up from east and west, out from the hearts of freemen? oh, no. there is none of that cry against the mightiest sin of this age. the rock of plymouth, sanctified by the feet which led a nation's way to freedom's large estate, provokes no more voice than the rottenest stone in all the mountains of the west. the few that speak a manly word for truth and everlasting right, are called fanatics; bid be still, lest they spoil the market! great god! and has it come to this, that men are silent over such a sin? 'tis even so. then it must be that every church which dares assume the name of christ, that dearest name to men, thunders and lightens on this hideous wrong! that is not so. the church is dumb, while the state is only silent; while the servants of the people are only asleep, "god's ministers" are dead! in the midst of all these wrongs and sins, the crimes of men, society and the state, amid popular ignorance, pauperism, crime, and war, and slavery too--is the church to say nothing, do nothing; nothing for the good of such as feel the wrong, nothing to save them who do the wrong? men tell us so, in word and deed; that way alone is "safe!" if i thought so, i would never enter the church but once again, and then to bow my shoulders to their manliest work, to heave down its strong pillars, arch and dome, and roof, and wall, steeple and tower, though like samson i buried myself under the ruins of that temple which profaned the worship of god most high, of god most loved. i would do this in the name of man; in the name of christ i would do it; yes, in the dear and blessed name of god. it seems to me that a church which dares name itself christian, the church of the redeemer, which aspires to be a true church, must set itself about all this business, and be not merely a church of theology, but of religion; not of faith only, but of works; a just church by its faith bringing works into life. it should not be a church termagant, which only peevishly scolds at sin, in its anile way; but a church militant against every form of evil, which not only censures, but writes out on the walls of the world the brave example of a christian life, that all may take pattern therefrom. thus only can it become the church triumphant. if a church were to waste less time in building its palaces of theological speculation, palaces mainly of straw, and based upon the chaff, erecting air-castles and fighting battles to defend those palaces of straw, it would surely have more time to use in the practical good works of the day. if it thus made a city free from want and ignorance and crime, i know i vent a heresy, i think it would be quite as christian an enterprise, as though it restored all the theology of the dark ages; quite as pleasing to god. a good sermon is a good thing, no doubt, but its end is not answered by its being preached; even by its being listened to and applauded; only by its awakening a deeper life in the hearers. but in the multitude of sermons there is danger lest the bare hearing thereof be thought a religious duty, not a means, but an end, and so our christianity vanish in words. what if every sunday afternoon the most pious and manly of our number, who saw fit, resolved themselves into a committee of the whole for practical religion, and held not a formal meeting, but one more free, sometimes for the purpose of devotion, the practical work of making ourselves better christians, nearer to one another, and sometimes that we might find means to help such as needed help, the poor, the ignorant, the intemperate and the wicked? would it not be a work profitable to ourselves, and useful to others weaker than we? for my own part i think there are no ordinances of religion like good works; no day too sacred to help my brother in; no christianity like a practical love of god shown by a practical love of men. christ told us that if we had brought our gift to the very altar, and there remembered our brother had cause of complaint against us, we must leave the divine service, and pay the human service first! if my brother be in slavery, in want, in ignorance, in sin, and i can aid him and do not, he has much against me, and god can better wait for my prayer than my brother for my help! the saints of olden time perished at the stake; they hung on gibbets; they agonized upon the rack; they died under the steel of the tormentor. it was the heroism of our fathers' day that swam the unknown seas; froze in the woods; starved with want and cold; fought battles with the red right hand. it is the sainthood and heroism of our day that toils for the ignorant, the poor, the weak, the oppressed, the wicked. yes, it is our saints and heroes who fight fighting; who contend for the slave, and his master too, for the drunkard, the criminal; yes, for the wicked or the weak in all their forms. it is they that with weapons of heavenly proof fight the great battle for the souls of men. though i detest war in each particular fibre of my heart, yet i honor the heroes among our fathers who fought with bloody hand; peace-makers in a savage way, they were faithful to the light; the most inspired can be no more, and we, with greater light, do, it may be, far less. i love and venerate the saints of old; men who dared step in front of their age; accepted christianity when it cost something to be a christian, because it meant something; they applied christianity, so far as they knew it, to the lies and sins of their times, and won a sudden and a fiery death. but the saints and the heroes of this day, who draw no sword, whose right hand is never bloody, who burn in no fires of wood or sulphur, nor languish briefly on the hasty cross; the saints and heroes who, in a worldly world, dare to be men; in an age of conformity and selfishness, speak for truth and man, living for noble aims; men who will swear to no lies howsoever popular; who will honor no sins, though never so profitable, respected and ancient; men who count christ not their master, but teacher, friend, brother, and strive like him to practise all they pray; to incarnate and make real the word of god, these men i honor far more than the saints of old. i know their trials, i see their dangers, i appreciate their sufferings, and since the day when the man on calvary bowed his head, bidding persecution farewell with his "father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," i find no such saints and heroes as live now! they win hard fare, and hard toil. they lay up shame and obloquy. theirs is the most painful of martyrdoms. racks and fagots soon waft the soul of god, stern messengers but swift. a boy could bear that passage, the martyrdom of death. but the temptation of a long life of neglect, and scorn, and obloquy, and shame, and want, and desertion by false friends; to live blameless though blamed, cut off from human sympathy, that is the martyrdom of to-day. i shed no tears for such martyrs. i shout when i see one; i take courage and thank god for the real saints, prophets and heroes of to-day. in another age, men shall be proud of these puritans and pilgrims of this day. churches shall glory in their names and celebrate their praise in sermon and in song. yea, though now men would steal the rusty sword from underneath the bones of a saint or hero long deceased, to smite off therewith the head of a new prophet, that ancient hero's son; though they would gladly crush the heart out of him with the tomb-stones they piled up for great men, dead and honored now, yet in some future day, that mob, penitent, baptized with a new spirit, like drunken men returned to sanity once more, shall search through all this land for marble white enough to build a monument to that prophet whom their fathers slew; they shall seek through all the world for gold of fineness fit to chronicle such names! i cannot wait; but i will honor such men now, not adjourn the warning of their voice, and the glory of their example, till another age! the church may cast out such men; burn them with the torments of an age too refined in its cruelty to use coarse fagots and the vulgar axe! it is no less to these men; but the ruin of the church. i say the christian church of the nineteenth century must honor such men, if it would do a church's work; must take pains to make such men as these, or it is a dead church, with no claim on us, except that we bury it. a true church will always be the church of martyrs. the ancients commenced every great work with a victim! we do not call it so; but the sacrifice is demanded, got ready, and offered by unconscious priests long ere the enterprise succeeds. did not christianity begin with a martyrdom? * * * * * in this way, by gaining all the truth of the age in thought or action, by trying public opinions with its own brave ideas, by promoting good works, applying a new truth to an old error, and with unpopular righteousness overcoming each popular sin, the christian church should lead the civilization of the age. the leader looks before, goes before, and knows where he is going; knows the way thither. it is only on this condition that he leads at all. if the church by looking after truth, and receiving it when it comes, be in unison with god, it will be in unison with all science, which is only the thought of god translated from the facts of nature into the words of men. in such a case, the church will not fear philosophy, nor in the face of modern science aim to reëstablish the dreams and fables of a ruder day. it will not lack new truth, daring only to quote, nor be obliged to sneak behind the inspired words of old saints as its only fortress, for it will have words just as truly inspired, dropping from the golden mouths of saints and prophets now. for leaders it will look not back, but forth; will fan the first faint sparkles of that noble fire just newly kindled from the skies; not smother them in the ashes of fires long spent; not quench them with holy water from jordan or the nile. a church truly christian, professing christ as its model-man, and aiming to stand in the relation he stood, must lead the way in moral enterprises, in every work which aims directly at the welfare of man. there was a time when the christian churches, as a whole, held that rank. do they now? not even the quakers--perhaps the last sect that abandoned it. a prophet, filled with love of man and love of god, is not therein at home. i speak a sad truth, and i say it in sorrow. but look at the churches of this city: do they lead the christian movements of this city--the temperance movement, the peace movement, the movement for the freedom of men, for education, the movement to make society more just, more wise and good, the great religious movement of these times--for, hold down our eyelids as we will, there is a religious movement at this day on foot, such as even new england never saw before;--do they lead in these things? oh, no, not at all. that great christian orator, one of the noblest men new england has seen in this century, whose word has even now gone forth to the nations beyond the sea, while his spirit has gone home to his father, when he turned his attention to the practical evils of our time and our land, and our civilization, vigorously applying christianity to life, why he lost favor in his own little sect! they feared him, soon as his spirit looked over their narrow walls, aspiring to lead men to a better work. i know men can now make sectarian capital out of the great name of channing, so he is praised; perhaps praised loudest by the very men who then cursed him by their gods. ay, by their gods he was accursed! the churches lead the christian movements of these times?--why, has there not just been driven out of this city, and out of this state, a man conspicuous in all these movements, after five and twenty years of noble toil; driven out because he was conspicuous in them! you know it is so, and you know how and by whom he is thus driven out![ ] christianity is humanity; christ is the son of man; the manliest of men; humane as a woman; pious and hopeful as a prayer; but brave as man's most daring thought. he has led the world in morals and religion for eighteen hundred years, only because he was the manliest man in it; the humanest and bravest man in it, and hence the divinest. he may lead it eighteen hundred years more, for we are bid believe that god can never make again a greater man; no, none so great. but the churches do not lead men therein, for they have not his spirit; neither that womanliness which wept over jerusalem, nor that manliness which drew down fire enough from heaven to light the world's altars for well-nigh two thousand years. there are many ways in which christ may be denied:--one is that of the bold blasphemer, who, out of a base and haughty heart mocks, scoffing at that manly man, and spits upon the nobleness of christ! there are few such deniers: my heart mourns for them. but they do little harm. religion is so dear to men, no scoffing word can silence that, and the brave soul of this young nazarene has made itself so deeply felt that scorn and mockery of him are but an icicle held up against the summer's sun. there is another way to deny him, and that is:--to call him lord, and never do his bidding; to stifle free minds with his words; and with the authority of his name to cloak, to mantle, screen and consecrate the follies, errors, sins of men! from this we have much to fear. the church that is to lead this century will not be a church creeping on all fours; mewling and whining, its face turned down, its eyes turned back. it must be full of the brave, manly spirit of the day, keeping also the good of times past. there is a terrific energy in this age, for man was never so much developed, so much the master of himself before. great truths, moral and political, have come to light. they fly quickly. the iron prophet of types publishes his visions, of weal or woe, to the near and far. this marvellous age has invented steam, and the magnetic telegraph, apt symbols of itself, before which the miracles of fable are but an idle tale. it demands, as never before, freedom for itself, usefulness in its institutions; truth in its teachings, and beauty in its deeds. let a church have that freedom, that usefulness, truth, and beauty, and the energy of this age will be on its side. but the church which did for the fifth century, or the fifteenth, will not do for this. what is well enough at rome, oxford or berlin, is not well enough for boston. it must have our ideas, the smell of our ground, and have grown out of the religion in our soul. the freedom of america must be there before this energy will come; the wisdom of the nineteenth century before its science will be on the churches' side, else that science will go over to the "infidels." our churches are not in harmony with what is best in the present age. men call their temples after their old heroes and saints--john, paul, peter, and the like. but we call nothing else after the old names; a school of philosophy would be condemned if called aristotelian, platonic, or even baconian. we out-travel the past in all but this. in the church it seems taught there is no progress unless we have all the past on our back; so we despair of having men fit to call churches by. we look back and not forward. we think the next saint must talk hebrew like the old ones, and repeat the same mythology. so when a new prophet comes we only stone him. a church that believes only in past inspiration will appeal to old books as the standard of truth and source of light; will be antiquarian in its habits; will call its children by the old names; and war on the new age, not understanding the man-child born to rule the world. a church that believes in inspiration now will appeal to god; try things by reason and conscience; aim to surpass the old heroes; baptize its children with a new spirit, and using the present age will lead public opinion, and not follow it. had christ looked back for counsel, he might have founded a church fit for abraham or isaac to worship in, not for the ages to come, or the age then. he that feels he is near to god, does not fear to be far from men; if before, he helps lead them on; if above, to lift them up. let us get all we can from the hebrews and others of old time, and that is much; but still let us be god's free men, not the gibeonites of the past. let us have a church that dares imitate the heroism of jesus; seek inspiration as he sought it; judge the past as he; act on the present like him; pray as he prayed; work as he wrought; live as he lived. let our doctrines and our forms fit the soul, as the limbs fit the body, growing out of it, growing with it. let us have a church for the whole man: truth for the mind; good works for the hands; love for the heart; and for the soul, that aspiring after perfection, that unfaltering faith in god which, like lightning in the clouds, shines brightest, when elsewhere it is most dark. let our church fit man, as the heavens fit the earth! * * * * * in our day men have made great advances in science, commerce, manufactures, in all the arts of life. we need, therefore, a development of religion corresponding thereto. the leading minds of the age ask freedom to inquire; not merely to believe, but to know; to rest on facts. a great spiritual movement goes swiftly forward. the best men see that religion is religion; theology is theology, and not religion; that true religion is a very simple affair, and the popular theology a very foolish one; that the christianity of christ is not the christianity of the street, or the state, or the churches; that christ is not their model-man, only "imputed" as such. these men wish to apply good sense to matters connected with religion; to apply christianity to life, and make the world a better place, men and women fitter to live in it. in this way they wish to get a theology that is true; a mode of religion that works, and works well. if a church can answer these demands, it will be a live church; leading the civilization of the times, living with all the mighty life of this age, and nation. its prayers will be a lifting up of the hearts in noble men towards god, in search of truth, goodness, piety. its sacraments will be great works of reform, institutions for the comfort and the culture of men. let us have a church in which religion, goodness towards men, and piety towards god, shall be the main thing; let us have a degree of that suited to the growth and demands of this age. in the middle ages, men had erroneous conceptions of religion, no doubt; yet the church led the world. when she wrestled with the state, the state came undermost to the ground. see the results of that supremacy--all over europe there arose the cloister, halls of learning for the chosen few, minster, dome, cathedral, miracles of art, each costing the wealth of a province. such was the embodiment of their ideas of religion, the prayers of a pious age done in stone, a psalm petrified as it rose from the world's mouth; a poor sacrifice, no doubt, but the best they knew how to offer. now if men were to engage in religion as in politics, commerce, arts; if the absolute religion, the christianity of christ, were applied to life with all the might of this age, as the christianity of the church was then applied, what a result should we not behold! we should build up a great state with unity in the nation, and freedom in the people; a state where there was honorable work for every hand, bread for all mouths, clothing for all backs, culture for every mind, and love and faith in every heart. truth would be our sermon, drawn from the oldest of scriptures, god's writing there in nature, here in man; works of daily duty would be our sacrament; prophets inspired of god would minister the word, and piety send up her psalm of prayer, sweet in its notes, and joyfully prolonged. the noblest monument to christ, the fairest trophy of religion, is a noble people, where all are well fed and clad, industrious, free, educated, manly, pious, wise and good. * * * * * some of you may now remember, how ten months and more ago, i first came to this house to speak. i shall remember it forever. in those rainy sundays the very skies looked dark. some came doubtingly, uncertain, looking around, and hoping to find courage in another's hope. others came with clear glad face; openly, joyfully, certain they were right; not fearing to meet the issue; not afraid to be seen meeting it. some came, perhaps, not used to worship in a church, but not the less welcome here; some mistaking me for a destroyer, a doubter, a denier of all truth, a scoffer, an enemy to man and god! i wonder not at that. misguided men had told you so, in sermon and in song; in words publicly printed and published without shame; in the covert calumny, slyly whispered in the dark! need i tell you my feelings; how i felt at coming to the town made famous by great men, mayhew, chauncy, buckminster, kirkland, holley, pierpont, channing, ware--names dear and honored in my boyish heart! need i tell you how i felt at sight of the work which stretched out before me? do you wonder that i asked: who is sufficient for these things? and said: alas, not i, thou knowest, lord! but some of you told me you asked not the wisdom of a wiser man, the ability of one stronger, but only that i should do what i could. i came, not doubting that i had some truths to say; not distrusting god, nor man, nor you; distrustful only of myself. i feared i had not the power, amid the dust and noises of the day, to help you see and hear the great realities of religion as they appeared to me; to help you feel the life of real religion, as in my better moments i have felt its truth! but let that pass. as i came here from sunday to sunday, when i began to feel your spirits prayed with mine a prayer for truth and life; as i looked down into your faces, thoughtful and almost breathless, i forgot my self-distrust; i saw the time was come; that, feebly as i know i speak, my best thoughts were ever the most welcome! i saw that the harvest was plenteous indeed: but the preacher, i feel it still, was all unworthy of his work! * * * * * brothers and sisters: let us be true to our sentiments and ideas. let us not imitate another's form unless it symbolize a truth to us. we must not affect to be singular, but not fear to be alone. let us not foolishly separate from our brothers elsewhere. truth is yet before us, not only springing up out of the manly words of this bible, but out of the ground; out of the heavens; out of man and god. whole firmaments of truth hang ever o'er our heads, waiting the telescopic eye of the true-hearted see-er. let us follow truth, in form, thought or sentiment, wherever she may call. god's daughter cannot lead us from the path. the further on we go, the more we find. had columbus turned back only the day before he saw the land, the adventure had been worse than lost. we must practise a manly self-denial. religion always demands that, but never more than when our brothers separate from us, and we stand alone. by our mutual love and mutual forbearance, we shall stand strong. with zeal for our common work, let us have charity for such as dislike us, such as oppose and would oppress us. let us love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for such as despitefully use us. let us overcome their evil speech with our own goodness. if others have treated us ill, called us unholy names, and mocked at us, let us forgive it all, here and now, and help them also to forget and outgrow that temper which bade them treat us so. a kind answer is fittest rebuke to an unkind word. if we have any truth it will not be kept hid. it will run over the brim of our urn and water our brother's field. were any truth to come down to us in advance from god, it were not that we might forestall the light, but shed it forth for all his children to walk by and rejoice in. "one candle will light a thousand" if it be itself lighted. let our light shine before men so that they may see our good deeds, and themselves praise god by a manly life. this we owe to them as to ourselves. a noble thought and a mean man make a sorry union. let our idea show itself in our life--that is preaching, right eloquent. do this, we begin to do good to men, and though they should oppose us, and our work should fail, we shall have yet the approval of our own heart, the approval of god, be whole within ourselves, and one with him. * * * * * some of you are venerable men. i have wondered that a youthful ardor should have brought you here. your silvery heads have seemed a benediction to my work. but most of you are young. i know it is no aping of a fashion that has brought you here. i have no eloquence to charm or please you with; i only speak right on. i have no reputation but a bad name in the churches. i know you came not idly, but seeking after truth. give a great idea to an old man, and he carries it to his grave; give it to a young man, and he carries it to his life. it will bear both young and old through the grave and into eternal heaven beyond. young men and women, the duties of the world fall eminently on you. god confides to your hands the ark which holds the treasures of the age. on young shoulders he lays the burden of life. yours is the period of passion; the period of enterprise and of work. it is by successive generations that mankind goes forward. the old, stepping into honorable graves, leave their places and the results they won to you. but departing they seem to say, as they linger and look back: do ye greater than we have done! the young just coming into your homes seem to say: instruct us to be nobler than yourselves! your life is the answer to your children and your sires. the next generation will be as you make it. it is not the schools but the people's character that educates the child. amid the trials, duties, dangers of your life, religion alone can guide you. it is not the world's eye that is on you, but god's; it is not the world's religion that will suffice you, but the religion of a man, which unites you with truth, justice, piety, goodness; yes, which makes you one with god! young men and women--you can make this church a fountain of life to thousands of fainting souls. yes, you can make this city nobler than city ever was before. a manly life is the best gift you can leave mankind; that can be copied forever. architects of your own weal or woe, your destiny is mainly in your own hands. it is no great thing to reject the popular falsehoods; little and perhaps not hard. but to receive the great sentiments and lofty truths of real religion, the christianity of christ; to love them, to live them in your business and your home, that is the greatest work of man. thereby you partake of the spirit and nature of god; you achieve the true destiny for yourself; you help your brothers do the same. when my own life is measured by the ideal of that young nazarene, i know how little i deserve the name of christian; none knows that fact so well as i. but you have been denied the name of christian because you came here, asking me to come. let men see that you have the reality, though they withhold the name. your words are the least part of what you say to men. the foolish only will judge you by your talk; wise men by the general tenor of your life. let your religion appear in your work and your play. pray in your strongest hours. practise your prayers. by fair-dealing, justice, kindness, self-control, and the great work of helping others while you help yourself, let your life prove a worship. these are the real sacraments and christian communion with god, to which water and wine are only helps. criticize the world not by censure only, but by the example of a great life. shame men out of their littleness, not by making mouths, but by walking great and beautiful amongst them. you love god best when you love men most. let your prayers be an uplifting of the soul in thought, resolution, love, and the light thereof shall shine through the darkest hour of trouble. have not the christianity of the street; but carry christ's christianity there. be noble men, then your works must needs be great and manly. * * * * * this is the first sunday of a new year. what an hour for resolutions; what a moment for prayer! if you have sins in your bosom, cast them behind you now. in the last year, god has blessed us; blessed us all. on some his angels waited, robed in white, and brought new joys; here a wife, to bind men closer yet to providence; and there a child, a new messiah, sent to tell of innocence and heaven. to some his angels came clad in dark livery, veiling a joyful countenance with unpropitious wings, and bore away child, father, sister, wife, or friend. still were they angels of good providence, all god's own; and he who looks aright finds that they also brought a blessing, but concealed, and left it, though they spoke no word of joy. one day our weeping brother shall find that gift and wear it as a diamond on his breast. the hours are passing over us, and with them the day. what shall the future sundays be, and what the year? what we make them both. god gives us time. we weave it into life, such figures as we may, and wear it as we will. age slowly rots away the gold we are set in, but the adamantine soul lives on, radiant every way in the light streaming down from god. the genius of eternity, star-crowned, beautiful, and with prophetic eyes, leads us again to the gates of time, and gives us one more year, bidding us fill that golden cup with water as we can or will. there stand the dirty, fetid pools of worldliness and sin; curdled, and mantled, film-covered, streaked and striped with many a hue, they shine there, in the slanting light of new-born day. around them stand the sons of earth and cry: come hither; drink thou and be saved! here fill thy golden cup! there you may seek to fill your urn; to stay your thirst. the deceitful element, roping in your hands, shall mock your lip. it is water only to the eye. nay, show-water only unto men half-blind. but there, hard by, runs down the stream of life, its waters never frozen, never dry; fed by perennial dews falling unseen from god. fill there thine urn, oh, brother-man, and thou shalt thirst no more for selfishness and crime, and faint no more amid the toil and heat of day; wash there, and the leprosy of sin, its scales of blindness, shall fall off, and thou be clean for ever. kneel there and pray; god shall inspire thy heart with truth and love, and fill thy cup with never-ending joy![ ] footnotes: [ ] rev. john pierpont. [ ] see note at the end of this volume. iii. a sermon of war, preached at the melodeon, on sunday, june , . exodus xv. . "the lord is a man of war." john iv. . "god is love." i ask your attention to a sermon of war. i have waited some time before treating this subject at length, till the present hostilities should assume a definite form, and the designs of the government become more apparent. i wished to be able to speak coolly and with knowledge of the facts, that we might understand the comparative merits of the present war. besides, i have waited for others, in the churches, of more experience to speak, before i ventured to offer my counsel; but i have thus far waited almost in vain! i did not wish to treat the matter last sunday, for that was the end of our week of pentecost, when cloven tongues of flame descend on the city, and some are thought to be full of new wine, and others of the holy spirit. the heat of the meetings, good and bad, of that week, could not wholly have passed away from you or me, and we ought to come coolly and consider a subject like this. so the last sunday i only sketched the back-ground of the picture, to-day intending to paint the horrors of war in front of that "presence of beauty in nature," to which with its "meanings" and its "lessons," i then asked you to attend. * * * * * it seems to me that an idea of god as the infinite is given to us in our nature itself. but men create a more definite conception of god in their own image. thus a rude savage man, who has learned only the presence of power in nature, conceives of god mainly as a force, and speaks of him as a god of power. such, though not without beautiful exceptions, is the character ascribed to jehovah in the old testament. "the lord is a man of war." he is "the lord of hosts." he kills men, and their cattle. if there is trouble in the enemies' city, it is the lord who hath caused it. he will "whet his glittering sword and render vengeance to his enemies. he will make his arrows drunk with blood, and his sword shall devour flesh!" it is with the sword that god pleads with all men. he encourages men to fight, and says, "cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood." he sends blood into the streets; he waters the land with blood, and in blood he dissolves the mountains. he brandishes his sword before kings, and they tremble at every moment. he treads nations as grapes in a wine-press, and his garments are stained with their life's blood.[ ] a man who has grown up to read the older testament of god revealed in the beauty of the universe, and to feel the goodness of god therein set forth, sees him not as force only, or in chief, but as love. he worships in love the god of goodness and of peace. such is the prevalent character ascribed to god in the new testament, except in the book of "revelation." he is the "god of love and peace;" "our father," "kind to the unthankful and the unmerciful." in one word, god is love. he loves us all, jew and gentile, bond and free. all are his children, each of priceless value in his sight. he is no god of battles; no lord of hosts; no man of war. he has no sword, nor arrows; he does not water the earth nor melt the mountains in blood, but "he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust." he has no garments dyed in blood; curses no man for refusing to fight. he is spirit, to be worshipped in spirit and in truth! the commandment is: love one another; resist not evil with evil; forgive seventy times seven; overcome evil with good; love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you; pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.[ ] there is no nation to shut its ports against another, all are men; no caste to curl its lip at inferiors, all are brothers, members of one body, united in the christ, the ideal man and head of all. the most useful is the greatest. no man is to be master, for the christ is our teacher. we are to fear no man, for god is our father. these precepts are undeniably the precepts of christianity. equally plain is it that they are the dictates of man's nature, only developed and active; a part of god's universal revelation; his law writ on the soul of man, established in the nature of things; true after all experience, and true before all experience. the man of real insight into spiritual things sees and knows them to be true. do not believe it the part of a coward to think so. i have known many cowards; yes, a great many; some very cowardly, pusillanimous and faint-hearted cowards; but never one who thought so, or pretended to think so. it requires very little courage to fight with sword and musket, and that of a cheap kind. men of that stamp are plenty as grass in june. beat your drum, and they will follow; offer them but eight dollars a month, and they will come--fifty thousand of them, to smite and kill.[ ] every male animal, or reptile, will fight. it requires little courage to kill; but it takes much to resist evil with good, holding obstinately out, active or passive, till you overcome it. call that non-resistance, if you will; it is the stoutest kind of combat, demanding all the manhood of a man. i will not deny that war is inseparable from a low stage of civilization; so is polygamy, slavery, cannibalism. taking men as they were, savage and violent, there have been times when war was unavoidable. i will not deny that it has helped forward the civilization of the race, for god often makes the folly and the sin of men contribute to the progress of mankind. it is none the less a folly or a sin. in a civilized nation like ourselves, it is far more heinous than in the ojibeways or the camanches. war is in utter violation of christianity. if war be right, then christianity is wrong, false, a lie. but if christianity be true, if reason, conscience, the religious sense, the highest faculties of man, are to be trusted, then war is the wrong, the falsehood, the lie. i maintain that aggressive war is a sin; that it is national infidelity, a denial of christianity and of god. every man who understands christianity by heart, in its relations to man, to society, the nation, the world, knows that war is a wrong. at this day, with all the enlightenment of our age, after the long peace of the nations, war is easily avoided. whenever it occurs, the very fact of its occurrence convicts the rulers of a nation either of entire incapacity as statesmen, or else of the worst form of treason; treason to the people, to mankind, to god! there is no other alternative. the very fact of an aggressive war shows that the men who cause it must be either fools or traitors. i think lightly of what is called treason against a government. that may be your duty to-day, or mine. certainly it was our fathers' duty not long ago; now it is our boast and their title to honor. but treason against the people, against mankind, against god, is a great sin, not lightly to be spoken of. the political authors of the war on this continent, and at this day, are either utterly incapable of a statesman's work, or else guilty of that sin. fools they are, or traitors they must be. * * * * * let me speak, and in detail, of the evils of war. i wish this were not necessary. but we have found ourselves in a war; the congress has voted our money and our men to carry it on; the governors call for volunteers; the volunteers come when they are called for. no voice of indignation goes forth from the heart of the eight hundred thousand souls of massachusetts; of the seventeen million freemen of the land how few complain; only a man here and there! the press is well-nigh silent. and the church, so far from protesting against this infidelity in the name of christ, is little better than dead. the man of blood shelters himself behind its wall, silent, dark, dead and emblematic. these facts show that it is necessary to speak of the evils of war. i am speaking in a city, whose fairest, firmest, most costly buildings are warehouses and banks; a city whose most popular idol is mammon, the god of gold; whose trinity is a trinity of coin! i shall speak intelligibly, therefore, if i begin by considering war as a waste of property. it paralyzes industry. the very fear of it is a mildew upon commerce. though the present war is but a skirmish, only a few random shots between a squad of regulars and some strolling battalions, a quarrel which in europe would scarcely frighten even the pope; yet see the effect of it upon trade. though the fighting be thousands of miles from boston, your stocks fall in the market; the rate of insurance is altered; your dealer in wood piles his boards and his timber on his wharf, not finding a market. there are few ships in the great southern mart to take the freight of many; exchange is disturbed. the clergyman is afraid to buy a book, lest his children want bread. it is so with all departments of industry and trade. in war the capitalist is uncertain and slow to venture, so the laborer's hand will be still, and his child ill-clad and hungry. in the late war with england, many of you remember the condition of your fisheries, of your commerce; how the ships lay rotting at the wharf. the dearness of cloth, of provisions, flour, sugar, tea, coffee, salt, the comparative lowness of wages, the stagnation of business, the scarcity of money, the universal sullenness and gloom--all this is well remembered now. so is the ruin it brought on many a man. yet but few weeks ago some men talked boastingly of a war with england. there are some men who seem to have no eyes nor ears, only a mouth; whose chief function is talk. of their talk i will say nothing; we look for dust in dry places. but some men thus talked of war, and seemed desirous to provoke it, who can scarce plead ignorance, and i fear not folly, for their excuse. i leave such to the just resentment sure to fall on them from sober, serious men, who dare to be so unpopular as to think before they speak, and then say what comes of thinking. perhaps such a war was never likely to take place, and now, thanks to a few wise men, all danger thereof seems at an end. but suppose it had happened--what would become of your commerce, of your fishing smacks on the banks or along the shore? what of your coasting vessels, doubling the headlands all the way from the st. john's to the nueces? what of your whale ships in the pacific? what of your indiamen, deep freighted with oriental wealth? what of that fleet which crowds across the atlantic sea, trading with east and west and north and south? i know some men care little for the rich, but when the owners keep their craft in port, where can the "hands" find work or their mouths find bread? the shipping of the united states amounts nearly to , , tons. at $ a ton, its value is nearly $ , , . this is the value only of those sea-carriages; their cargoes i cannot compute. allowing one sailor for every twenty tons burden, here will be , seamen. they and their families amount to , souls. in war, what will become of them? a capital of more than $ , , is invested in the fisheries of massachusetts alone. more than , men find profitable employment therein. if each man have but four others in his family, a small number for that class, here are more than , persons in this state alone, whose daily bread depends on this business. they cannot fish in troubled waters, for they are fishermen, not politicians. where could they find bread or cloth in time of war? in dartmoor prison? ask that of your demagogues who courted war! then, too, the positive destruction of property in war is monstrous. a ship of the line costs from $ , to $ , , . the loss of a fleet by capture, by fire, or by decay, is a great loss. you know at what cost a fort is built, if you have counted the sums successively voted for fort adams in rhode island, or those in our own harbor. the destruction of forts is another item in the cost of war. the capture or destruction of merchant ships with their freight, creates a most formidable loss. in the whole tonnage of the united states was scarce half what it is now. yet the loss of ships and their freight, in "the late war," brief as it was, is estimated at $ , , . then the loss by plunder and military occupation is monstrous. the soldier, like the savage, cuts down the tree to gather its fruit. i cannot calculate the loss by burning towns and cities. but suppose boston were bombarded and laid in ashes. calculate the loss if you can. you may say "this could not be," for it is as easy to say no, as yes. but remember what befell us in the last war; remember how recently the best defended capitals of europe, vienna, paris, antwerp, have fallen into hostile hands. consider how often a strong place, like coblentz, mentz, malta, gibraltar, st. juan d'ulloa, has been declared impregnable, and then been taken; calculate the force which might be brought against this town, and you will see that in eight and forty hours, or half that time, it might be left nothing but a heap of ruins smoking in the sun! i doubt not the valor of american soldiers, the skill of their engineers, nor the ability of their commanders. i am ready to believe all this is greater than we are told. still, such are the contingencies of war. if some not very ignorant men had their way, this would be a probability and perhaps a fact. if we should burn every town from the tweed to the thames, it would not rebuild our own city. but on the supposition that nothing is destroyed, see the loss which comes from the misdirection of productive industry. your fleets, forts, dock-yards, arsenals, cannons, muskets, swords and the like, are provided at great cost, and yet are unprofitable. they do not pay. they weave no cloth; they bake no bread; they produce nothing. yet from to , in forty-two years we expended in these things, $ , , , namely, for the navy, etc., $ , , ; for the army, etc., , , . for the same time, all other expenses of the nation came to but $ , , . more than eight ninths of the whole revenue of the nation was spent for purposes of war. in four years, from to , we paid in this way, $ , , . . in six years, from to , we paid annually on the average $ , , ; in all $ , , . our congress has just voted $ , , , as a special grant for the army alone. the , muskets at springfield, are valued at $ , , ; we pay annually $ , to support that arsenal. the navy-yard at charlestown, with its stores, etc., has cost $ , , . and, for all profitable returns, this money might as well be sunk in the bottom of the sea. in some countries it is yet worse. there are towns and cities in which the fortifications have cost more than all the houses, churches, shops, and other property therein. this happens not among the sacs and foxes, but in "christian" europe. then your soldier is the most unprofitable animal you can keep. he makes no railroads; clears no land; raises no corn. no, he can make neither cloth nor clocks! he does not raise his own bread, mend his own shoes, make his shoulder-knot of glory, nor hammer out his own sword. yet he is a costly animal, though useless. if the president gets his fifty thousand volunteers, a thing likely to happen--for though irish lumpers and hod-men want a dollar or a dollar and a half a day, your free american of boston will enlist for twenty-seven cents, only having his livery, his feathers, and his "glory" thrown in--then at $ a month, their wages amount to $ , a month. suppose the present government shall actually make advantageous contracts, and the subsistence of the soldier cost no more than in england, or $ a month, this amounts to $ , . here are $ , , a month to begin with. then, if each man would be worth a dollar a day at any productive work, and there are work days in the month, here are $ , , more to be added, making $ , , a month for the new army of occupation. this is only for the rank and file of the army. the officers, the surgeons, and the chaplains, who teach the soldiers to _wad_ their muskets with the leaves of the bible, will perhaps cost as much more; or, in all, something more than $ , , a month. this of course does not include the cost of their arms, tents, ammunition, baggage, horses, and hospital stores, nor the , gallons of whiskey which the government has just advertised for! what do they give in return? they will give us three things, valor, glory, and--talk; which, as they are not in the price current, i must estimate as i can, and set them all down in one figure = ; not worth the whiskey they cost. new england is quite a new country. seven generations ago it was a wilderness; now it contains about , , souls. if you were to pay all the public debts of these states, and then, in fancy, divide all the property therein by the population, young as we are, i think you would find a larger amount of value for each man than in any other country in the world, not excepting england. the civilization of europe is old; the nations old, england, france, spain, austria, italy, greece; but they have wasted their time, their labor and their wealth in war, and so are poorer than we upstarts of a wilderness. we have fewer fleets, forts, cannon and soldiers for the population, than any other "christian" country in the world. this is one main reason why we have no national debt; why the women need not toil in the hardest labor of the fields, the quarries and the mines; this is the reason that we are well fed, well clad, well housed; this is the reason that massachusetts can afford to spend $ , , a year for her public schools! war, wasting a nation's wealth, depresses the great mass of the people, but serves to elevate a few to opulence and power. every despotism is established and sustained by war. this is the foundation of all the aristocracies of the old world, aristocracies of blood. our famous men are often ashamed that their wealth was honestly got by working, or peddling, and foolishly copy the savage and bloody emblems of ancient heraldry in their assumed coats of arms, industrious men seeking to have a griffin on their seal! nothing is so hostile to a true democracy as war. it elevates a few, often bold, bad men, at the expense of the many, who pay the money and furnish the blood for war. war is a most expensive folly. the revolutionary war cost the general government directly and in specie $ , , . it is safe to estimate the direct cost to the individual states also at the same sum, $ , , ; making a total of $ , , . considering the interruption of business, the waste of time, property and life, it is plain that this could not have been a fourth part of the whole. but suppose it was a third, then the whole pecuniary cost of the war would be $ , , . at the beginning of the revolution the population was about , , ; so that war, lasting about eight years, cost $ for each person. to meet the expenses of the war each year there would have been required a tax of $ . on each man, woman and child! in the florida war we spent between $ , , and $ , , , as an eminent statesman once said, in fighting five hundred invisible indians! it is estimated that the fortifications of the city of paris, when completely furnished, will cost more than the whole taxable property of massachusetts, with her , souls. why, this year our own grant for the army is $ , , . the estimate for the navy is $ , , more; in all $ , , . suppose, which is most unlikely, that we should pay no more, why, that sum alone would support public schools, as good and as costly as those of massachusetts, all over the united states, offering each boy and girl, bond or free, as good a culture as they get here in boston, and then leave a balance of $ , , in our hands! we pay more for ignorance than we need for education! but $ , , is not all we must pay this year. a great statesman has said, in the senate, that our war expenses at present are nearly $ , a day, and the president informs your congress that $ , , more will be wanted for the army and navy before next june! for several years we spent directly more than $ , , for war purposes, though in time of peace. if a railroad cost $ , a mile, then we might build miles a year for that sum, and in five years could build a railroad therewith from boston to the further side of oregon. for the war money we paid in forty-two years, we could have had more than , miles of railroad, and, with dividends at seven per cent., a yearly income of $ , , . for military and naval affairs, in eight years, from to , we paid $ , , . this alone would have made , miles of railroad, and would produce at seven per cent., an annual income of $ , , . . in boston there are nineteen public grammar schools, a latin and english high school. the buildings for these schools twenty in number, have cost $ , . there are also primary schools, in as many houses or rooms. i know not their value, as i think they are not all owned by the city. but suppose them to be worth $ , . then all the school-houses of this city have cost $ , . the cost of these schools for this year is estimated at $ , . the number of scholars in them is , . harvard university, the most expensive college in america, costs about $ , a year. now the ship ohio, lying here in our harbor, has cost $ , , and we pay for it each year $ , more. that is, it has cost $ , more than these school-houses of this city, and costs every year $ , more than harvard university, and all the public schools of boston! the military academy at west point contains two hundred and thirty-six cadets; the appropriation for it last year, was $ , , a sum greater i think, than the cost of all the colleges in maine, new hampshire, vermont and massachusetts, with their , students. the navy-yard at charlestown, with its ordnance, stores, etc., cost $ , , . the cost of the churches in boston is $ , , ; the whole property of harvard university is $ , ; the school-houses of boston are worth $ , ; in all $ , , . thus the navy-yard at charlestown has cost almost as much as the churches and the school-houses of boston, with harvard college, its halls, libraries, all its wealth thrown in. yet what does it teach? our country is singularly destitute of public libraries. you must go across the ocean to read the history of the church or state; all the public libraries in america cannot furnish the books referred to in gibbon's rome, or gieseler's history of the church. i think there is no public library in europe which has cost three dollars a volume. there are six: the vatican, at rome; the royal, at paris; the british museum, at london; the bodleian, at oxford; the university libraries at gottingen and berlin--which contain, it is said, about , , volumes. the recent grant of $ , , for the army is $ , , more than the cost of those magnificent collections! there have been printed about , , different volumes, great and little, within the last years. if the florida war cost but $ , , , it is ten times more than enough to have purchased one copy of each book ever printed, at one dollar a volume, which is more than the average cost. now all these sums are to be paid by the people, "the dear people," whom our republican demagogues love so well, and for whom they spend their lives, rising early, toiling late, those self-denying heroes, those sainted martyrs of the republic, eating the bread of carefulness for them alone! but how are they to be paid? by a direct tax levied on all the property of the nation, so that the poor man pays according to his little, and the rich man in proportion to his much, each knowing when he pays and what he pays for? no such thing; nothing like it. the people must pay and not know it; must be deceived a little, or they would not pay after this fashion! you pay for it in every pound of sugar, copper, coal, in every yard of cloth; and if the counsel of some lovers of the people be followed, you will soon pay for it in each pound of coffee and tea. in this way the rich man always pays relatively less than the poor; often a positively smaller sum. even here i think that three-fourths of all the property is owned by one-fourth of the people, yet that three-fourths by no means pays a third of the national revenue. the tax is laid on things men cannot do without,--sugar, cloth, and the like. the consumption of these articles is not in proportion to wealth but persons. now the poor man, as a general rule, has more children than the rich, and the tax being more in proportion to persons than property, the poor man pays more than the rich. so a tax is really laid on the poor man's children to pay for the war which makes him poor and keeps him poor. i think your captains and colonels, those sons of thunder and heirs of glory, will not tell you so. they tell you so! they know it! poor brothers, how could they? i think your party newspapers, penny or pound, will not tell you so; nor the demagogues, all covered with glory and all forlorn, who tell the people when to hurrah and for what! but if you cipher the matter out for yourself you will find it so, and not otherwise. tell the demagogues, whig or democrat, that. it was an old roman maxim, "the people wished to be deceived; let them." now it is only practised on; not repeated--in public. let us deal justly even with war, giving that its due. there is one class of men who find their pecuniary advantage in it. i mean army contractors, when they chance to be favorites of the party in power; men who let steamboats to lie idle at $ a day. this class of men rejoice in a war. the country may become poor, they are sure to be rich. yet another class turn war to account, get the "glory," and become important in song and sermon. i see it stated in a newspaper that the duke of wellington has received, as gratuities for his military services, $ , , , and $ , a year in pensions! * * * * * but the waste of property is the smallest part of the evil. the waste of life in war is yet more terrible. human life is a sacred thing. go out into the lowest street of boston; take the vilest and most squalid man in that miserable lane, and he is dear to some one. he is called brother; perhaps husband; it may be father; at least, son. a human heart, sadly joyful, beat over him before he was born. he has been pressed fondly to his mother's arms. her tears and her smiles have been for him; perhaps also her prayers. his blood may be counted mean and vile by the great men of the earth who love nothing so well as the dear people, for he has no "coat of arms," no liveried servant to attend him, but it has run down from the same first man. his family is ancient as that of the most long descended king. god made him; made this splendid universe to wait on him and teach him; sent his christ to save him. he is an immortal soul. needlessly to spill that man's blood is an awful sin. it will cry against you out of the ground--cain! where is thy brother? now in war you bring together , men like him on one side, and , of a different nation on the other. they have no natural quarrel with one another. the earth is wide enough for both; neither hinders the sun from the other. many come unwillingly; many not knowing what they fight for. it is but accident that determines on which side the man shall fight. the cannons pour their shot--round, grape, canister; the howitzers scatter their bursting shells; the muskets rain their leaden death; the sword, the bayonet, the horses' iron hoof, the wheels of the artillery, grind the men down into trodden dust. there they lie, the two masses of burning valor, extinguished, quenched, and grimly dead, each covering with his body the spot he defended with his arms. they had no quarrel; yet they lie there, slain by a brother's hand. it is not old and decrepid men, but men of the productive age, full of lusty life. but it is only the smallest part that perish in battle. exposure to cold, wet, heat; unhealthy climates, unwholesome food, rum, and forced marches, bring on diseases which mow down the poor soldiers worse than musketry and grape. others languish of wounds, and slowly procrastinate a dreadful and a tenfold death. far away, there are widows, orphans, childless old fathers, who pore over the daily news to learn at random the fate of a son, a father, or a husband! they crowd disconsolate into the churches, seeking of god the comfort men took from them, praying in the bitterness of a broken heart, while the priest gives thanks for "a famous victory," and hangs up the bloody standard over his pulpit! when ordinary disease cuts off a man, when he dies at his duty, there is some comfort in that loss. "it was the ordinance of god," you say. you minister to his wants; you smoothe down the pillow for the aching head; your love beguiles the torment of disease, and your own bosom gathers half the darts of death. he goes in his time and god takes him. but when he dies in such a war, in battle, it is man who has robbed him of life. it is a murderer that is butchered. nothing alleviates that bitter, burning smart! others not slain are maimed for life. this has no eyes; that no hands; another no feet nor legs. this has been pierced by lances, and torn with the shot, till scarce any thing human is left. the wreck of a body is crazed with pains god never meant for man. the mother that bore him would not know her child. count the orphan asylums in germany and holland; go into the hospital at greenwich, that of the invalids in paris, you see the "trophies" of napoleon and wellington. go to the arsenal at toulon, see the wooden legs piled up there for men now active and whole, and you will think a little of the physical horrors of war. in boston there are perhaps about , able-bodied men between and . suppose them all slain in battle, or mortally hurt, or mown down by the camp-fever, vomito, or other diseases of war, and then fancy the distress, the heart-sickness amid wives, mothers, daughters, sons and fathers, here! yet , is a small number to be murdered in "a famous victory;" a trifle for a whole "glorious campaign" in a great war. the men of boston are no better loved than the men of tamaulipas. there is scarce an old family, of the middle class, in all new england, which did not thus smart in the revolution; many, which have not, to this day, recovered from the bloody blow then falling on them. think, wives, of the butchery of your husbands; think, mothers, of the murder of your sons! here, too, the burden of battle falls mainly on the humble class. they pay the great tribute of money; they pay also the horrid tax of blood. it was not your rich men who fought even the revolution; not they. your men of property and standing were leaguing with the british, or fitting out privateers when that offered a good investment, or buying up the estates of more consistent tories; making money out of the nation's dire distress! true, there were most honorable exceptions; but such, i think, was the general rule. let this be distinctly remembered, that the burden of battle is borne by the humble classes of men; they pay the vast tribute of money; the awful tax of blood! the "glory" is got by a few; poverty, wounds, death, are for the people! military glory is the poorest kind of distinction, but the most dangerous passion. it is an honor to man to be able to mould iron; to be skilful at working in cloth, wood, clay, leather. it is man's vocation to raise corn, to subdue the rebellious fibre of cotton and convert it into beautiful robes, full of comfort for the body. they are the heroes of the race who abridge the time of human toil and multiply its results; they who win great truths from god, and send them to a people's heart; they who balance the many and the one into harmonious action, so that all are united and yet each left free. but the glory which comes of epaulets and feathers; that strutting glory which is dyed in blood--what shall we say of it? in this day it is not heroism; it is an imitation of barbarism long ago passed by. yet it is marvellous how many men are taken with a red coat! you expect it in europe, a land of soldiers and blood. you are disappointed to find that here the champions of force should be held in honor, and that even the lowest should voluntarily enroll themselves as butchers of men! * * * * * yet more: aggressive war is a sin; a corruption of the public morals. it is a practical denial of christianity; a violation of god's eternal law of love. this is so plain that i shall say little upon it to-day. your savagest and most vulgar captain would confess he does not fight as a christian--but as a soldier; your magistrate calls for volunteers--not as a man loving christianity, and loyal to god; only as governor, under oath to keep the constitution, the tradition of the elders; not under oath to keep the commandment of god! in war the laws are suspended, violence and cunning rule everywhere. the battle of yorktown was gained by a lie, though a washington told it. as a soldier it was his duty. men "emulate the tiger;" the hand is bloody, and the heart hard. robbery and murder are the rule, the glory of men. "good men look sad, but ruffians dance and leap." men are systematically trained to burn towns, to murder fathers and sons; taught to consider it "glory" to do so. the government collects ruffians and cut-throats. it compels better men to serve with these and become cut-throats. it appoints chaplains to blaspheme christianity; teaching the ruffians how to pray for the destruction of the enemy, the burning of his towns; to do this in the name of christ and god. i do not censure all the men who serve: some of them know no better; they have heard that a man would "perish everlastingly" if he did not believe the athanasian creed; that if he questioned the story of jonah, or the miraculous birth of jesus, he was in danger of hell-fire, and if he doubted damnation was sure to be damned. they never heard that such a war was a sin; that to create a war was treason, and to fight in it wrong. they never thought of thinking for themselves; their thinking was to read a newspaper, or sleep through a sermon. they counted it their duty to obey the government without thinking if that government be right or wrong. i deny not the noble, manly character of many a soldier, his heroism, self-denial and personal sacrifice. still, after all proper allowance is made for a few individuals, the whole system of war is unchristian and sinful. it lives only by evil passions. it can be defended only by what is low, selfish, and animal. it absorbs the scum of the cities, pirates, robbers, murderers. it makes them worse, and better men like them. to take one man's life is murder; what is it to practise killing as an art, a trade; to do it by thousands? yet i think better of the hands that do the butchering than of the ambitious heads, the cold, remorseless hearts, which plunge the nation into war. in war the state teaches men to lie, to steal, to kill. it calls for privateers, who are commonly pirates with a national charter, and pirates are privateers with only a personal charter. every camp is a school of profanity, violence, licentiousness, and crimes too foul to name. it is so without sixty-five thousand gallons of whiskey. this is unavoidable. it was so with washington's army, with cornwallis's, with that of gustavus adolphus, perhaps the most moral army the world ever saw. the soldier's life generally unfits a man for the citizen's! when he returns from a camp, from a war, back to his native village, he becomes a curse to society and a shame to the mother that bore him. even the soldiers of the revolution, who survived the war, were mostly ruined for life, debauched, intemperate, vicious and vile. what loathsome creatures so many of them were! they bore our burden, for such were the real martyrs of that war, not the men who fell under the shot! how many men of the rank and file in the late war have since become respectable citizens? to show how incompatible are war and christianity, suppose that he who is deemed the most christian of christ's disciples, the well-beloved john, were made a navy-chaplain, and some morning, when a battle is daily looked for, should stand on the gun-deck, amid lockers of shot, his bible resting on a cannon, and expound christianity to men with cutlasses by their side! let him read for the morning lesson the sermon on the mount, and for text take words from his own epistle, so sweet, so beautiful, so true: "every one that loveth is born of god, and knoweth god, for god is love." suppose he tells his strange audience that all men are brothers; that god is their common father; that christ loved us all, showing us how to live the life of love; and then, when he had melted all those savage hearts by words so winsome and so true, let him conclude, "blessed are the men-slayers! seek first the glory which cometh of battle. be fierce as tigers. mar god's image in which your brothers are made. be not like christ, but cain who slew his brother! when you meet the enemy, fire into their bosoms; kill them in the dear name of christ; butcher them in the spirit of god. give them no quarter, for we ought not to lay down our lives for the brethren; only the murderer hath eternal life!" * * * * * yet great as are these three-fold evils, there are times when the soberest men and the best men have welcomed war, coolly and in their better moments. sometimes a people, long oppressed, has "petitioned, remonstrated, cast itself at the feet of the throne," with only insult for answer to its prayer. sometimes there is a contest between a falsehood and a great truth; a self-protecting war for freedom of mind, heart and soul; yes, a war for a man's body, his wife's and children's body, for what is dearer to men than life itself, for the unalienable rights of man, for the idea that all are born free and equal. it was so in the american revolution; in the english, in the french revolution. in such cases men say, "let it come." they take down the firelock in sorrow; with a prayer they go forth to battle, asking that the right may triumph. much as i hate war i cannot but honor such men. were they better, yet more heroic, even war of that character might be avoided. still it is a colder heart than mine which does not honor such men, though it believes them mistaken. especially do we honor them, when it is the few, the scattered, the feeble, contending with the many and the mighty; the noble fighting for a great idea, and against the base and tyrannical. then most men think the gain, the triumph of a great idea, is worth the price it costs, the price of blood. i will not stop to touch that question, if man may ever shed the blood of man. but it is plain that an aggressive war like this is wholly unchristian, and a reproach to the nation and the age. * * * * * now, to make the evils of war still clearer, and to bring them home to your door, let us suppose there was war between the counties of suffolk, on the one side, and middlesex on the other--this army at boston, that at cambridge. suppose the subject in dispute was the boundary line between the two, boston claiming a pitiful acre of flat land, which the ocean at low tide disdained to cover. to make sure of this, boston seizes whole miles of flats, unquestionably not its own. the rulers on one side are fools, and traitors on the other. the two commanders have issued their proclamations; the money is borrowed; the whiskey provided; the soldiers--americans, negroes, irishmen, all the able-bodied men--are enlisted. prayers are offered in all the churches, and sermons preached, showing that god is a man of war, and cain his first saint, an early christian, a christian before christ. the bostonians wish to seize cambridge, burn the houses, churches, college-halls, and plunder the library. the men of cambridge wish to seize boston, burn its houses and ships, plundering its wares and its goods. martial law is proclaimed on both sides. the men of cambridge cut asunder the bridges, and make a huge breach in the mill-dam, planting cannon to enfilade all those avenues. forts crown the hilltops, else so green. men, madder than lunatics, are crowded into the asylum. the bostonians rebuild the old fortifications on the neck; replace the forts on beacon-hill, fort-hill, copps-hill, levelling houses to make room for redoubts and bastions. the batteries are planted, the mortars got ready; the furnaces and magazines are all prepared. the three hills are grim with war. from copps-hill men look anxious to that memorable height the other side of the water. provisions are cut off in boston; no man may pass the lines; the aqueduct refuses its genial supply; children cry for their expected food. the soldiers parade, looking somewhat tremulous and pale; all the able-bodied have come, the vilest most willingly; some are brought by force of drink, some by force of arms. some are in brilliant dresses, some in their working frocks. the banners are consecrated by solemn words.[ ] your church-towers are military posts of observation. there are old testament prayers to the "god of hosts" in all the churches of boston; prayers that god would curse the men of cambridge, make their wives widows, their children fatherless, their houses a ruin, the men corpses, meat for the beast of the field and the bird of the air. last night the bostonians made a feint of attacking charlestown, raining bombs and red-hot cannon-balls from copps-hill, till they have burnt a thousand houses, where the british burnt not half so many. women and children fled screaming from the blazing rafters of their homes. the men of middlesex crowd into charlestown. in the mean time the bostonians hastily repair a bridge or two; some pass that way, some over the neck; all stealthily by night, and while the foe expect them at bunker's, amid the blazing town, they have stolen a march and rush upon cambridge itself. the cambridge men turn back. the battle is fiercely joined. you hear the cannon, the sharp report of musketry. you crowd the hills, the house-tops; you line the common, you cover the shore, yet you see but little in the sulphurous cloud. now the bostonians yield a little, a reinforcement goes over. all the men are gone; even the gray-headed who can shoulder a firelock. they plunge into battle mad with rage, madder with rum. the chaplains loiter behind. "pious men, whom duty brought, to dubious verge of battle fought, to shrive the dying, bless the dead!" the battle hangs long in even scale. at length it turns. the cambridge men retreat, they run, they fly. the houses burn. you see the churches and the colleges go up, a stream of fire. that library--founded amid want and war and sad sectarian strife, slowly gathered by the saving of two centuries, the hope of the poor scholar, the boast of the rich one--is scattered to the winds and burnt with fire, for the solid granite is blasted by powder, and the turrets fall. victory is ours. ten thousand men of cambridge lie dead; eight thousand of boston. there writhe the wounded; men who but few hours before were poured over the battle-field a lava flood of fiery valor--fathers, brothers, husbands, sons. there they lie, torn and mangled; black with powder; red with blood; parched with thirst; cursing the load of life they now must bear with bruised frames and mutilated limbs. gather them into hasty hospitals--let this man's daughter come to-morrow and sit by him, fanning away the flies; he shall linger out a life of wretched anguish unspoken and unspeakable, and when he dies his wife religiously will keep the shot which tore his limbs. there is the battle-field! here the horse charged; there the howitzers scattered their shells, pregnant with death; here the murderous canister and grape mowed down the crowded ranks; there the huge artillery, teeming with murder, was dragged o'er heaps of men--wounded friends who just now held its ropes, men yet curling with anguish, like worms in the fire. hostile and friendly, head and trunk are crushed beneath those dreadful wheels. here the infantry showered their murdering shot. that ghastly face was beautiful the day before--a sabre hewed its half away. "the earth is covered thick with other clay, which her own clay must cover, heaped and pent, rider and horse, friend, foe, in one red burial blent." again it is night. oh, what a night, and after what a day! yet the pure tide of woman's love, which never ebbs since earth began, flows on in spite of war and battle. stealthily, by the pale moonlight, a mother of boston treads the weary miles to reach that bloody spot; a widow she--seeking among the slain her only son. the arm of power drove him forth reluctant to the fight. a friendly soldier guides her way. now she turns over this face, whose mouth is full of purple dust, bit out of the ground in his extremest agony, the last sacrament offered him by earth herself; now she raises that form, cold, stiff, stony and ghastly as a dream of hell. but, lo! another comes, she too a woman, younger and fairer, yet not less bold, a maiden from the hostile town to seek her lover. they meet, two women among the corpses; two angels come to golgotha, seeking to raise a man. there he lies before them; they look. yes it is he you seek; the same dress, form, features too; it is he, the son, the lover. maid and mother could tell that face in any light. the grass is wet with his blood. the ground is muddy with the life of men. the mother's innocent robe is drabbled in the blood her bosom bore. their kisses, groans, and tears, recall the wounded man. he knows the mother's voice; that voice yet more beloved. his lips move only, for they cannot speak. he dies! the waxing moon moves high in heaven, walking in beauty amid the clouds, and murmurs soft her cradle song unto the slumbering earth. the broken sword reflects her placid beams. a star looks down and is imaged back in a pool of blood. the cool night wind plays in the branches of the trees shivered with shot. nature is beautiful--that lovely grass underneath their feet; those pendulous branches of the leafy elm; the stars and that romantic moon lining the clouds with silver light! a groan of agony, hopeless and prolonged, wails out from that bloody ground. but in yonder farm the whippoorwill sings to her lover all night long; the rising tide ripples melodious against the shores. so wears the night away,--nature, all sinless, round that field of woe. "the morn is up again, the dewy morn, with breath all incense and with cheek all bloom, laughing the clouds away with playful scorn, and living as if earth contained no tomb, and glowing into day." what a scene that morning looks upon! i will not turn again. let the dead bury their dead. but their blood cries out of the ground against the rulers who shed it,--"cain! where are thy brothers?" what shall the fool answer; what the traitor say? then comes thanksgiving in all the churches of boston. the consecrated banners, stiff with blood and "glory," are hung over the altar. the minister preaches and the singer sings: "the lord hath been on our side. he treadeth the people under me. he teacheth my hands to war, my fingers to fight. yea, he giveth me the necks of mine enemies; for the lord is his name;" and "it was a famous victory!" boston seizes miles square of land; but her houses are empty; her wives widows; her children fatherless. rachel weeps for the murder of her innocents, yet dares not rebuke the rod. i know there is no fighting across charles river, as in this poor fiction; but there was once, and instead of charles say rio grande; for cambridge read metamoras, and it is what your president recommended; what your congress enacted; what your governor issued his proclamation for; what your volunteers go to accomplish: yes, what they fired cannon for on boston common the other day. i wish that were a fiction of mine! * * * * * we are waging a most iniquitous war--so it seems to me. i know i may be wrong, but i am no partisan, and if i err, it is not wilfully, not rashly. i know the mexicans are a wretched people; wretched in their origin, history, and character. i know but two good things of them as a people--they abolished negro slavery, not long ago; they do not covet the lands of their neighbors. true, they have not paid all their debts, but it is scarcely decent in a nation, with any repudiating states, to throw the first stone at mexico for that! i know the mexicans cannot stand before this terrible anglo-saxon race, the most formidable and powerful the world ever saw; a race which has never turned back; which, though it number less than forty millions, yet holds the indies, almost the whole of north america; which rules the commerce of the world; clutches at new holland, china, new zealand, borneo, and seizes island after island in the furthest seas; the race which invented steam as its awful type. the poor, wretched mexicans can never stand before us. how they perished in battle! they must melt away as the indians before the white man. considering how we acquired louisiana, florida, oregon, i cannot forbear thinking that this people will possess the whole of the continent before many years; perhaps before the century ends. but this may be had fairly; with no injustice to any one; by the steady advance of a superior race, with superior ideas and a better civilization; by commerce, trade, arts, by being better than mexico, wiser, humaner, more free and manly. is it not better to acquire it by the schoolmaster than the cannon; by peddling cloth, tin, any thing rather than bullets? it may not all belong to this government, and yet to this race. it would be a gain to mankind if we could spread over that country the idea of america--that all men are born free and equal in rights, and establish there political, social, and individual freedom. but to do that, we must first make real these ideas at home. in the general issue between this race and that, we are in the right. but in this special issue, and this particular war, it seems to me that we are wholly in the wrong; that our invasion of mexico is as bad as the partition of poland in the last century and in this. if i understand the matter, the whole movement, the settlement of texas, the texan revolution, the annexation of texas, the invasion of mexico, has been a movement hostile to the american idea, a movement to extend slavery. i do not say such was the design on the part of the people, but on the part of the politicians who pulled the strings. i think the papers of the government and the debates of congress prove that. the annexation has been declared unconstitutional in its mode, a virtual dissolution of the union, and that by very high and well-known authority. it was expressly brought about for the purpose of extending slavery. an attempt is now made to throw the shame of this on the democrats. i think the democrats deserve the shame; but i could never see that the whigs, on the whole, deserved it any less; only they were not quite so open. certainly, their leaders did not take ground against it, never as against a modification of the tariff! when we annexed texas we of course took her for better or worse, debts and all, and annexed her war along with her. i take it everybody knew that; though now some seem to pretend a decent astonishment at the result. now one party is ready to fight for it as the other! the north did not oppose the annexation of texas. why not? they knew they could make money by it. the eyes of the north are full of cotton; they see nothing else, for a web is before them; their ears are full of cotton, and they hear nothing but the buzz of their mills; their mouth is full of cotton, and they can speak audibly but two words--tariff, tariff, dividends, dividends. the talent of the north is blinded, deafened, gagged with its own cotton. the north clamored loudly when the nation's treasure was removed from the united states bank; it is almost silent at the annexation of a slave territory big as the kingdom of france, encumbered with debts, loaded with the entailment of war! northern governors call for soldiers; our men volunteer to fight in a most infamous war for the extension of slavery! tell it not in boston, whisper it not in faneuil hall, lest you weaken the slumbers of your fathers, and they curse you as cowards and traitors unto men! not satisfied with annexing texas and a war, we next invaded a territory which did not belong to texas, and built a fort on the rio grande, where, i take it, we had no more right than the british, in , had on the penobscot or the saco. now the government and its congress would throw the blame on the innocent, and say war exists "by the act of mexico!" if a lie was ever told, i think this is one. then the "dear people" must be called on for money and men, for "the soil of this free republic is invaded," and the governor of massachusetts, one of the men who declared the annexation of texas unconstitutional, recommends the war he just now told us to pray against, and appeals to our "patriotism," and "humanity," as arguments for butchering the mexicans, when they are in the right and we in the wrong! the maxim is held up, "our country, right or wrong;" "our country, howsoever bounded;" and it might as well be, "our country, howsoever governed." it seems popularly and politically forgotten that there is such a thing as right. the nation's neck invites a tyrant. i am not at all astonished that northern representatives voted for all this work of crime. they are no better than southern representatives; scarcely less in favor of slavery, and not half so open. they say: let the north make money, and you may do what you please with the nation; and we will choose governors that dare not oppose you, for, though we are descended from the puritans we have but one article in our creed we never flinch from following, and that is--to make money; honestly, if we can; if not, as we can! look through the action of your government, and your congress. you see that no reference has been had in this affair to christian ideas; none to justice and the eternal right. nay, none at all! in the churches, and among the people, how feeble has been the protest against this great wrong. how tamely the people yield their necks--and say: "take our sons for the war--we care not, right or wrong." england butchers the sikhs in india--her generals are elevated to the peerage, and the head of her church writes a form of thanksgiving for the victory, to be read in all the churches of that christian land.[ ] to make it still more abominable, the blasphemy is enacted on easter sunday, the great holiday of men who serve the prince of peace. we have not had prayers in the churches, for we have no political archbishop. but we fired cannon in joy that we had butchered a few wretched men--half starved, and forced into the ranks by fear of death! your peace societies, and your churches, what can they do? what dare they? verily, we are a faithless and perverse generation. god be merciful to us, sinners as we are! * * * * * but why talk for ever? what shall we do? in regard to this present war, we can refuse to take any part in it; we can encourage others to do the same; we can aid men, if need be, who suffer because they refuse. men will call us traitors: what then? that hurt nobody in ' ! we are a rebellious nation; our whole history is treason; our blood was attainted before we were born; our creeds are infidelity to the mother-church; our constitution treason to our father-land. what of that? though all the governors in the world bid us commit treason against man, and set the example, let us never submit. let god only be a master to control our conscience! we can hold public meetings in favor of peace, in which what is wrong shall be exposed and condemned. it is proof of our cowardice that this has not been done before now. we can show in what the infamy of a nation consists; in what its real glory. one of your own men, the last summer, startled the churches out of their sleep,[ ] by his manly trumpet, talking with us, and telling that the true grandeur of a nation was justice, not glory; peace, not war. we can work now for future times, by taking pains to spread abroad the sentiments of peace, the ideas of peace, among the people in schools, churches--everywhere. at length we can diminish the power of the national government, so that the people alone shall have the power to declare war, by a direct vote, the congress only to recommend it. we can take from the government the means of war by raising only revenue enough for the nation's actual wants, and raising that directly, so that each man knows what he pays, and when he pays it, and then he will take care that it is not paid to make him poor and keep him so. we can diffuse a real practical christianity among the people, till the mass of men have courage enough to overcome evil with good, and look at aggressive war as the worst of treason and the foulest infidelity! now is the time to push and be active. war itself gives weight to words of peace. there will never be a better time till we make the times better. it is not a day for cowardice, but for heroism. fear not that the "honor of the nation" will suffer from christian movements for peace. what if your men of low degree are a vanity, and your men of high degree are a lie? that is no new thing. let true men do their duty, and the lie and the vanity will pass each to its reward. wait not for the churches to move, or the state to become christian. let us bear our testimony like men, not fearing to be called traitors, infidels; fearing only to be such. i would call on americans, by their love of our country, its great ideas, its real grandeur, its hopes, and the memory of its fathers--to come and help save that country from infamy and ruin. i would call on christians, who believe that christianity is a truth, to lift up their voice, public and private, against the foulest violation of god's law, this blasphemy of the holy spirit of christ, this worst form of infidelity to man and god. i would call on all men, by the one nature that is in you, by the great human heart beating alike in all your bosoms, to protest manfully against this desecration of the earth, this high treason against both man and god. teach your rulers that you are americans, not slaves; christians, not heathen; men, not murderers, to kill for hire! you may effect little in this generation, for its head seems crazed and its heart rotten. but there will be a day after to-day. it is for you and me to make it better; a day of peace, when nation shall no longer lift up sword against nation; when all shall indeed be brothers, and all blest. do this, you shall be worthy to dwell in this beautiful land; christ will be near you; god work with you, and bless you for ever! this present trouble with mexico may be very brief; surely it might be even now brought to an end with no unusual manhood in your rulers. can we say we have not deserved it? let it end, but let us remember that war, horrid as it is, is not the worst calamity which ever befalls a people. it is far worse for a people to lose all reverence for right, for truth, all respect for man and god; to care more for the freedom of trade than the freedom of men; more for a tariff than millions of souls. this calamity came upon us gradually, long before the present war, and will last long after that has died away. like people like ruler, is a true word. look at your rulers, representatives, and see our own likeness! we reverence force, and have forgot there is any right beyond the vote of a congress or a people; any good beside dollars; any god but majorities and force, i think the present war, though it should cost , men and $ , , , the smallest part of our misfortune. abroad we are looked on as a nation of swindlers and men-stealers! what can we say in our defence? alas, the nation is a traitor to its great idea,--that all men are born equal, each with the same unalienable rights. we are infidels to christianity. we have paid the price of our shame. there have been dark days in this nation before now. it was gloomy when washington with his little army fled through the jerseys. it was a long dark day from ' to ' . it was not so dark as now; the nation never so false. there was never a time when resistance to tyrants was so rare a virtue; when the people so tamely submitted to a wrong. now you can feel the darkness. the sack of this city and the butchery of its people were a far less evil than the moral deadness of the nation. men spring up again like the mown grass; but to raise up saints and heroes in a dead nation corrupting beside its golden tomb, what shall do that for us? we must look not to the many for that, but to the few who are faithful unto god and man. i know the hardy vigor of our men, the stalwart intellect of this people. would to god they could learn to love the right and true. then what a people should we be, spreading from the madawaska to the sacramento, diffusing our great idea, and living our religion, the christianity of christ! oh, lord! make the vision true; waken thy prophets and stir thy people till righteousness exalt us! no wonders will be wrought for that. but the voice of conscience speaks to you and me, and all of us: the right shall prosper; the wicked states shall die, and history responds her long amen. what lessons come to us from the past! the genius of the old civilization, solemn and sad, sits there on the alps, his classic beard descending o'er his breast. behind him arise the new nations, bustling with romantic life. he bends down over the midland sea, and counts up his children--assyria, egypt, tyre, carthage, troy, etruria, corinth, athens, rome--once so renowned, now gathered with the dead, their giant ghosts still lingering pensive o'er the spot. he turns westward his face, too sad to weep, and raising from his palsied knee his trembling hand, looks on his brother genius of the new civilization. that young giant, strong and mocking, sits there on the alleghanies. before him lie the waters, covered with ships; behind him he hears the roar of the mississippi and the far distant oregon--rolling their riches to the sea. he bends down, and that far ocean murmurs pacific in his ear. on his left, are the harbors, shops and mills of the east, and a five-fold gleam of light goes up from northern lakes. on his right, spread out the broad savannahs of the south, waiting to be blessed; and far off that mexique bay bends round her tropic shores. a crown of stars is on that giant's head, some glorious with flashing, many-colored light; some bloody red; some pale and faint, of most uncertain hue. his right hand lies folded in his robe; the left rests on the bible's opened page, and holds these sacred words--all men are equal, born with equal rights from god. the old says to the young: "brother, beware!" and alps and rocky mountains say "beware!" that stripling giant, ill-bred and scoffing, shouts amain: "my feet are red with the indians' blood; my hand has forged the negro's chain. i am strong; who dares assail me? i will drink his blood, for i have made my covenant of lies, and leagued with hell for my support. there is no right, no truth; christianity is false, and god a name." his left hand rends those sacred scrolls, casting his bibles underneath his feet, and in his right he brandishes the negro-driver's whip, crying again--"say, who is god, and what is right." and all his mountains echo--right. but the old genius sadly says again: "though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not prosper." the hollow tomb of egypt, athens, rome, of every ancient state, with all their wandering ghosts, replies, "amen." footnotes: [ ] isaiah lxiii. - . _noyes's_ version. _the people._ . who is this that cometh from edom? in scarlet garments from bozrah? this, that is glorious in his apparel, proud in the greatness of his strength? _jehovah._ i, that proclaim deliverance, and am mighty to save. _the people._ . wherefore is thine apparel red, and thy garments like those of one that treadeth the wine-vat? _jehovah._ . i have trodden the wine-vat alone, and of the nations there was none with me. and i trod them in mine anger, and i trampled them in my fury, so that their life-blood was sprinkled upon my garments, and i have stained all my apparel. . for the day of vengeance was in my heart, and the year of my deliverance was come. . and i looked, and there was none to help, and i wondered, that there was none to uphold, therefore my own arm wrought salvation for me, and my fury, it sustained me. . i trod down the nations in my anger; i crushed them in my fury, and spilled their blood upon the ground. [ ] to show the differences between the old and new testament, and to serve as introduction to this discourse, the following passages were read as the morning lesson: exodus, xv. - ; sam. xxii. , - , ; xlv. - ; isa. lxvi. , ; joel, iii. - , and matt. v. - , - , - . [ ] such was the price offered, and such the number of soldiers then called for. [ ] see the appropriate forms of prayer for that service by the present bishop of oxford, in jay's address before the american peace society, in . [ ] _form of prayer and thanksgiving to almighty god._ "o lord god of hosts, in whose hand is power and might irresistible, we, thine unworthy servants, most humbly acknowledge thy goodness in the victories lately vouchsafed to the armies of our sovereign over a host of barbarous invaders, who sought to spread desolation over fruitful and populous provinces, enjoying the blessings of peace, under the protection of the british crown. we bless thee, o merciful lord, for having brought to a speedy and prosperous issue a war to which no occasion had been given by injustice on our part, or apprehension of injury at our hands! to thee, o lord, we ascribe the glory! it was thy wisdom which guided the counsel! thy power which strengthened the hands of those whom it pleased thee to use as thy instruments in the discomfiture of the lawless aggressor, and the frustration of his ambitious designs! from thee, alone, cometh the victory, and the spirit of moderation and mercy in the day of success. continue, we beseech thee, to go forth with our armies, whensoever they are called into battle in a righteous cause; and dispose the hearts of their leaders to exact nothing more from the vanquished than is necessary for the maintenance of peace and security against violence and rapine. "above all, give thy grace to those who preside in the councils of our sovereign, and administer the concerns of her widely extended dominions, that they may apply all their endeavors to the purposes designed by thy good providence, in committing such power to their hands, the temporal and spiritual benefit of the nations intrusted to their care. "and whilst thou preservest our distant possessions from the horrors of war, give us peace and plenty at home, that the earth may yield her increase, and that we, thy servants, receiving thy blessings with thankfulness and gladness of heart, may dwell together in unity, and faithfully serve thee, to thy honor and glory, through jesus christ our lord, to whom, with thee and the holy ghost, belong all dominion and power, both in heaven and earth, now and for ever. amen."--see a defence of this prayer, in the london "christian observer" for may, p. , _et seq._, and for june, p. , _et seq._ would you know what he gave thanks for on easter sunday? here is the history of the battle: "this battle had begun at six, and was over at eleven o'clock; the hand-to-hand combat commenced at nine, and lasted scarcely two hours. the river was full of sinking men. for two hours, volley after volley was poured in upon the human mass--the stream being literally red with blood, and covered with the bodies of the slain. at last, the musket ammunition becoming exhausted, the infantry fell to the rear, the horse artillery plying grape till not a man was visible within range. no compassion was felt or mercy shown." but "'twas a famous victory!" [ ] mr. charles sumner. iv. speech delivered at the anti-war meeting in faneuil hall, february , . mr. chairman,--we have come here to consult for the honor of our country. the honor and dignity of the united states are in danger. i love my country; i love her honor. it is dear to me almost as my own. i have seen stormy meetings in faneuil hall before now, and am not easily disturbed by a popular tumult. but never before did i see a body of armed soldiers attempting to overawe the majesty of the people, when met to deliberate on the people's affairs. yet the meetings of the people of boston have been disturbed by soldiers before now, by british bayonets; but never since the boston massacre on the th of march, ! our fathers hated a standing army. this is a new one, but behold the effect! here are soldiers with bayonets to overawe the majesty of the people! they went to our meeting last monday night, the hireling soldiers of president polk, to overawe and disturb the meetings of honest men. here they are now, and in arms! we are in a war; the signs of war are seen here in boston. men, needed to hew wood and honestly serve society, are marching about your streets; they are learning to kill men, men who never harmed us, nor them; learning to kill their brothers. it is a mean and infamous war we are fighting. it is a great boy fighting a little one, and that little one feeble and sick. what makes it worse is, the little boy is in the right, and the big boy is in the wrong, and tells solemn lies to make his side seem right. he wants, besides, to make the small boy pay the expenses of the quarrel. the friends of the war say "mexico has invaded our territory!" when it is shown that it is we who have invaded hers, then it is said, "ay, but she owes us money." better say outright, "mexico has land, and we want to steal it!" this war is waged for a mean and infamous purpose, for the extension of slavery. it is not enough that there are fifteen slave states, and , , men here who have no legal rights--not so much as the horse and the ox have in boston: it is not enough that the slaveholders annexed texas, and made slavery perpetual therein, extending even north of mason and dixon's line, covering a territory forty-five times as large as the state of massachusetts. oh, no; we must have yet more land to whip negroes in! the war had a mean and infamous beginning. it began illegally, unconstitutionally. the whigs say, "the president made the war." mr. webster says so! it went on meanly and infamously. your congress lied about it. do not lay the blame on the democrats; the whigs lied just as badly. your congress has seldom been so single-mouthed before. why, only sixteen voted against the war, or the lie. i say this war is mean and infamous all the more, because waged by a people calling itself democratic and christian. i know but one war so bad in modern times, between civilized nations, and that was the war for the partition of poland. even for that there was more excuse. we have come to faneuil hall to talk about the war; to work against the war. it is rather late, but "better late than never." we have let two opportunities for work pass unemployed. one came while the annexation of texas was pending. then was the time to push and be active. then was the time for massachusetts and all the north, to protest as one man against the extension of slavery. everybody knew all about the matter, the democrats and the whigs. but how few worked against that gross mischief! one noble man lifted up his warning voice;[ ] a man noble in his father,--and there he stands in marble; noble in himself--and there he stands yet higher up--and i hope time will show him yet nobler in his son, and there he stands, not in marble, but in man! he talked against it, worked against it, fought against it. but massachusetts did little. her tonguey men said little; her handymen did little. too little could not be done or said. true, we came here to faneuil hall and passed resolutions; good resolutions they were, too. daniel webster wrote them, it is said. they did the same in the state house; but nothing came of them. they say "hell is paved with resolutions;" these were of that sort of resolutions; which resolve nothing because they are of words, not works! well, we passed the resolutions; you know who opposed them; who hung back and did nothing, nothing good i mean; quite enough not good. then we thought all the danger was over; that the resolutions settled the matter. but then was the time to confound at once the enemies of your country; to show an even front hostile to slavery. but the chosen time passed over, and nothing was done. do not lay the blame on the democrats; a whig senate annexed texas, and so annexed a war. we ought to have told our delegation in congress, if texas were annexed, to come home, and we would breathe upon it and sleep upon it, and then see what to do next. had our resolutions, taken so warmly here in faneuil hall in , been but as warmly worked out, we had now been as terrible to the slave power as the slave power, since extended, now is to us! why was it that we did nothing? that is a public secret. perhaps i ought not to tell it to the people. (cries of "tell it.") the annexation of texas, a slave territory big as the kingdom of france, would not furl a sail on the ocean; would not stop a mill-wheel at lowell! men thought so. that time passed by, and there came another. the government had made war; the congress voted the dollars, voted the men, voted a lie. your representative, men of boston, voted for all three; the lie, the dollars, and the men; all three, in obedience to the slave power! let him excuse that to the conscience of his party; it is an easy matter. i do not believe he can excuse it to his own conscience. to the conscience of the world it admits of no excuse. your president called for volunteers, , of them. then came an opportunity such as offers not once in one hundred years, an opportunity to speak for freedom and the rights of mankind! then was the time for massachusetts to stand up in the spirit of ' , and say, "we won't send a man, from cape ann to williamstown--not one yankee man, for this wicked war." then was the time for your governor to say, "not a volunteer for this wicked war." then was the time for your merchants to say, "not a ship, not a dollar for this wicked war;" for your manufacturers to say, "we will not make you a cannon, nor a sword, nor a kernel of powder, nor a soldier's shirt, for this wicked war." then was the time for all good men to say, "this is a war for slavery, a mean and infamous war; an aristocratic war, a war against the best interests of mankind. if god please, we will die a thousand times, but never draw blade in this wicked war." (cries of "throw him over," etc.) throw him over, what good would that do? what would you do next, after you have thrown him over? ("drag you out of the hall!") what good would that do? it would not wipe off the infamy of this war! would not make it less wicked! that is what a democratic nation, a christian people ought to have said, ought to have done. but we did not say so; the bay state did not say so, nor your governor, nor your merchants, nor your manufacturers, nor your good men; the governor accepted the president's decree, issued his proclamation calling for soldiers, recommended men to enlist, appealing to their "patriotism" and "humanity." governor briggs is a good man, and so far i honor him. he is a temperance man, strong and consistent; i honor him for that. he is a friend of education; a friend of the people. i wish there were more such. like many other new england men, he started from humble beginnings; but unlike many such successful men of new england, he is not ashamed of the lowest round he ever trod on. i honor him for all this. but that was a time which tried men's souls, and his soul could not stand the rack. i am sorry for him. he did as the president told him. what was the reason for all this? massachusetts did not like the war, even then; yet she gave her consent to it. why so? there are two words which can drive the blood out of the cheeks of cowardly men in massachusetts any time. they are "federalism" and "hartford convention!" the fear of those words palsied the conscience of massachusetts, and so her governor did as he was told. i feel no fear of either. the federalists did not see all things; who ever did? they had not the ideas which were destined to rule this nation; they looked back when the age looked forward. but to their own ideas they were true; and if ever a nobler body of men held state in any nation, i have yet to learn when or where. if we had had the shadow of caleb strong in the governor's chair, not a volunteer for this war had gone out of massachusetts. i have not told quite all the reasons why massachusetts did nothing. men knew the war would cost money; that the dollars would in the end be raised, not by a direct tax, of which the poor man paid according to his little, and the rich man in proportion to his much, but by a tariff which presses light on property, and hard on the person; by a tax on the backs and mouths of the people. some of the whigs were glad last spring, when the war came, for they hoped thereby to save the child of their old age, the tariff of ' . there are always some rich men, who say "no matter what sort of a government we have, so long as we get our dividends;" always some poor men, who say "no matter how much the nation suffers, if we fill our hungry purses thereby." well, they lost their virtue, lost their tariff, and gained just nothing; what they deserved to gain. now a third opportunity has come; no, it has not come; we have brought it. the president wants a war tax on tea and coffee. is that democratic, to tax every man's breakfast and supper, for the sake of getting more territory to whip negroes in? (numerous cries of "yes.") then what do you think despotism would be? he asks a loan of $ , , for this war. he wants $ , , to spend privately for this war. in eight months past, he has asked i am told for $ , , . seventy-four millions of dollars to conquer slave territory! is that democratic too? he wants to increase the standing army, to have ten regiments more! a pretty business that. ten regiments to gag the people in faneuil hall. do you think that is democratic? some men have just asked massachusetts for $ , for the volunteers! it is time for the people to rebuke all this wickedness. * * * * * i think there is a good deal to excuse the volunteers. i blame them, for some of them know what they are about. yet i pity them more, for most of them, i am told, are low, ignorant men; some of them drunken and brutal. from the uproar they make here to-night, arms in their hands, i think what was told me is true! i say i pity them! they are my brothers; not the less brothers because low and misguided. if they are so needy that they are forced to enlist by poverty, surely i pity them. if they are of good families, and know better, i pity them still more! i blame most the men that have duped the rank and file! i blame the captains and colonels, who will have least of the hardships, most of the pay, and all of the "glory." i blame the men that made the war; the men that make money out of it. i blame the great party men of the land. did not mr. clay say he hoped he could slay a mexican? (cries, "no, he didn't.") yes, he did; said it on forefather's day! did not mr. webster, in the streets of philadelphia, bid the volunteers, misguided young men, go and uphold the stars of their country? (voices, "he did right!") no, he should have said the stripes of his country, for every volunteer to this wicked war is a stripe on the nation's back! did not he declare this war unconstitutional, and threaten to impeach the president who made it, and then go and invest a son in it? has it not been said here, "our country, howsoever bounded," bounded by robbery or bounded by right lines! has it not been said, all round, "our country, right or wrong!" i say i blame not so much the volunteers as the famous men who deceive the nation! (cries of "throw him over, kill him, kill him," and a flourish of bayonets.) throw him over! you will not throw him over. kill him! i shall walk home unarmed and unattended, and not a man of you will hurt one hair of my head. i say again it is time for the people to take up this matter. your congress will do nothing till you tell them what and how! your th congress can do little good. its sands are nearly run, god be thanked! it is the most infamous congress we ever had. we began with the congress that declared independence, and swore by the eternal justice of god. we have come down to the th congress, which declared war existed by the act of mexico, declared a lie; the congress that swore by the baltimore convention! we began with george washington, and have got down to james k. polk. it is time for the people of massachusetts to instruct their servants in congress to oppose this war; to refuse all supplies for it; to ask for the recall of the army into our own land. it is time for us to tell them that not an inch of slave territory shall ever be added to the realm. let us remonstrate; let us petition; let us command. if any class of men have hitherto been remiss, let them come forward now and give us their names--the merchants, the manufacturers, the whigs and the democrats. if men love their country better than their party or their purse, now let them show it. let us ask the general court of massachusetts to cancel every commission which the governor has given to the officers of the volunteers. let us ask them to disband the companies not yet mustered into actual service; and then, if you like that, ask them to call a convention of the people of massachusetts, to see what we shall do in reference to the war; in reference to the annexation of more territory; in reference to the violation of the constitution! (loud groans from crowds of rude fellows in several parts of the hall.) that was a tory groan; they never dared groan so in faneuil hall before; not even the british tories, when they had no bayonets to back them up! i say, let us ask for these things! your president tells us it is treason to talk so! treason is it? treason to discuss a war which the government made, and which the people are made to pay for? if it be treason to speak against the war, what was it to make the war, to ask for , men and $ , , for the war? why, if the people cannot discuss the war they have got to fight and to pay for, who under heaven can? whose business is it, if it is not yours and mine? if my country is in the wrong, and i know it, and hold my peace, then i am guilty of treason, moral treason. why, a wrong,--it is only the threshold of ruin. i would not have my country take the next step. treason is it, to show that this war is wrong and wicked! why, what if george iii., any time from ' to ' , had gone down to parliament and told them it was treason to discuss the war then waging against these colonies! what do you think the commons would have said? what would the lords say? why, that king, foolish as he was, would have been lucky, if he had not learned there was a joint in his neck, and, stiff as he bore him, that the people knew how to find it. i do not believe in killing kings, or any other men; but i do say, in a time when the nation was not in danger, that no british king, for two hundred years past, would have dared call it treason to discuss the war--its cause, its progress, or its termination! now is the time to act! twice we have let the occasion slip; beware of the third time! let it be infamous for a new england man to enlist; for a new-england merchant to loan his dollars, or to let his ships in aid of this wicked war; let it be infamous for a manufacturer to make a cannon, a sword, or a kernel of powder, to kill our brothers with, while we all know that they are in the right, and we in the wrong. i know my voice is a feeble one in massachusetts. i have no mountainous position from whence to look down and overawe the multitude; i have no back-ground of political reputation to echo my words; i am but a plain humble man; but i have a back-ground of truth to sustain me, and the justice of heaven arches over my head! for your sakes, i wish i had that oceanic eloquence whose tidal flow should bear on its bosom the drift-weed which politicians have piled together, and sap and sweep away the sand hillocks of soldiery blown together by the idle wind; that oceanic eloquence which sweeps all before it, and leaves the shore hard, smooth and clean! but feeble as i am, let me beg of you, fellow-citizens of boston, men and brothers, to come forward and protest against this wicked war, and the end for which it is waged. i call on the whigs, who love their country better than they love the tariff of ' ; i call on the democrats, who think justice is greater than the baltimore convention,--i call on the whigs and democrats to come forward and join with me in opposing this wicked war! i call on the men of boston, on the men of the old bay state, to act worthy of their fathers, worthy of their country, worthy of themselves! men and brothers, i call on you all to protest against this most infamous war, in the name of the state, in the name of the country, in the name of man, yes, in the name of god: leave not your children saddled with a war debt, to cripple the nation's commerce for years to come. leave not your land cursed with slavery, extended and extending, palsying the nation's arm and corrupting the nation's heart. leave not your memory infamous among the nations, because you feared men, feared the government; because you loved money got by crime, land plundered in war, loved land unjustly bounded; because you debased your country by defending the wrong she dared to do; because you loved slavery; loved war, but loved not the eternal justice of all-judging god. if my counsel is weak and poor, follow one stronger and more manly. i am speaking to men; think of these things, and then act like men. footnotes: [ ] john quincy adams. v. a sermon of the mexican war.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, june , . soon after the commencement of the war against mexico, i said something respecting it in this place. but while i was printing the sermon, i was advised to hasten the compositors in their work, or the war would be over before the sermon was out. the advice was like a good deal of the counsel that is given to a man who thinks for himself, and honestly speaks what he unavoidably thinks. it is now more than two years since the war began; i have hoped to live long enough to see it ended, and hoped to say a word about it when over. a month ago, this day, the th of may, the treaty of peace, so much talked of, was ratified by the mexican congress. a few days ago, it was officially announced by telegraph to your collector in boston, that the war with mexico was at an end. there are two things about this war quite remarkable. the first is, the manner of its commencement. it was begun illegally, without the action of the constitutional authorities; begun by the command of the president of the united states, who ordered the american army into a territory which the mexicans claimed as their own. the president says "it is ours," but the mexicans also claimed it, and were in possession thereof until forcibly expelled. this is a plain case, and as i have elsewhere treated at length of this matter,[ ] i will not dwell upon it again, except to mention a single fact but recently divulged. it is well known that mr. polk claimed the territory west of the nueces and east of the rio grande, as forming a part of texas, and therefore as forming part of the united states after the annexation of texas. he contends that mexico began the war by attacking the american army while in that territory and near the rio grande. but, from the correspondence laid before the american senate, in its secret session for considering the treaty, it now appears that on the th of november, , mr. polk instructed mr. slidell to offer a relinquishment of american claims against mexico, amounting to $ , , or $ , , , for the sake of having the rio grande as the western boundary of texas; yes, for that very territory which he says was ours without paying a cent. when it was conquered, a military government was established there, as in other places in mexico. the other remarkable thing about the war is, the manner of its conclusion. the treaty of peace which has just been ratified by the mexican authorities, and which puts an end to the war, was negotiated by a man who had no more legal authority than any one of us has to do it. mr. polk made the war, without consulting congress, and that body adopted the war by a vote almost unanimous. mr. nicholas p. trist made the treaty, without consulting the president; yes, even after the president had ordered him to return home. as the congress adopted mr. polk's war, so mr. polk adopted mr. trist's treaty, and the war illegally begun is brought informally to a close. mr. polk is now in the president's chair, seated on the throne of the union, although he made the war; and mr. trist, it is said, is under arrest for making the treaty, meddling with what was none of his business. * * * * * when the war began, there was a good deal of talk about it here; talk against it. but, as things often go in boston, it ended in talk. the news-boys made money out of the war. political parties were true to their wonted principles, or their wonted prejudices. the friends of the party in power could see no informality in the beginning of hostilities; no injustice in the war itself; not even an impolicy. they were offended if an obscure man preached against it of a sunday. the political opponents of the party in power talked against the war, as a matter of course; but, when the elections came, supported the men that made it with unusual alacrity--their deeds serving as commentary upon their words, and making further remark thereon, in this place, quite superfluous. many men,--who, whatever other parts of scripture they may forget, never cease to remember that "money answereth all things,"--diligently set themselves to make money out of the war and the new turn it gave to national affairs. others thought that "glory" was a good thing, and so engaged in the war itself, hoping to return, in due time, all glittering with its honors. so what with the one political party that really praised the war, and the other who affected to oppose it, and with the commercial party, who looked only for a market--this for merchandise and that for "patriotism"--the friends of peace, who seriously and heartily opposed the war, were very few in number. true, the "sober second thought" of the people has somewhat increased their number; but they are still few, mostly obscure men. now peace has come, nobody talks much about it; the news-boys have scarce made a cent by the news. they fired cannons, a hundred guns on the common, for joy at the victory of monterey; at philadelphia, baltimore, washington, new york, men illuminated their houses in honor of the battle of buena vista, i think it was; the custom-house was officially illuminated at boston for that occasion. but we hear of no cannons to welcome the peace. thus far, it does not seem that a single candle has been burnt in rejoicing for that. the newspapers are full of talk, as usual; flags are flying in the streets; the air is a little noisy with hurrahs, but it is all talk about the conventions at baltimore and philadelphia; hurrahs for taylor and cass. nobody talks of the peace. flags enough flap in the wind, with the names of rival candidates; but nowhere do the stripes and stars bear peace as their motto. the peace now secured is purchased with such conditions imposed on mexico, that while every one will be glad of it, no man, that loves justice, can be proud of it. very little is said about the treaty. the distinguished senator from massachusetts did himself honor, it seems to me, in voting against it on the ground that it enabled us to plunder mexico of her land. but the treaty contains some things highly honorable to the character of the nation, of which we may well enough be proud, if ever of any thing. i refer to the twenty-second and twenty-third articles, which provide for arbitration between the nations, if future difficulties should occur; and to the pains taken, in case of actual hostilities, for the security of all unarmed persons, for the protection of private property, and for the humane treatment of all prisoners taken in war. these ideas, and the language of these articles, are copied from the celebrated treaty between the united states and prussia, the treaty of . it is scarcely needful to add, that they were then introduced by that great and good man, benjamin franklin, one of the negotiators of the treaty. they made a new epoch in diplomacy, and introduced a principle previously unknown in the law of nations. the insertion of these articles in the new treaty is, perhaps, the only thing connected with the war, which an american can look upon with satisfaction. yet this fact excites no attention.[ ] still, while so little notice is taken of this matter, in public and private, it may be worth while for a minister, on sunday, to say a word about the peace; and, now the war is over, to look back upon it, to see what it has cost, in money and in men, and what we have got by it; what its consequences have been, thus far, and are likely to be for the future; what new dangers and duties come from this cause interpolated into our nation. we have been long promised "indemnity for the past, and security for the future:" let us see what we are to be indemnified for, and what secured against. the natural justice of the war i will not look at now. * * * * * first, then, of the cost of the war. money is the first thing with a good many men; the only thing with some; and an important thing with all. so, first of all, let me speak of the cost of the war in dollars. it is a little difficult to determine the actual cost of the war, thus far--even its direct cost; for the bills are not all in the hands of government; and then, as a matter of political party-craft, the government, of course, is unwilling to let the full cost become known before the next election is over. so it is to be expected that the government will keep the facts from the people as long as possible. most governments would do the same. but truth has a right of way everywhere, and will recover it at last, spite of the adverse possession of a political party. the indirect cost of the war must be still more difficult to come at, and will long remain a matter of calculation, in which it is impossible to reach certainty. we do not know yet the entire cost of the florida war, or the late war with england; the complete cost of the revolutionary war must forever be unknown. it is natural for most men to exaggerate what favors their argument; but when i cannot obtain the exact figures, i will come a good deal within the probable amount. the military and naval appropriations for the year ending in june, , were $ , , . ; for the next year, $ , , . ; the sum asked for the present year, till next june, $ , , ; making a whole of $ , , . . it is true that all this appropriation is not for the mexican war, but it is also true that this sum does not include all the appropriations for the war. estimating the sums already paid by the government, the private claims presented and to be presented, the $ , , to be paid mexico as purchase-money for the territory we take from her, the $ , , or $ , , to be paid our own citizens for their claims against her,--i think i am a good deal within the mark when i say the war will have cost $ , , before the soldiers are at home, discharged, and out of the pay of the state. in this sum i do not include the bounty-lands to be given to the soldiers and officers, nor the pensions to be paid them, their widows and orphans, for years to come. i will estimate that at $ , , more, making a whole of $ , , which has been paid or must be. this is the direct cost to the federal government, and of course does not include the sums paid by individual states, or bestowed by private generosity, to feed and clothe the volunteers before they were mustered into service. this may seem extravagant; but, fifty years hence, when party spirit no longer blinds men's eyes, and when the whole is a matter of history, i think it will be thought moderate, and be found a good deal within the actual and direct cost. some of this cost will appear as a public debt. statements recently made respecting it can hardly be trusted, notwithstanding the authority on which they rest. part of this war debt is funded already, part not yet funded. when the outstanding demands are all settled, and the treasury notes redeemed, there will probably be a war debt of not less than $ , , . at least, such is the estimate of an impartial and thoroughly competent judge. but, not to exaggerate, let us call it only $ , , . it will, perhaps, be said: part of this money, all that is paid in pensions, is a charity, and therefore no loss. but it is a charity paid to men who, except for the war, would have needed no such aid; and, therefore, a waste. of the actual cost of the war, some three or four millions have been spent in extravagant prices for hiring or purchasing ships, in buying provisions and various things needed by the army, and supplied by political favorites at exorbitant rates. this is the only portion of the cost which is not a sheer waste; here the money has only changed hands; nothing has been destroyed, except the honesty of the parties concerned in such transactions. if a farmer hires men to help him till the soil, the men earn their subsistence and their wages, and leave, besides, a profit to their employer; when the season is over, he has his crops and his improvements as the return for their pay and subsistence. but for all that the soldier has consumed, for his wages, his clothes, his food and drink, the fighting tools he has worn out, and the ammunition he has expended, there is no available return to show; all that is a clear waste. the beef is eaten up, the cloth worn away, the powder is burnt, and what is there to show for it all? nothing but the "glory." you sent out sound men, and they come back, many of them, sick and maimed; some of them are slain. the indirect pecuniary cost of the war is caused, first, by diverting some , men, engaged in the war directly or remotely, from the works of productive industry, to the labors of war, which produce nothing; and, secondly, by disturbing the regular business of the country, first by the withdrawal of men from their natural work; then, by withdrawing large quantities of money from the active capital of the nation; and, finally, by the general uncertainty which it causes all over the land, thus hindering men from undertaking or prosecuting successfully their various productive enterprises. if , men earn on the average but $ apiece, that alone amounts to $ , , . the withdrawal of such an amount of labor from the common industry of the country must be seriously felt. at any rate, the nation has earned $ , , less than it would have done, if these men had kept about their common work. but the diversion of capital from its natural and pacific direction is a greater evil in this case. america is rich, but her wealth consists mainly in land, in houses, cattle, ships, and various things needed for human comfort and industry. in money, we are poor. the amount of money is small in proportion to the actual wealth of the nation, and also in proportion to its activity which is indicated by the business of the nation. in actual wealth, the free states of america are probably the richest people in the world; but in money we are poorer than many other nations. this is plain enough, though perhaps not very well known, and is shown by the fact that interest, in european states, is from two to four per cent. a year, and in america from six to nine. the active capital of america is small. now in this war, a national debt has accumulated, which probably is or will soon be $ , , or $ , , . all this great sum of money has, of course, been taken from the active capital of the country, and there has been so much less for the use of the farmer, the manufacturer, and the merchant. but for this war, these , men and these $ , , would have been devoted to productive industry; and the result would have been shown by the increase of our annual earnings, in increased wealth and comfort. then war produced uncertainty, and that distrust amongst men. therefore many were hindered from undertaking new works, and others found their old enterprises ruined at once. in this way there has been a great loss, which cannot be accurately estimated. i think no man, familiar with american industry, would rate this indirect loss lower than $ , , ; some, perhaps, at twice as much; but to avoid all possibility of exaggeration, let us call it half the smallest of these sums, or $ , , , as the complete pecuniary cost of the mexican war, direct and indirect. what have we got to show for all this money? we have a large tract of territory, containing, in all, both east and west of the rio grande, i am told, between , and , square miles. accounts differ as to its value. but it appears, from the recent correspondence of mr. slidell, that in the president offered mexico, in money, $ , , for that territory which we now acquire under this new treaty. suppose it is worth more, suppose it is worth twice as much, or all the indirect cost of the war ($ , , ), then the $ , , are thrown away. now, for this last sum, we could have built a sufficient railroad across the isthmus of panama, and another across the continent, from the mississippi to the pacific. if such a road, with its suitable equipment, cost $ , a mile, and the distance should amount to , miles, then the $ , , would just pay the bills. that would have been the greatest national work of productive industry in the world. in comparison with it, the lake moeris and the pyramids of egypt, and the wall of china seem but the works of a child. it might be a work to be proud of till the world ends; one, too, which would advance the industry, the welfare, and general civilization of mankind to a great degree, diminishing, by half, the distance round the globe; saving millions of property and many lives each year; besides furnishing, it is thought, a handsome income from the original outlay. but, perhaps, that would not be the best use which might be made of the money; perhaps it would not have been wise to undertake that work. i do not pretend to judge of such matters, only to show what might be done with that sum of money, if we were disposed to construct works of such a character. at any rate, two pacific railroads would be better than one mexican war. we are seldom aware of the cost of war. if a single regiment of dragoons cost only $ , a year, which is a good deal less than the actual cost, that is considerably more than the cost of twelve colleges like harvard university, with its schools for theology, law, and medicine; its scientific school, observatory, and all. we are, taken as a whole, a very ignorant people; and while we waste our school-money and school-time, must continue so. a great man, who towers far above the common heads, full of creative thought, of the ideas which move the world, able to organize that thought into institutions, laws, practical works; a man of a million, a million-minded man, at the head of a nation, putting his thought into them; ruling not barely by virtue of his position, but by the intellectual and moral power to fill it; ruling not over men's heads, but in their minds and hearts, and leading them to new fields of toil, increasing their numbers, wealth, intelligence, comfort, morals, piety--such a man is a noble sight; a charlemagne, or a genghis khan, a moses leading his nation up from egyptian bondage to freedom and the promised land. how have the eyes of the world been fixed on washington! in darker days than ours, when all was violence, it is easy to excuse such men if they were warriors also, and made, for the time, their nation but a camp. there have been ages when the most lasting ink was human blood. in our day, when war is the exception, and that commonly needless, such a man, so getting the start of the majestic world, were a far grander sight. and with such a man at the head of this nation, a great man at the head of a free nation, able and energetic, and enterprising as we are, what were too much to hope? as it is, we have wasted our money, and got, the honor of fighting such a war. * * * * * let me next speak of the direct cost of the war in men. in april, , the entire army of the united states, consisted of , men; the naval force of about , . we presented the gratifying spectacle of a nation , , strong, with a sea-coast of , or , miles, and only , or , soldiers, and as many armed men on the sea, or less than , in all! few things were more grateful to an american than this thought, that his country was so nearly free from the terrible curse of a standing army. at that time, the standing army of france was about , men; that of russia nearly , it is said. most of the officers in the american army and navy, and most of the rank and file, had probably entered the service with no expectation of ever shedding the blood of men. the navy and army were looked on as instruments of peace; as much so as the police of a city. the first of last january, there was, in mexico, an american army of , regular soldiers, and a little more than , volunteers, the number cannot now be exactly determined, making an army of invasion of about , men. the naval forces, also, had been increased to , . estimating all the men engaged in the service of the army and navy; in making weapons of war and ammunition; in preparing food and clothing; in transporting those things and the soldiers from place to place, by land or sea, and in performing the various other works incident to military operations, it is within bounds to say that there were , or , men engaged indirectly in the works of war. but not to exaggerate, it is safe to say that , men were directly or indirectly engaged in the mexican war. this estimate will seem moderate, when you remember that there were about , teamsters connected with the army in mexico. here, then, were , men whose attention and toil were diverted from the great business of productive industry to merely military operations, or preparations for them. of course, all the labor of these men was of no direct value to the human race. the food and clothing and labor of a man who earns nothing by productive work of hand or head, is food, clothing, and labor thrown away; labor in vain. there is nothing to show for the things he has consumed. so all the work spent in preparing ammunition and weapons of war is labor thrown away, an absolute loss, as much as if it had been spent in making earthen pitchers and then in dashing them to pieces. a country is the richer for every serviceable plough and spade made in it, and the world the richer; they are to be used in productive work, and when worn out, there is the improved soil and the crops that have been gathered, to show for the wear and tear of the tools. so a country is the richer for every industrious shoemaker and blacksmith it contains; for his time and toil go to increase the sum of human comfort, creating actual wealth. the world also is better off, and becomes better through their influence. but a country is the poorer for every soldier it maintains, and the world poorer, as he adds nothing to the actual wealth of mankind; so is it the poorer for each sword and cannon made within its borders, and the world poorer, for these instruments cannot be used in any productive work, only for works of destruction. so much for the labor of these , men; labor wasted in vain. let us now look at the cost of life. it is not possible to ascertain the exact loss suffered up to this time, in killed, deceased by ordinary diseases, and in wounded; for some die before they are mustered into the service of the united states, and parts of the army are so far distant from the seat of government that their recent losses are still unknown. i rely for information on the last report of the secretary of war, read before the senate, april , , and recently printed. that gives the losses of parts of the army up to december last; other accounts are made up only till october, or till august. recent losses will of course swell the amount of destruction. according to that report, on the american side there had been killed in battle, or died of wounds received therein, , persons; there had died of diseases and accidents, , ; , have been wounded in battle, who were not known to be dead at the date of the report. this does not include the deaths in the navy, nor the destruction of men connected with the army in various ways, as furnishing supplies and the like. considering the sickness and accidents that have happened in the present year, and others which may be expected before the troops reach home, i may set down the total number of deaths on the american side, caused by the war, at , , and the number of wounded men at , . suppose the army on the average to have consisted of , men for two years, this gives a mortality of fifteen per cent. each year, which is an enormous loss even for times of war, and one seldom equalled in modern warfare. now, most of the men who have thus died or been maimed were in the prime of life, able-bodied and hearty men. had they remained at home in the works of peace, it is not likely that more than of the number would have died. so then , lives may be set down at once to the account of the war. the wounded men are of course to thank the war, and that alone, for their smart and the life-long agony which they are called on to endure. such is the american loss. the loss of the mexicans we cannot now determine. but they have been many times more numerous than the americans; have been badly armed, badly commanded, badly trained, and besides have been beaten in every battle; their number seemed often the cause of their ruin, making them confident before battle and hindering their retreat after they were beaten. still more, they have been ill provided with surgeons and nurses to care for the wounded, and were destitute of medicines. they must have lost in battle five or six times more than we have done, and have had a proportionate number of wounded. to "lie like a military bulletin" is a european proverb; and it is not necessary to trust reports which tell of or mexicans left dead on the ground, while the americans lost but five or six. but when we remember that only twelve americans were killed during the bombardment of vera cruz, which lasted five days; that the citadel contained more than , soldiers and over pieces of cannon, we may easily believe the mexican losses on the whole have been , men killed and perished of their wounds. their loss by sickness would probably be smaller than our own, for the mexicans were in their native climate, though often ill furnished with clothes, with shelter and provisions: so i will put down their loss by ordinary diseases at only , , making a total of , deaths. suppose their number of wounded was four times as great as our own, or , . i should not be surprised if this were only half the number. put all together and we have in total, americans and mexicans, , men wounded, more or less, and the greater part maimed for life; and we have , men killed on the field of battle, or perished by the slow torture of their wounds, or deceased of diseases caused by extraordinary exposures; , men maimed; , dead! * * * * * you all remember the bill which so hastily passed congress in may, , and authorized the war previously begun. you perhaps have not forgot the preamble, "whereas war exists by the act of mexico." well, that bill authorized the waste of $ , , of american treasure, money enough to have built a railroad across the isthmus of panama, and another to connect the mississippi and the pacific ocean; it demanded the disturbance of industry and commerce all over the land, caused by withdrawing $ , , from peaceful investments, and diverting , americans from their productive and peaceful works; it demanded a loss yet greater of the treasure of mexicans; it commanded the maiming of , men for life, and the death of , men in the prime and vigor of manhood. yet such was the state of feeling, i will not say of thought, in the congress, that out of both houses only sixteen men voted against it. if a prophet had stood there he might have said to the representative of boston, "you have just voted for the wasting of , , of the very dollars you were sent there to represent; for the maiming of , men and the killing of , more--part by disease, part by the sword, part by the slow and awful lingerings of a wounded frame! sir, that is the english of your vote." suppose the prophet, before the vote was taken, could have gone round and told each member of congress, "if there comes a war, you will perish in it;" perhaps the vote would have been a little different. it is easy to vote away blood, if it is not your own! * * * * * such is the cost of the war in money and in men. yet it has not been a very cruel war. it has been conducted with as much gentleness as a war of invasion can be. there is no agreeable way of butchering men. you cannot make it a pastime. the americans have always been a brave people; they were never cruel. they always treated their prisoners kindly--in the revolutionary war, in the late war with england. true, they have seized the mexican ports, taken military possession of the custom-houses, and collected such duties as they saw fit; true, they sometimes made the army of invasion self-subsisting, and to that end have levied contributions on the towns they have taken; true, they have seized provisions which were private property, snatching them out of the hands of men who needed them; true, they have robbed the rich and the poor; true, they have burned and bombarded towns, have murdered men and violated women. all this must of course take place in any war. there will be the general murder and robbery committed on account of the nation, and the particular murder and robbery on account of the special individual. this also is to be expected. you cannot set a town on fire and burn down just half of it, making the flames stop exactly where you will. you cannot take the most idle, ignorant, drunken, and vicious men out of the low population in our cities and large towns, get them drunk enough or foolish enough to enlist, train them to violence, theft, robbery, murder, and then stop the man from exercising his rage or lust on his own private account. if it is hard to make a dog understand that he must kill a hare for his master, but never for himself, it is not much easier to teach a volunteer that it is a duty, a distinction, and a glory to rob and murder the mexican people for the nation's sake, but a wrong, a shame, and a crime to rob or murder a single mexican for his own sake. there have been instances of wanton cruelty, occasioned by private licentiousness and individual barbarity. of these i shall take no further notice, but come to such as have been commanded by the american authorities, and which were the official acts of the nation. one was the capture of tabasco. tabasco is a small town several hundred miles from the theatre of war, situated on a river about eighty miles from the sea, in the midst of a fertile province. the army did not need it, nor the navy. it did not lie in the way of the american operations; its possession would be wholly useless. but one sunday afternoon, while the streets were full of men, women, and children, engaged in their sunday business, a part of the naval force of america swept by; the streets running at right angles with the river, were enfiladed by the hostile cannon, and men, women, and children, unarmed and unresisting, were mowed down by the merciless shot. the city was taken, but soon abandoned, for its possession was of no use. the killing of those men, women, and children was as much a piece of murder, as it would be to come and shoot us to-day, and in this house. no valid excuse has been given for this cold-blooded massacre; none can be given. it was not battle, but wanton butchery. none but a pequod indian could excuse it. the theological newspapers in new england thought it a wicked thing in dr. palfrey to write a letter on sunday, though he hoped thereby to help end the war. how many of them had any fault to find with this national butchery on the lord's day? fighting is bad enough any day; fighting for mere pay, or glory, or the love of fighting, is a wicked thing; but to fight on that day when the whole christian world kneels to pray in the name of the peacemaker; to butcher men and women and children, when they are coming home from church, with prayer-books in their hands, seems an aggravation even of murder; a cowardly murder, which a hessian would have been ashamed of. "but 'twas a famous victory." one other instance, of at least apparent wantonness, took place at the bombardment of vera cruz. after the siege had gone on for a while, the foreign consuls in the town, "moved," as they say, "by the feeling of humanity excited in their hearts by the frightful results of the bombardment of the city," requested that the women and children might be allowed to leave the city, and not stay to be shot. the american general refused; they must stay and be shot. perhaps you have not an adequate conception of the effect produced by bombarding a town. let me interest you a little in the details thereof. vera cruz is about as large as boston was in ; it contains about , inhabitants. in addition it is protected by a castle, the celebrated fortress of st. juan d' ulloa, furnished with more than , soldiers and over cannons. imagine to yourself boston as it was forty years ago, invested with a fleet on one side, and an army of , men on the land, both raining cannon-balls and bomb-shells upon your houses; shattering them to fragments, exploding in your streets, churches, houses, cellars, mingling men, women, and children in one promiscuous murder. suppose this to continue five days and nights; imagine the condition of the city; the ruins, the flames; the dead, the wounded, the widows, the orphans; think of the fears of the men anticipating the city would be sacked by a merciless soldiery; think of the women! thus you will have a faint notion of the picture of vera cruz at the end of march, . do you know the meaning of the name of the city? vera cruz is the true cross. "see how these christians love one another." the americans are followers of the prince of peace; they have more missionaries amongst the "heathen" than any other nation, and the president, in his last message, says, "no country has been so much favored, or should acknowledge with deeper reverence the manifestations of the divine protection." the americans were fighting mexico to dismember her territory, to plunder her soil, and plant thereon the institution of slavery, "the necessary back-ground of freedom." few of us have ever seen a battle, and without that none can have a complete notion of the ferocious passions which it excites. let me help your fancy a little by relating an anecdote which seems to be very well authenticated, and requires but little external testimony to render it credible. at any rate, it was abundantly believed a year ago; but times change, and what was then believed all round may now be "the most improbable thing in the world." at the battle of buena vista, a kentucky regiment began to stagger under the heavy charge of the mexicans. the american commander-in-chief turned to one who stood near him, and exclaimed, "by god, this will not do. this is not the way for kentuckians to behave when called on to make good a battle. it will not answer, sir." so the general clenched his fist, knit his brows, and set his teeth hard together. however, the kentuckians presently formed in good order and gave a deadly fire, which altered the battle. then the old general broke out with a loud hurrah. "hurrah for old kentuck," he exclaimed, rising in his stirrups; "that's the way to do it. give 'em hell, damn 'em," and tears of exultation rolled down his cheeks as he said it. you find the name of this general at the head of most of the whig newspapers in the united states. he is one of the most popular candidates for the presidency. cannons were fired for him, a hundred guns on boston common, not long ago, in honor of his nomination for the highest office in the gift of a free and christian people. soon we shall probably have clerical certificates, setting forth, to the people of the north, that he is an exemplary christian. you know how faneuil hall, the old "cradle of liberty," rang with "hurrah for taylor," but a few days ago. the seven wise men of greece were famous in their day; but now nothing is known of them except a single pungent aphorism from each, "know thyself," and the like. the time may come when our great men shall have suffered this same reduction descending, all their robes of glory having vanished save a single thread. then shall franklin be known only as having said, "don't give too much for the whistle;" patrick henry for his "give me liberty or give me death;" washington for his "in peace prepare for war;" jefferson for his "all men are created equal;" and general taylor shall be known only by his attributes rough and ready, and for his aphorism, "give 'em hell, damn 'em." yet he does not seem to be a ferocious man, but generous and kindly, it is said, and strongly opposed to this particular war, whose "natural justice" it seems he looked at, and which he thought was wicked at the beginning, though, on that account, he was none the less ready to fight it. one thing more i must mention in speaking of the cost of men. according to the report quoted just now, , american soldiers had deserted in mexico. some of them had joined the mexican army. when the american commissioners, who were sent to secure the ratification of the treaty, went to queretaro, they found there a body of american soldiers, and more were at no great distance, mustered into the mexican service. these men, it seems, had served out their time in the american camp, and notwithstanding they had, as the president says in his message, "covered themselves with imperishable honors," by fighting men who never injured them, they were willing to go and seek a yet thicker mantle of this imperishable honor, by fighting against their own country! why should they not? if it were right to kill mexicans for a few dollars a month, why was it not also right to kill americans, especially when it pays the most? perhaps it is not an american habit to inquire into the justice of a war, only into the profit which it may bring. if the mexicans pay best, in money, these , soldiers made a good speculation. no doubt in mexico military glory is at a premium, though it could hardly command a greater price just now than in america, where, however, the supply seems equal to the demand. the numerous desertions and the readiness with which the soldiers joined the "foe," show plainly the moral character of the men, and the degree of "patriotism" and "humanity" which animated them in going to war. you know the severity of military discipline; the terrible beatings men are subjected to before they can become perfect in the soldier's art; the horrible and revolting punishments imposed on them for drunkenness, though little pains were taken to keep the temptation from their eyes, and for disobedience of general orders. you have read enough of this in the newspapers. the officers of the volunteers, i am told, have generally been men of little education, men of strong passions and bad habits; many of them abandoned men, who belonged to the refuse of society. such men run into an army as the wash of the street runs into the sewers. when such a man gets clothed with a little authority, in time of peace, you know what use he makes of it; but when he covers himself with the "imperishable honors" of his official coat, gets an epaulette on his shoulder, a sword by his side, a commission in his pocket, and visions of "glory" in his head, you may easily judge how he will use his authority, or may read in the newspapers how he has used it. when there are brutal soldiers, commanded by brutal captains, it is to be supposed that much brutality is to be suffered. now desertion is a great offence in a soldier; in this army it is one of the most common; for nearly ten per cent of the american army has deserted in mexico, not to mention the desertions before the army reached that country. it is related that forty-eight men were hanged at once for desertion; not hanged as you judicially murder men in time of peace, privately, as if ashamed of the deed, in the corner of a jail, and by a contrivance which shortens the agony, and makes death humane as possible. these forty-eight men were hanged slowly; put to death with painful procrastinations, their agony wilfully prolonged, and death embittered by needless ferocity. but that is not all: it is related, that these men were doomed to be thus murdered on the day when the battle of churubusco took place. these men, awaiting their death, were told they should not suffer till the american flag should wave its stripes over the hostile walls. so they were kept in suspense an hour, and then slowly hanged one by one. you know the name of the officer on whom this barbarity rests: it was colonel harney, a man whose reputation was black enough and base enough before. his previous deeds, however, require no mention here. but this man is now a general, and so on the high road to the presidency, whenever it shall please our southern masters to say the word. some accounts say there were more than forty-eight who thus were hanged. i only give the number of those whose names lie printed before me as i write. perhaps the number was less; it is impossible to obtain exact information in respect to the matter, for the government has not yet published an account of the punishments inflicted in this war. the information can only be obtained by a "resolution" of either house of congress, and so is not likely to be had before the election. but at the same time with the execution, other deserters were scourged with fifty lashes each, branded with a letter d, a perpetual mark of infamy on their cheek, compelled to wear an iron yoke, weighing eight pounds, about their neck. six men were made to dig the grave of their companions, and were then flogged with two hundred lashes each. i wish this hanging of forty-eight men could have taken place in state street, and the respectable citizens of boston, who like this war, had been made to look on and see it all; that they had seen those poor culprits bid farewell to father, mother, wife, or child, looking wistfully for the hour which was to end their torment, and then, one by one, have seen them slowly hanged to death; that your representative, ye men of boston, had put on all the halters! he did help put them on; that infamous vote, i speak not of the motive, it may have been as honorable as the vote itself was infamous, doomed these eight and forty men to be thus murdered. yes, i wish all this killing of the , americans on the field of battle, and the , mexicans; all this slashing of the bodies of , wounded men; all the agony of the other , that have died of disease, could have taken place in some spot where the president of the united states and his cabinet, where all the congress who voted for the war, with the baltimore conventions of ' and ' , and the whig convention of philadelphia, and the controlling men of both political parties, who care nothing for this bloodshed and misery they have idly caused, could have stood and seen it all; and then that the voice of the whole nation had come up to them and said, "this is your work, not ours. certainly we will not shed our blood, nor our brothers' blood, to get never so much slave territory. it was bad enough to fight in the cause of freedom. in the cause of slavery--god forgive us for that! we have trusted you thus far, but please god we never will trust you again." * * * * * let us now look at the effect of this war on the morals of the nation. the revolutionary war was the contest for a great idea. if there were ever a just war it was that, a contest for national existence. yet it brought out many of the worst qualities of human nature on both sides, as well as some of the best. it helped make a washington, it is true, but a benedict arnold likewise. a war with a powerful nation, terrible as it must be, yet develops the energy of the people, promotes self-denial, and helps the growth of some qualities of a high order. it had this effect in england from to . true, england for that time became a despotism, but the self-consciousness of the nation, its self-denial and energy were amazingly stimulated; the moral effect of that series of wars was doubtless far better than of the infamous contest which she has kept up against ireland for many years. let us give even war its due: when a great boy fights with an equal, it may develop his animal courage and strength--for he gets as bad as he gives, but when he only beats a little boy that cannot pay back his blows, it is cowardly as well as cruel, and doubly debasing to the conqueror. mexico was no match for america. we all knew that very well before the war begun. when a nation numbering , , or , , of people can be successfully invaded by an army of , men, two thirds of them volunteers, raw, and undisciplined; when the invaders with less than , can march two hundred miles into the very heart of the hostile country, and with less than , can take and hold the capital of the nation, a city of , or , inhabitants, and dictate a peace, taking as much territory as they will--it is hardly fair to dignify such operations with the name of war. the little good which a long contest with an equal might produce in the conqueror, is wholly lost. had mexico been a strong nation we should never have had this conflict. a few years ago, when general cass wanted a war with england, "an old-fashioned war," and declared it "unavoidable," all the men of property trembled. the northern men thought of their mills and their ships; they thought how boston and new york would look after a war with our sturdy old father over the sea; they thought we should lose many millions of dollars and gain nothing. the men of the south, who have no mills and no ships and no large cities to be destroyed, thought of their "peculiar institution;" they thought of a servile war; they thought what might become of their slaves, if a nation which gave $ , , to emancipate her bondmen should send a large army with a few black soldiers from jamaica; should offer money, arms, and freedom to all who would leave their masters and claim their unalienable rights. they knew the southern towns would be burnt to ashes, and the whole south, from virginia to the gulf, would be swept with fire, and they said, "don't." the north said so, and the south; they feared such a war, with such a foe. everybody knows the effect which this fear had on southern politicians, in the beginning of this century, and how gladly they made peace with england soon as she was at liberty to turn her fleet and her army against the most vulnerable part of the nation. i am not blind to the wickedness of england more than ignorant of the good things she has done and is doing; a paradise for the rich and strong, she is still a purgatory for the wise and the good, and the hell of the poor and the weak. i have no fondness for war anywhere, and believe it needless and wanton in this age of the world, surely needless and wicked between father england and daughter america; but i do solemnly believe that the moral effect of such an old-fashioned war as mr. cass in thought unavoidable, would have been better than that of this mexican war. it would have ended slavery; ended it in blood no doubt, the worst thing to blot out an evil with, but ended it and for ever. god grant it may yet have a more peaceful termination. we should have lost millions of property and thousands of men, and then, when peace came, we should know what it was worth; and as the burnt child dreads the fire, no future president, or congress, or convention, or party would talk much in favor of war for some years to come. the moral effect of this war is thoroughly bad. it was unjust in the beginning. mexico did not pay her debts; but though the united states, in , acknowledged the british claims against ourselves, they were not paid till . our claims against england, for her depredations in , were not paid till ; our claims against france, for her depredations in - , were not paid us till . the fact that mexico refused to receive the resident minister which the united states sent to settle the disputes, when a commissioner was expected--this was no ground of war. we have lately seen a british ambassador ordered to leave spain within eight and forty hours, and yet the english minister of foreign affairs, lord palmerston, no new hand at diplomacy, declares that this does not interrupt the concord of the two nations! we treated mexico contemptuously before hostilities began; and when she sent troops into a territory which she had always possessed, though texas had claimed it, we declared that that was an act of war, and ourselves sent an army to invade her soil, to capture her cities, and seize her territory. it has been a war of plunder, undertaken for the purpose of seizing mexican territory, and extending over it that dismal curse which blackens, impoverishes, and barbarizes half the union now, and swiftly corrupts the other half. it was not enough to have louisiana a slave territory; not enough to make that institution perpetual in florida; not enough to extend this blight over texas--we must have yet more slave soil, one day to be carved into slave states, to bind the southern yoke yet more securely on the northern neck; to corrupt yet more the politics, literature, and morals of the north. the war was unjust at its beginning; mean in its motives, a war without honorable cause; a war for plunder; a quarrel between a great boy and a little puny weakling who could not walk alone, and could hardly stand. we have treated mexico as the three northern powers treated poland in the last century--stooped to conquer. nay, our contest has been like the english seizure of ireland. all the justice was on one side, the force, skill, and wealth on the other. i know men say the war has shown us that americans could fight. could fight!--almost every male beast will fight, the more brutal the better. the long war of the revolution, when connecticut, for seven years, kept , men in the field, showed that americans could fight; bunker hill and lexington showed that they could fight, even without previous discipline. if such valor be a merit, i am ready to believe that the americans, in a great cause like that of mexico, to resist wicked invasion, would fight as men never fought before. a republic like our own, where every free man feels an interest in the welfare of the nation, is full of the elements that make soldiers. is that a praise? most men think so, but it is the smallest honor of a nation. of all glories, military glory, at its best estate, seems the poorest. men tell us it shows the strength of the nation and some writers quote the opinions of european kings who, when hearing of the battles of monterey, buena vista, and vera cruz, became convinced that we were "a great people." remembering the character of these kings, one can easily believe that such was their judgment, and will not sigh many times at their fate, but will hope to see the day when the last king who can estimate a nation's strength only by its battles, has passed on to impotence and oblivion. the power of america--do we need proof of that? i see it in the streets of boston and new york; in lowell and in lawrence; i see it in our mills and our ships; i read it in those letters of iron written all over the north, where he may read that runs; i see it in the unconquered energy which tames the forest, the rivers, and the ocean; in the school-houses which lift their modest roof in every village of the north; in the churches that rise all over the freeman's land: would god that they rose higher, pointing down to man and to human duties, and up to god and immortal life! i see the strength of america in that tide of population which spreads over the prairies of the west, and, beating on the rocky mountains, dashes its peaceful spray to the very shores of the pacific sea. had we taken , men and $ , , , and built two railroads across the continent, that would have been a worthy sign of the nation's strength. perhaps those kings could not see it; but sensible men could see it and be glad. this waste of treasure and this waste of blood is only a proof of weakness. war is a transient weakness of the nation, but slavery a permanent imbecility. what falsehood has this war produced in the executive and legislative power; in both parties, whigs and democrats! i always thought that here in massachusetts the whigs were the most to blame; they tried to put the disgrace of the war on the others, while the democratic party coolly faced the wickedness. did far-sighted men know that there would be a war on mexico, or else on the tariff or the currency, and prefer the first as the least evil? see to what the war has driven two of the most famous men of the nation: one wished to "capture or slay a mexican;"[ ] the other could encourage the volunteers to fight a war which he had denounced as needless, "a war of pretexts," and place the men of monterey before the men of bunker hill;[ ] each could invest a son in that unholy cause. you know the rest: the fathers ate sour grapes, and the children's teeth were set on edge. when a man goes on board an emigrant ship, reeking with filth and fever, not for gain, not for "glory," but in brotherly love, catches the contagion, and dies a martyr to his heroic benevolence, men speak of it in corners, and it is soon forgot; there is no parade in the streets; society takes little pains to do honor to the man. how rarely is a pension given to his widow or his child; only once in the whole land, and then but a small sum.[ ] but when a volunteer officer--for of the humbler and more excusable men that fall we take no heed, war may mow that crop of "vulgar deaths" with what scythe he will--falls or dies in the quarrel which he had no concern in, falls in a broil between the two nations, your newspapers extol the man, and with martial pomp, "sonorous metal blowing martial sounds," with all the honors of the most honored dead, you lay away his body in the tomb. thus is it that the nation teaches these little ones, that it is better to kill than to make alive. i know there are men in the army, honorable and high-minded men, christian men, who dislike war in general, and this war in special, but such is their view of official duty, that they obeyed the summons of battle, though with pain and reluctance. they knew not how to avoid obedience. i am willing to believe there are many such. but with volunteers, who, of their own accord, came forth to enlist, men not blinded by ignorance, not driven by poverty to the field, but only by hope of reward--what shall be said of them! much may be said to excuse the rank and file, ignorant men, many of them in want--but for the leaders, what can be said? had i a brother who, in the day of the nation's extremity, came forward with a good conscience, and perilled his life on the battle field, and lost it "in the sacred cause of god and his country," i would honor the man, and when his dust came home, i would lay it away with his fathers'; with sorrow indeed, but with thankfulness of heart, that for conscience' sake he was ready even to die. but had i a brother who, merely for his pay, or hope of fame, had voluntarily gone down to fight innocent men, to plunder their territory, and lost his life in that felonious essay--in sorrow and in silence, and in secrecy would i lay down his body in the grave; i would not court display, nor mark it with a single stone. see how this war has affected public opinion. how many of your newspapers have shown its true atrocity; how many of the pulpits? yet, if any one is appointed to tell of public wrongs, it is the minister of religion. the governor of massachusetts[ ] is an officer of a christian church; a man distinguished for many excellences, some of them by no means common: it is said, he is opposed to the war in private, and thinks it wicked; but no man has lent himself as a readier tool to promote it. the christian and the man seem lost in the office, in the governor! what a lesson of falseness does all this teach to that large class of persons who look no higher than the example of eminent men for their instruction. you know what complaints have been made, by the highest authority in the nation, because a few men dared to speak against the war. it was "affording aid and comfort to the enemy." if the war-party had been stronger, and feared no public opinion, we should have had men hanged for treason, because they spoke of this national iniquity! nothing would have been easier. a "gag law" is not wholly unknown in america. if you will take all the theft, all the assaults, all the cases of arson, ever committed in time of peace in the united states since the settlement of jamestown in , and add to them all the cases of violence offered to woman, with all the murders, they will not amount to half the wrongs committed in this war for the plunder of mexico. yet the cry has been and still is, "you must not say a word against it; if you do, you 'afford aid and comfort to the enemy.'" not tell the nation that she is doing wrong? what a miserable saying is that; let it come from what high authority it may, it is a miserable saying. make the case your own. suppose the united states were invaded by a nation ten times abler for war than we are, with a cause no more just, intentions equally bad; invaded for the purpose of dismembering our territory and making our own new england the soil of slaves; would you be still? would you stand and look on tamely while the hostile hosts, strangers in language, manners, and religion, crossed your rivers, seized your ports, burnt your towns? no, surely not. though the men of new england would not be able to resist with most celestial love, they would contend with most manly vigor; and i should rather see every house swept clean off the land, and the ground sheeted with our own dead; rather see every man, woman, and child in the land slain, than see them tamely submit to such a wrong: and so would you. no, sacred as life is and dear as it is, better let it be trodden out by the hoof of war, rather than yield tamely to a wrong. but while you were doing your utmost to repel such formidable injustice, if in the midst of your invaders men rose up and said, "america is in the right, and brothers, you are wrong, you should not thus kill men to steal their land; shame on you!" how should you feel towards such? nay, in the struggle with england, when our fathers perilled every thing but honor, and fought for the unalienable rights of man, you all remember, how in england herself there stood up noble men, and with a voice that was heard above the roar of the populace, and an authority higher than the majesty of the throne they said, "you do a wrong; you may ravage, but you cannot conquer. if i were an american, while a foreign troop remained in my land, i would never lay down my arms; no, never, never, never!" but i wander a little from my theme, the effect of the war on the morals of the nation. here are , or , men trained to kill. hereafter they will be of little service in any good work. many of them were the off-scouring of the people at first. now these men have tasted the idleness, the intemperance, the debauchery of a camp; tasted of its riot, tasted of its blood! they will come home before long, hirelings of murder. what will their influence be as fathers, husbands? the nation taught them to fight and plunder the mexicans for the nation's sake; the governor of massachusetts called on them in the name of "patriotism" and "humanity" to enlist for that work: but if, with no justice on our side, it is humane and patriotic to fight and plunder the mexicans on the nation's account, why not for the soldier to fight and plunder an american on his own account? ay, why not?--that is a distinction too nice for common minds; by far too nice for mine. see the effect on the nation. we have just plundered mexico; taken a piece of her territory larger than the thirteen states which fought the revolution, a hundred times as large as massachusetts; we have burnt her cities, have butchered her men, have been victorious in every contest. the mexicans were as unprotected women, we, armed men. see how the lust of conquest will increase. soon it will be the ambition of the next president to extend the "area of freedom" a little further south; the lust of conquest will increase. soon we must have yucatan, central america, all of mexico, cuba, porto rico, hayti, jamaica,--all the islands of the gulf. many men would gladly, i doubt not, extend the "area of freedom" so as to include the free blacks of those islands. we have long looked with jealous eyes on west indian emancipation--hoping the scheme would not succeed. how pleasant it would be to reëstablish slavery in hayti and jamaica, in all the islands whence the gold of england or the ideas of france have driven it out. if the south wants this, would the north object? the possession of the west indies would bring much money to new england, and what is the value of freedom compared to coffee and sugar and cotton? i must say one word of the effect this war has had on political parties. by the parties i mean the leaders thereof, the men that control the parties. the effect on the democratic party, on the majority of congress, on the most prominent men of the nation, has been mentioned before. it has shut their eyes to truth and justice; it has filled their mouths with injustice and falsehood. it has made one man "available" for the presidency who was only known before as a sagacious general, that fought against the indians in florida, and acquired a certain reputation by the use of bloodhounds, a reputation which was rather unenviable even in america. the battles in northern mexico made him conspicuous, and now he is seized on as an engine to thrust one corrupt party out of power, and to lift in another party, i will not say less corrupt, i wish i could; it were difficult to think it more so. this latter party has been conspicuous for its opposition to a military man as ruler of a free people; recently it has been smitten with sudden admiration for military men, and military success, and tells the people, without a blush, that a military man fresh from a fight which he disapproved of, is most likely to restore peace, "because most familiar with the evils of war!" in massachusetts the prevalent political party, as such, for some years seems to have had no moral principle; however, it had a prejudice in favor of decency: now it has thrown that overboard, and has not even its respectability left. where are its "resolutions?" some men knew what they were worth long ago; now all men can see what they are worth. the cost of the war in money and men i have tried to calculate, but the effect on the morals of the people, on the press, the pulpit, and the parties, and through them on the rising generation, it is impossible to tell. i have only faintly sketched the outline of that. the effect of the war on mexico herself, we can dimly see in the distance. the government of the united states has wilfully, wantonly broken the peace of the continent. the revolutionary war was unavoidable; but for this invasion there is no excuse. that god, whose providence watches over the falling nation as the falling sparrow, and whose comprehensive plans are now advanced by the righteousness and now by the wrath of man, he who stilleth the waves of the sea and the tumult of the people, will turn all this wickedness to account in the history of man,--of that i have no doubt. but that is no excuse for american crime. a greater good lay within our grasp, and we spurned it away. well, before long the soldiers will come back, such as shall ever come--the regulars and volunteers, the husbands of the women whom your charity fed last winter, housed and clad and warmed. they will come back. come, new england, with your posterity of states, go forth to meet your sons returning all "covered with imperishable honors." come, men, to meet your fathers, brothers. come, women, to your husbands and your lovers; come. but what! is that the body of men who a year or two ago went forth, so full of valor and of rum? are these rags the imperishable honors that cover them? here is not half the whole. where is the wealth they hoped from the spoil of churches? but the men--"where is my husband?" says one; "and my son?" says another. "they fell at jalapa, one, and one at cerro gordo; but they fell covered with imperishable honor, for 'twas a famous victory." "where is my lover?" screams a woman whom anguish makes respectable spite of her filth and ignorance;--"and our father, where is he?" scream a troop of half-starved children, staring through their dirt and rags. "one died of the vomit at vera cruz. your father, little ones, we scourged the naked man to death at mixcoac." but that troop which is left, who are in the arms of wife and child, they are the best sermon against war; this has lost an arm and that a leg; half are maimed in battle, or sickened with the fever; all polluted with the drunkenness, idleness, debauchery, lust, and murder of a camp. strip off this man's coat, and count the stripes welted into his flesh, stripes laid on by demagogues that love the people, "the dear people!" see how affectionately the war-makers branded the "dear soldiers" with a letter d, with a red-hot iron, in the cheek. the flesh will quiver as the irons burn; no matter: it is only for love of the people that all this is done, and we are all of us covered with imperishable honors! d stands for deserter,--aye, and for demagogue--yes, and for demon too. many a man shall come home with but half of himself, half his body, less than half his soul. "alas, the mother that him bare, if she could stand in presence there, in that wan cheek and wasted air, she would not know her child." "better," you say, "for us better, and for themselves better by far, if they had left that remnant of a body in the common ditch where the soldier finds his 'bed of honor;' better have fed therewith the vultures of a foreign soil, than thus come back." no, better come back, and live here, mutilated, scourged, branded, a cripple, a pauper, a drunkard, and a felon; better darken the windows of the jail and blot the gallows with unusual shame, to teach us all that such is war, and such the results of every "famous victory," such the imperishable honors that it brings, and how the war-makers love the men they rule! o christian america! o new england, child of the puritans! cradled in the wilderness, thy swaddling garments stained with martyrs' blood, hearing in thy youth the warwhoop of the savage and thy mother's sweet and soul-composing hymn: "hush, my child, lie still and slumber, holy angels guard thy bed; heavenly blessings, without number, rest upon thine infant head:" come, new england, take the old banners of thy conquering host, the standards borne at monterey, palo alto, buena vista, vera cruz, the "glorious stripes and stars" that waved over the walls of churubusco, contreras, puebla, mexico herself, flags blackened with battle and stiffened with blood, pierced by the lances and torn with the shot; bring them into thy churches, hang them up over altar and pulpit, and let little children, clad in white raiment and crowned with flowers, come and chant their lessons for the day: "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see god. "blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of god." then let the priest say, "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach unto any people. blessed is the lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. happy is that people that is in such a case. yea, happy is that people whose god is the lord, and jesus christ their saviour." then let the soldiers who lost their limbs and the women who lost their husbands and their lovers in the strife, and the men--wiser than the children of light--who made money out of the war; let all the people, like people and like priest, say "amen." * * * * * but suppose these men were to come back to boston on a day when, in civil style, as having never sinned yourself, and never left a man in ignorance and want to be goaded into crime, you were about to hang three men--one for murder, one for robbery with the armed hand, and one for burning down a house. suppose, after the fashion of "the good old times," you were to hang those men in public, and lead them in long procession through your streets, and while you were welcoming these returned soldiers and taking their officers to feast in "the cradle of liberty," they should meet the sheriff's procession escorting those culprits to the gallows. suppose the warriors should ask, "why, what is that?" what would you say? why, this: "these men, they broke the law of god, by violence, by fire and blood, and we shall hang them for the public good, and especially for the example, to teach the ignorant, the low, and the weak." suppose those three felons, the halters round their neck, should ask also, "why, what is that?" you would say, "they are the soldiers just come back from war. for two long years they have been hard at work, burning cities, plundering a nation, and butchering whole armies of men. sometimes they killed a thousand in a day. by their help, the nation has stolen seven hundred thousand square miles of land!" suppose the culprits ask, "where will you hang so many?" "hang them!" is the answer, "we shall only hang you. it is written in our bible that one murder makes a villain, millions a hero. we shall feast these men full of bread and wine; shall take their leader, a rough man and a ready, one who by perpetual robbery holds a hundred slaves and more, and make him a king over all the land. but as you only burnt, robbed, and murdered on so small a scale, and without the command of the president or the congress, we shall hang you by the neck. our governor ordered these men to go and burn and rob and kill; now he orders you to be hanged, and you must not ask any more questions, for the hour is already come." to make the whole more perfect--suppose a native of loo-choo, converted to christianity by your missionaries in his native land, had come hither to have "the way of god" "expounded unto him more perfectly," that he might see how these christians love one another. suppose he should be witness to a scene like this! * * * * * to men who know the facts of war, the wickedness of this particular invasion and its wide-extending consequences, i fear that my words will seem poor and cold and tame. i have purposely mastered my emotion, telling only my thought. i have uttered no denunciation against the men who caused this destruction of treasure, this massacre of men, this awful degradation of the moral sense. the respectable men of boston--"the men of property and standing" all over the state, the men that commonly control the politics of new england, tell you that they dislike the war. but they reëlect the men who made it. has a single man in all new england lost his seat in any office because he favored the war? not a man. have you ever known a northern merchant who would not let his ship for the war, because the war was wicked and he a christian? have you ever known a northern manufacturer who would not sell a kernel of powder, nor a cannon-ball, nor a coat, nor a shirt for the war? have you ever known a capitalist, a man who lives by letting money, refuse to lend money for the war because the war was wicked? not a merchant, not a manufacturer, not a capitalist. a little money--it can buy up whole hosts of men. virginia sells her negroes; what does new england sell? there was once a man in boston, a rich man too, not a very great man, only a good one who loved his country, and there was another poor man here, in the times that tried men's souls,--but there was not money enough in all england, not enough promise of honors, to make hancock and adams false to their sense of right. is our soil degenerate, and have we lost the breed of noble men? no, i have not denounced the men who directly made the war, or indirectly edged the people on. pardon me, thou prostrate mexico, robbed of more than half thy soil, that america may have more slaves; thy cities burned, thy children slain, the streets of thy capital trodden by the alien foot, but still smoking with thy children's blood: pardon me if i seem to have forgotten thee! and you, ye butchered americans, slain by the vomito, the gallows, and the sword; you, ye maimed and mutilated men, who shall never again join hands in prayer, never kneel to god once more upon the limbs he made you; you, ye widows, orphans of these butchered men, far off in that more sunny south, here in our own fair land, pardon me that i seem to forget your wrongs! and thou, my country, my own, my loved, my native land, thou child of great ideas and mother of many a noble son, dishonored now, thy treasure wasted, thy children killed or else made murderers, thy peaceful glory gone, thy government made to pimp and pander for lust of crime, forgive me that i seem over-gentle to the men who did and do the damning deed which wastes thy treasure, spills thy blood, and stains thine honor's sacred fold! and you, ye sons of men everywhere, thou child of god, mankind, whose latest, fairest hope is planted here in this new world,--forgive me if i seem gentle to thy enemies, and to forget the crime that so dishonors man, and makes this ground a slaughter-yard of men--slain, too, in furtherance of the basest wish! i have no words to tell the pity that i feel for them that did the deed. i only say, "father, forgive them, for they know full well the sin they do!" a sectarian church could censure a general for holding his candle in a catholic cathedral; it was "a candle to the pope"; yet never dared to blame the war. while we loaded a ship of war with corn and sent off the macedonian to cork, freighted by private bounty to feed the starving irishman, the state sent her ships to vera cruz, in a cause most unholy, to bombard, to smite, and to kill. father! forgive the state; forgive the church. it was an ignorant state. it was a silent church--a poor, dumb dog, that dared not bark at the wolf who prowls about the fold, but only at the lamb. yet ye leaders of the land, know this,--that the blood of thirty thousand men cries out of the ground against you. be it your folly or your crime, still cries the voice, "where is thy brother?" that thirty thousand--in the name of humanity i ask, "where are they?" in the name of justice i answer, "you slew them!" it was not the people who made this war. they have often enough done a foolish thing. but it was not they who did this wrong. it was they who led the people; it was demagogues that did it. whig demagogues and demagogues of the democrats; men that flatter the ignorance, the folly, or the sin of the people, that they might satisfy their own base purposes. in may, , if the facts of the case could have been stated to the voters, and the question put to the whole mass of the people, "shall we go down and fight mexico, spending two hundred million of dollars, maiming four and twenty thousand men, and butchering thirty thousand; shall we rob her of half her territory?"--the lowest and most miserable part of the nation would have said as they did say, "yes;" the demagogues of the nation would have said as they did say, "yes;" perhaps a majority of the men of the south would have said so, for the humanity of the nation lies not there; but if it had been brought to the great mass of the people at the north,--whose industry and skill so increase the national wealth, whose intelligence and morals have given the nation its character abroad,--then they, the great majority of the land, would have said "no. we will have no war! if we want more land, we will buy it in the open market, and pay for it honestly. but we are not thieves, nor murderers, thank god, and will not butcher a nation to make a slave-field out of her soil." the people would not have made this war. * * * * * well, we have got a new territory, enough to make one hundred states of the size of massachusetts. that is not all. we have beaten the armies of mexico, destroyed the little strength she had left, the little self-respect, else she would not so have yielded and given up half her soil for a few miserable dollars. soon we shall take the rest of her possessions. how can mexico hold them now--weakened, humiliated, divided worse than ever within herself. before many years, all of this northern continent will doubtless be in the hands of the anglo saxon race. that of itself is not a thing to mourn at. could we have extended our empire there by trade, by the christian arts of peace, it would be a blessing to us and to mexico; a blessing to the world. but we have done it in the worst way, by fraud and blood; for the worst purpose, to steal soil and convert the cities of men into the shambles for human flesh; have done it at the bidding of men whose counsels long have been a scourge and a curse--at the bidding of slaveholders. they it is that rule the land, fill the offices, buy up the north with the crumbs that fall from their political table, make the laws, declare hostilities, and leave the north to pay the bill. shall we ever waken out of our sleep; shall we ever remember the duties we owe to the world and to god, who put us here on this new continent? let us not despair. soon we shall have all the southern part of the continent, perhaps half the islands of the gulf. one thing remains to do--that is, with the new soil we have taken, to extend order, peace, education, religion; to keep it from the blight, the crime, and the sin of slavery. that is for the nation to do; for the north to do. god knows the south will never do it. is there manliness enough left in the north to do that? has the soil forgot its wonted faith, and borne a different race of men from those who struggled eight long years for freedom? do we forget our sires, forget our god? in the day when the monarchs of europe are shaken from their thrones; when the russian and the turk abolish slavery; when cowardly naples awakes from her centuries of sleep, and will have freedom; when france prays to become a republic, and in her agony sweats great drops of blood; while the tories of the world look on and mock and wag their heads; and while the angel of hope descends with trusting words to comfort her,--shall america extend slavery? butcher a nation to get soil to make a field for slaves? i know how easily the south can buy office-hunters; whig or democrat, the price is still the same. the same golden eagle blinds the eyes of each. but can she buy the people of the north? is honesty gone, and honor gone, your love of country gone, religion gone, and nothing manly left; not even shame? then let us perish; let the union perish! no, let that stand firm, and let the northern men themselves be slaves; and let us go to our masters and say, "you are very few, we are very many; we have the wealth, the numbers, the intelligence, the religion of the land; but you have the power, do not be hard upon us; pray give us a little something, some humble offices, or if not these at least a tariff, and we will be content." slavery has already been the blight of this nation, the curse of the north and the curse of the south. it has hindered commerce, manufactures, agriculture. it confounds your politics. it has silenced your ablest men. it has muzzled the pulpit, and stifled the better life out of the press. it has robbed three million men of what is dearer than life; it has kept back the welfare of seventeen millions more. you ask, o americans, where is the harmony of the union? it was broken by slavery. where is the treasure we have wasted? it was squandered by slavery. where are the men we sent to mexico? they were murdered by slavery; and now the slave power comes forward to put her new minions, her thirteenth president, upon the nation's neck! will the north say "yes?" but there is a providence which rules the world,--a plan in his affairs. shall all this war, this aggression of the slave power be for nothing? surely not. let it teach us two things: everlasting hostility to slavery; everlasting love of justice and of its eternal right. then, dear as we may pay for it, it may be worth what it has cost--the money and the men. i call on you, ye men--fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, to learn this lesson, and, when duty calls, to show that you know it--know it by heart and at your fingers' ends! and you, ye women--mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, i call on you to teach this lesson to your children, and let them know that such a war is sin, and slavery sin, and, while you teach them to hate both, teach them to be men, and do the duties of noble, christian, and manly men! behind injustice there is ruin, and above man there is the everlasting god. footnotes: [ ] in the massachusetts quarterly review, vol. i. article i. see also the paper on the administration of mr. polk, in vol. iii. art. viii. [ ] mr. trist introduced these articles into the treaty, without having instructions from the american government to do so; the honor, therefore, is wholly due to him. there were some in the senate who opposed these articles. [ ] see mr. clay's speech at the dinner in new orleans on forefathers' day. [ ] see mr. webster's speech to the volunteers at philadelphia. [ ] a case of this sort had just occurred in boston. [ ] mr. george n. briggs. vi. a sermon of the perishing classes in boston.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, august , . matthew xviii. . it is not the will of our father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. there are two classes of men who are weak and little: one is little by nature, consisting of such as are born with feeble powers, not strongly capable of self-help; the other is little by position, comprising men that are permanently poor and ignorant. when jesus said, it is not god's will that one of these little ones should perish, i take it he included both these classes--men little by nature, and men little by position. furthermore, i take it he said what is true, that it is not god's will one of these little ones should perish. now, a man may be said to perish when he is ruined, or even when he fails to attain the degree of manhood he might attain under the average circumstances of this present age, and these present men. in a society like ours, and that of all nations at this time, as hitherto, with such a history, a history of blood and violence, cunning and fraud; resting on such a basis--a basis of selfishness; a society wherein there is a preference of the mighty, and a postponement of the righteous, where power is worshipped and justice little honored, though much talked of, it comes to pass that a great many little ones from both these classes actually perish. if jesus spoke the truth, then they perish contrary to the will of god, and, of course, by some other will adverse to the will of god. in a society where the natural laws of the body are constantly violated, where many men are obliged by circumstances to violate them, it follows unavoidably that many are born little by nature, and they transmit their feebleness to their issue. the other class, men little by position, are often so hedged about with difficulties, so neglected, that they cannot change their condition; they bequeath also their littleness to their children. thus the number of little ones enlarges with the increase of society. this class becomes perpetual; a class of men mainly abandoned by the christians. in all forms of social life hitherto devised these classes have appeared, and it has been a serious question, what shall be done with them? seldom has it been the question, what shall be done for them? in olden time the spartans took children born with a weak or imperfect body, children who would probably be a hinderance to the nation, and threw them into a desert place to be devoured by the wild beasts, and so settled that question. at this day, the chinese, i am told, expose such children in the streets and beside the rivers, to the humanity of passers by; and not only such, but sound, healthy children, none the less, who, though strong by nature, are born into a weak position. many of them are left to die, especially the boys. but some are saved, those mainly girls. i will not say they are saved by the humanity of wealthier men. they become slaves, devoted by their masters to a most base and infamous purpose. with the exception of criminals, these abandoned daughters of the poor, form, it is said, the only class of slaves in that great country. neither the chinese nor the spartan method is manly or human. it does with the little ones, not for them. it does away with them, and that is all. i will not decide which is the worst of the two modes, the chinese or the spartan. we are accustomed to call both these nations heathen, and take it for granted they do not know it is god's will that not one of these little ones should perish. be that as it may, we do not call ourselves heathen; we pretend to know the will of god in this particular. let us look, therefore, and see how we have disposed of the little ones in boston, what we are doing for them or with them. let me begin with neglected and abandoned children. we all know how large and beautiful a provision is made for the public education of the people. about a fourth part of the city taxes are for the public schools. yet one not familiar with this place is astonished at the number of idle, vagrant boys and girls in the streets. it appears from the late census of boston, that there are , children between four and fifteen who attend no school. i am not speaking of truants, occasional absentees, but of children whose names are not registered at school, permanent absentees. if we allow that , of these are kept in some sort of restraint by their parents, and have, or have had, some little pains taken with their culture at home; that they are feeble and do not begin to attend school so early as most, or that they are precocious, and complete their studies before fifteen, or for some other good reason are taken from school, and put to some useful business, there still remain , children who never attend any school, turned loose into your streets! suppose there is some error in the counting, that the number is overstated one third, still there are left , young vagrants in the streets of boston! what will be the fate of these , children? some men are superior to circumstances; so well born they defy ill breeding. there may be children so excellent and strong they cannot be spoiled. surely there are some who will learn with no school; boys of vast genius, whom you cannot keep from learning. others there are of wonderful moral gifts, whom no circumstances can make vulgar; they will live in the midst of corruption and keep clean through the innate refinement of a wondrous soul. out of these , children there may be two of this sort; it were foolish to look for more than one in a thousand. the , depend mainly on circumstances to help them; yes, to make their character. send them to school and they will learn. give them good precepts, good examples, they will also become good. give them bad precepts, bad examples, and they become wicked. send them half clad and uncared for into your streets, and they grow up hungry savages greedy for crime. what have these abandoned children to help them? nothing, literally nothing! they are idle, though their bodies crave activity. they are poor, ill-clad, and ill-fed. there is nothing about them to foster self-respect; nothing to call forth their conscience, to awaken and cultivate their sense of religion. they find themselves beggars in the wealth of a city; idlers in the midst of its work. yes, savages in the midst of civilization. their consciousness is that of an outcast, one abandoned and forsaken of men. in cities, life is intense amongst all classes. so the passions and appetites of such children are strong and violent. their taste is low; their wants clamorous. are religion and conscience there to abate the fever of passion and regulate desire? the moral class and the cultivated shun these poor wretches, or look on with stupid wonder. our rule is that the whole need the physician, not the sick. they are left almost entirely to herd and consort with the basest of men; they are exposed early and late to the worst influences, and their only comrades are men whom the children of the rich are taught to shun as the pestilence. to be poor is hard enough in the country, where artificial wants are few, and those easily met, where all classes are humbly clad, and none fare sumptuously every day. but to be poor in the city, where a hundred artificial desires daily claim satisfaction, and where, too, it is difficult for the poor to satisfy the natural and unavoidable wants of food and raiment; to be hungry, ragged, dirty, amid luxury, wantonness and refinement; to be miserable in the midst of abundance, that is hard beyond all power of speech. look, i will not say at the squalid dress of these children, as you see them prowling about the markets and wharves, or contending in the dirty lanes and by-places into which the pride of boston has elbowed so much of her misery; look at their faces! haggard as they are, meagre and pale and wan, want is not the worst thing written there, but cunning, fraud, violence and obscenity, and worst of all, fear! amid all the science and refined culture of the nineteenth century, these children learn little; little that is good, much that is bad. in the intense life around them, they unavoidably become vicious, obscene, deceitful and violent. they will lie, steal, be drunk. how can it be otherwise? if you could know the life of one of those poor lepers of boston, you would wonder, and weep. let me take one of them at random out of the mass. he was born, unwelcome, amid wretchedness and want. his coming increased both. miserably he struggles through his infancy, less tended than the lion's whelp. he becomes a boy. he is covered only with rags, and those squalid with long accumulated filth. he wanders about your streets, too low even to seek employment, now snatching from a gutter half rotten fruit which the owner flings away. he is ignorant; he has never entered a school-house; to him even the alphabet is a mystery. he is young in years, yet old in misery. there is no hope in his face. he herds with others like himself, low, ragged, hungry and idle. if misery loves company, he finds that satisfaction. follow him to his home at night; he herds in a cellar; in the same sty with father, mother, brothers, sisters, and perhaps yet other families of like degree. what served him for dress by day, is his only bed by night. well, this boy steals some trifle, a biscuit, a bit of rope, or a knife from a shop-window; he is seized and carried to jail. the day comes for trial. he is marched through the streets in handcuffs, the companion of drunkards and thieves, thus deadening the little self-respect which nature left even in an outcast's bosom. he sits there chained like a beast; a boy in irons! the sport and mockery of men vulgar as the common sewer. his trial comes. of course he is convicted. the show of his countenance is witness against him. his rags and dirt, his ignorance, his vagrant habits, his idleness, all testify against him. that face so young, and yet so impudent, so sly, so writ all over with embryo villany, is evidence enough. the jury are soon convinced, for they see his temptations in his look, and surely know that in such a condition men will steal: yes, they themselves would steal. the judge represents the law, and that practically regards it a crime even for a boy to be weak and poor. much of our common law, it seems to me, is based on might, not right. so he is hurried off to jail at a tender age, and made legally the companion of felons. now the state has him wholly in her power; by that rough adoption, has made him her own child, and sealed the indenture with the jailer's key. his handcuffs are the symbol of his sonship to the state. she shuts him in her college for the little. what does that teach him; science, letters; even morals and religion? little enough of this, even in boston, and in most counties of massachusetts, i think, nothing at all, not even a trade which he can practise when his term expires! i have been told a story, and i wish it might be falsely told, of a boy, in this city, of sixteen, sent to the house of correction for five years because he stole a bunch of keys, and coming out of that jail at twenty-one, unable to write, or read, or calculate, and with no trade but that of picking oakum. yet he had been five years the child of the state, and in that college for the poor! who would employ such a youth; with such a reputation; with the smell of the jail in his very breath? not your shrewd men of business, they know the risk; not your respectable men, members of churches and all that; not they! why it would hurt a man's reputation for piety to do good in that way. besides, the risk is great, and it argues a great deal more christianity than it is popular to have, for a respectable man to employ such a youth. he is forced back into crime again. i say, forced, for honest men will not employ him when the state shoves him out of the jail. soon you will have him in the court again, to be punished more severely. then he goes to the state prison, and then again, and again, till death mercifully ends his career! who is to blame for all that? i will ask the best man among the best of you, what he would have become, if thus abandoned, turned out in childhood, and with no culture, into the streets, to herd with the wickedest of men! somebody says, there are "organic sins" in society which nobody is to blame for. but by this sin organized in society, these vagrant children are training up to become thieves, pirates and murderers. i cannot blame them. but there is a terrible blame somewhere, for it is not the will of god that one of these little ones should perish. who is it that organizes the sin of society? * * * * * let us next look at the parents of these vagrants, at the adult poor. it is not easy or needed for this purpose, to define very nicely the limits of a class, and tell where the rich end, and the poor begin. however, men may, in reference to this matter, be divided into three classes. the first acts on society mainly by their capital; the second mainly by their skill, mental and manual, by educated labor; and the third by their muscles, by brute force with little or no skill, uneducated labor. the poor, i take it, come mainly from this latter class. education of head or hand, a profession or a trade, is wealth in possibility; yes, wealth in prospect, wealth in its process of accumulation, for wealth itself is only accumulated labor, as learning is accumulated thought. most of our rich men have come out of this class which acts by its skill, and their children in a few years will return to it. i am not now to speak of men transiently poor, who mend their condition as the hours go by, who may gain enough, and perhaps become rich; but of men permanently poor, whom one year finds wanting, and the next leaves no better off; men that live, as we say, from hand to mouth, but whose hand and mouth are often empty. even here in boston, there is little of the justice that removes causes of poverty, though so much of the charity which alleviates its effects. those men live, if you can call it life, crowded together more densely, i am told, than in naples or paris, in london or liverpool. boston has its ghetto, not for the jews as at prague and at rome, but for brother christians. in the quarters inhabited mainly by the poor, you find a filthiness and squalor which would astonish a stranger. the want of comfort, of air, of water, is terrible. cold is a stern foe in our winters, but in these places, i am told that men suffer more from want of water in summer, than want of fire in winter.[ ] if your bills of mortality were made out so as to show the deaths in each ward of the city, i think all would be astonished at the results. disease and death are the result of causes, causes too that may for a long time be avoided, and in the more favored classes are avoided. it is not god's will that the rich be spared and the poor die. yet the greatest mortality is always among the poor. out of each hundred catholics who died in boston, from to , more than sixty-one were less than five years of age. the result for the last six years is no better. of one hundred children born amongst them, only thirty-eight live five years; only eleven become fifty! gray-haired irishmen we seldom see. yet they are not worse off than others equally poor, only we can more distinctly get at the facts. in the war with disease which mankind is waging, the poor stand in front of the fire, and are mowed down without pity! of late years, in boston, there has been a gradual increase in the mortality of children.[ ] i think we shall find the increase only among the children of the poor. of course it depends on causes which may be removed, at least modified, for the average life of mankind is on the increase. i am told, i know not if the authority be good, that mortality among the poor is greater in boston than in any city of europe. of old times the rich man rode into battle, shirted with mail, covered and shielded with iron from head to foot. arrows glanced from him as from a stone. he came home unhurt and covered with "glory." but the poor, in his leathern jerkin or his linen frock, confronted the war, where every weapon tore his unprotected flesh. in the modern, perennial battle with disease, the same thing takes place; the poor fall and die. the destruction of the poor is their poverty. they are ignorant, not from choice but necessity. they cannot, therefore, look round and see the best way of doing things, of saving their strength, and sparing their means. they can have little of what we call thrift, the brain in the hand for which our people are so remarkable. some of them are also little by nature, ill-born; others well born enough, were abandoned in childhood, and have not since been able to make up the arrears of a neglected youth. they are to fight the great battle of life, for battle it is to them, with feeble arms. look at the houses they live in, without comfort or convenience, without sun, or air, or water; damp, cold, filthy and crowded to excess. in one section of the city there are thirty-seven persons on an average in each house. consider the rents paid by this class of our brothers. it is they who pay the highest rate for their dwellings. the worth of the house is often little more than nothing, the ground it covers making the only value. i am told that twelve or fifteen per cent a year on a large valuation is quite commonly paid, and over thirty per cent on the actual value, is not a strange thing. i wish this might not prove true. but the misery of the poor does not end with their wretched houses and exorbitant rent. having neither capital nor store-room, they must purchase articles of daily need in the smallest quantities. they buy, therefore, at the greatest disadvantage, and yet at the dearest rates. i am told it is not a rare thing for them to buy inferior qualities of flour at six cents a pound, or $ . a barrel, while another man buys a month's supply at a time for $ or $ a barrel. this may be an extreme case, but i know that in some places in this city, an inferior article is now retailed to them at $ . the barrel. so it is with all kinds of food; they are bought in the smallest quantities, and at a rate which a rich man would think ruinous. is not the poor man, too, most often cheated in the weight and the measure? so it is whispered. "he has no friends," says the sharper; "others have broken him to fragments, i will grind him to powder!" and the grinding comes. such being the case, the poor man finds it difficult to get a cent beforehand. i know rich men tell us that capital is at the mercy of labor. that may be prophecy; it is not history; not fact. uneducated labor, brute force without skill, is wholly at the mercy of capital. the capitalist can control the market for labor, which is all the poor man has to part with. the poor cannot combine as the rich. true, a mistake is sometimes made, and the demand for labor is greater than the supply, and the poor man's wages are increased. this result was doubtless god's design, but was it man's intention? the condition of the poor has hitherto been bettered, not so much by the design of the strong, as by god making their wrath and cupidity serve the weak. under such circumstances, what marvel that the poor man becomes unthrifty, reckless and desperate? i know how common it is to complain of the extravagance of the poor. often there is reason for the complaint. it is a wrong thing, and immoral, for a man with a dependent family to spend all his earnings, if it be possible to live with less. i think many young men are much to be blamed, for squandering all their wages to please a dainty palate, or to dress as fine as a richer man, making only the heart of their tailor foolishly glad. such men may not be poor now, but destine themselves to be the fathers of poor children. after making due allowance, it must be confessed that much of the recklessness of the poor comes unavoidably from their circumstances; from their despair of ever being comfortable, except for a moment at a time. every one knows that unmerited wealth tempts a man to squander, while few men know, what is just as true, that hopeless poverty does the same thing. as the tortured indian will sleep, if his tormentor pause but a moment, so the poor man, grown reckless and desperate, forgets the future storms, and wastes in revel the solitary gleam of sunlight which falls on him. it is nature speaking through his soul. now consider the moral temptations before such men. here is wealth, food, clothing, comfort, luxury, gold, the great enchanter of this age, and but a plank betwixt it and them. nay, they are shut from it only by a pane of glass thin as popular justice, and scarcely less brittle! they feel the natural wants of man; the artificial wants of men in cities. they are indignant at their social position, thrust into the mews and the kennels of the land. they think some one is to blame for it. a man in new england does not believe it god's will he should toil for ever, stinting and sparing only to starve the more slowly to death, overloaded with work, with no breathing time but the blessed sunday. they see others doing nothing, idle as solomon's lilies, yet wasting the unearned bread god made to feed the children of the poor. they see crowds of idle women elegantly clad, a show of loveliness, a rainbow in the streets, and think of the rag which does not hide their daughter's shame. they hear of thousands of baskets of costly wine imported in a single ship, not brought to recruit the feeble, but to poison the palate of the strong. they begin to ask if wealthy men and wise men have not forgotten their brothers, in thinking of their own pleasure! it is not the poor alone who ask that. in the midst of all this, what wonder is it if they feel desirous of revenge; what wonder that stores and houses are broken into, and stables set afire! such is the natural effect of misery like that; it is but the voice of our brother's blood crying to god against us all. i wonder not that it cries in robbery and fire. the jail and the gallows will not still that voice, nor silence the answer. i wonder at the fewness of crimes, not their multitude. i must say that, if goodness and piety did not bear a greater proportion to the whole development of the poor than the rich, their crimes would be tenfold. the nation sets the poor an example of fraud, by making them pay highest on all local taxes; of theft, by levying the national revenue on persons, not property. our navy and army set them the lesson of violence; and, to complete their schooling, at this very moment we are robbing another people of cities and lands, stealing, burning, and murdering, for lust of power and gold. everybody knows that the political action of a nation is the mightiest educational influence in that nation. but such is the doctrine the state preaches to them, a constant lesson of fraud, theft, violence and crime. the literature of the nation mocks at the poor, laughing in the popular journals at the poor man's inevitable crime. our trade deals with the poor as tools, not men. what wonder they feel wronged! some city missionary may dawdle the matter as he will; tell them it is god's will they should be dirty and ignorant, hungry, cold and naked. now and then a poor woman starving with cold and hunger may think it true. but the poor know better; ignorant as they are, they know better. great nature speaks when you and i are still. they feel neglected, wronged, and oppressed. what hinders them from following the example set by the nation, by society, by the strong? their inertness, their cowardice, and, what does not always restrain abler men, their fear of god! with cultivated men, the intellect is often developed at the expense of conscience and religion. with the poor this is more seldom the case. the misfortunes of the poor do not end here. to make their degradation total, their name infamous, we have shut them out of our churches. once in our puritan meeting-houses, there were "body seats" for the poor; for a long time free galleries, where men sat and were not ashamed. now it is not so. a christian society about to build a church, and having $ , , does not spend $ , for that, making it a church for all, and keep $ , as a fund for the poor. no, it borrows $ , more, and then shuts the poor out of its bankrupt aisles. a high tower, or a fine-toned bell, yes, marble and mahogany, are thought better than the presence of these little ones whom god wills not to perish. i have heard ministers boast of the great men, and famous, who sat under their preaching; never one who boasted that the poor came into his church, and were fed, body and soul! you go to our churches--the poor are not in them. they are idling and lounging away their day of rest, like the horse and the ox. alas me, that the apostles, that the christ himself could not worship in our churches, till he sold his garment and bought a pew! many of our houses of public worship would be well named, "churches for the affluent." yet religion is more to the poor man than to the rich. what wonder then, if the poor lose self-respect, when driven from the only churches where it is thought respectable to pray! this class of men are perishing; yes, perishing in the nineteenth century; perishing in boston, wealthy, charitable boston; perishing soul and body, contrary to god's will; and perishing all the worse because they die slow, and corrupt by inches. as things now are, their mortality is hardly a curse. the methodists are right in telling them this world is a valley of tears; it is almost wholly so to them; and heaven a long june day, full of rest and plenty. to die is their only gain; their only hope. think of that, you who murmur because money is "tight," because your investment gives only twenty per cent. a year, or because you are taxed for half your property, meaning to move off next season; think of that, you who complain because the democrats are in power to-day, and you who tremble lest the whigs shall be in ' ; think of that, you who were never hungry, nor athirst; who are sick, because you have nothing else to do, and grumble against god, from mere emptiness of soul, and for amusement's sake; think of men, who, if wise, do not dare to raise the human prayer for life, but for death, as the only gain, the only hope, and you will give over your complaint, your hands stopping your mouth. what shall become of the children of such men? they stand in the fore-front of the battle, all unprotected as they are; a people scattered and peeled, only a miserable remnant reaches the age of ten! look about your streets, and see what does become of such as live, vagrant and idle boys. ask the police, the constables, the jails; they shall tell you what becomes of the sons. will a white lily grow in a common sewer; can you bleach linen in a tan-pit? yes, as soon as you can rear a virtuous population, under such circumstances. go to any state prison in the land, and you shall find that seven-eighths of the convicts came from this class, brought there by crimes over which they had no control; crimes which would have made you and me thieves and pirates. the characters of such men are made for them, far more than by them. there is no more vice, perhaps, born into that class; they have no more "inherited sin" than any other class in the land; all the difference, then, between the morals and manners of rich and poor, is the result of education and circumstances. the fate of the daughters of the poor is yet worse. many of them are doomed to destruction by the lust of men, their natural guardians and protectors. think of an able, "respectable" man, comfortable, educated and "christian," helping debase a woman, degrade her in his eyes, her eyes, the eyes of the world! why it is bad enough to enslave a man, but thus to enslave a woman--i have no words to speak of that. the crime and sin, foul, polluting and debasing all it touches, has come here to curse man and woman, the married and the single, and the babe unborn! it seems to me as if i saw the genius of this city stand before god, lifting his hands in agony to heaven, crying for mercy on woman, insulted and trodden down, for vengeance on man, who treads her thus infamously into the dust. the vengeance comes, not the mercy. misery in woman is the strongest inducement to crime. where self-respect is not fostered; where severe toil hardly holds her soul and body together amid the temptations of a city, and its heated life, it is no marvel to me that this sin should slay its victims, finding woman an easy prey. let me follow the children of the poor a step further--i mean to the jail. few men seem aware of the frightful extent of crime amongst us, and the extent of the remedy, more awful yet. in less than one year, namely, from the th of june, , to the d of june, , there were committed to your house of correction, in this city, , persons, a little more than one out of every fifty-six in the whole population that is more than ten years old. of these were women; men. five were sentenced for an indefinite period, and forty-seven for an additional period of solitary imprisonment. in what follows, i make no account of that. but the whole remaining period of their sentences amounts to more than years, or , days. in addition to this, in the year ending with june , , we sent from boston to the state prison, thirty-five more, and for a period of , days, of which were solitary. thus it appears that the illegal and convicted crime of boston, in one year, was punished by imprisonment for , days. now as boston contains but , persons of all ages, and only , that are over ten years of age, it follows that the imprisonment of citizens of boston for crime in one year, amounts to more than one day and twenty-one hours, for each man, woman, and child, or to more than three days and three hours, for each one over ten years of age. this seems beyond belief, yet in making the estimate, i have not included the time spent in jail before sentence; i have left out the solitary imprisonment in the house of correction; i have said nothing of the children, sentenced for crime to the house of reformation in the same period. what is the effect of this punishment on society at large? i will not now attempt to answer that question. what is it on the criminals themselves? let the jail-books answer. of the whole number, were sentenced for the second time; for the third; for the fourth; thirty-eight for the fifth; forty for the sixth; twenty-nine for the seventh; twenty-three for the eighth; twelve for the ninth; fifty for the tenth time, or more; and of the criminals punished for the tenth time, thirty-one were women! of the thirty-five sent to the state prison, fourteen had been there before; of the , sent to the house of correction, only were sent for the first time. there are two classes, the victims of society, and the foes of society, the men that organize its sins, and then tell us nobody is to blame. may god deal mercifully with the foes; i had rather take my part with the victims. yet is there one who wishes to be a foe to mankind? here are the sons of the poor, vagrant in your streets, shut out by their misery from the culture of the age; growing up to fill your jails, to be fathers of a race like themselves, and to be huddled into an infamous grave. here are the daughters of the poor, cast out and abandoned, the pariahs of our civilization, training up for a life of shame and pollution, and coming early to a miserable end. here are the poor, daughters and sons, excluded from the refining influences of modern life, shut out of the very churches by that bar of gold, ignorant, squalid, hungry and hopeless, wallowing in their death! are these the results of modern civilization; this in the midst of the nineteenth century, in a christian city full of churches and gold; this in boston, which adds $ , , a year to her actual wealth? is that the will of god? tell it not in china; whisper it not in new holland, lest the heathen turn pale with horror, and send back your missionaries, fearing they shall pollute the land! * * * * * there is yet another class of little ones. i mean the intemperate. within the last few years it seems that drunkenness has increased. i know this is sometimes doubted. but if this fact is not shown by the increased number of legal convictions for the crime, it is by the sight of drunken men in public and not arrested. i think i have not visited the city five times in the last ten months without seeing more or less men drunk in the streets. the cause of this increase it seems to me is not difficult to discover. all great movements go forward by undulations, as the waves of the rising tide come up the beach. now comes a great wave reaching far up the shore, and then recedes. the next, and the next, and the next falls short of the highest mark; yet the tide is coming in all the while. you see this same undulation in other popular movements; for example, in politics. once the great wave of democracy broke over the central power, washing it clean. now the water lies submissive beneath that rock, and humbly licks its feet. in some other day the popular wave shall break with purifying roar clean over that haughty stone and wash off the lazy barnacles, heaps of corrupting drift-weed, and deadly monsters of the deep. by such seemingly unsteady movements do popular affairs get forward. the reformed drunkards, it is said, were violent, ill-bred, theatrical, and only touched the surface. many respectable men withdrew from the work soon as the washingtonians came to it. it was a pity they did so; but they did. i think the conscience of new england did not trust the reformed men; that also is a pity. they seem now to have relaxed their efforts in a great measure, perhaps discouraged at the coldness with which they have in some quarters been treated. i know not why it is, but they do not continue so ably the work they once begun. besides, the state, it was thought, favored intemperance. it was for a long time doubted if the license-laws were constitutional; so they were openly set at nought, for wicked men seize on doubtful opportunities. then, too, temperance had gone, a few years ago, as far as it could be expected to go until certain great obstacles were removed. many leading men in the land were practically hostile to temperance, and, with some remarkable exceptions, still are. the sons of the pilgrims, last forefathers' day, could not honor the self-denial of the puritans without wine! the alumni of harvard university could never, till this season, keep their holidays without strong drink.[ ] if rich men continue to drink without need, the poor will long continue to be drunk. vices, like decayed furniture, go down. they keep their shape, but become more frightful. in this way the refined man who often drinks, but is never drunk, corrupts hundreds of men whom he never saw, and without intending it becomes a foe to society. then, too, some of our influential temperance men aid us no longer. beecher is not here; channing and ware have gone to their reward. that other man,[ ] benevolent and indefatigable, where is he? he trod the worm of the still under his feet, but the worm of the pulpit stung him, and he too is gone; that champion of temperance, that old man eloquent, driven out of boston. why should i not tell an open secret?--driven out by rum and the unitarian clergy of boston. whatsoever the causes may be, i think you see proofs enough of the fact, that drunkenness has increased within the last few years. you see it in the men drunken in the streets, in the numerous shops built to gratify the intemperate man. some of these are elegant and costly, only for the rich; others so mean and dirty, that one must be low indeed to wallow therein. but the same thing is there in both, rum, poison-drink. many of these latter are kept by poor men, and the spider's web of the law now and then catches one of them, though latterly but seldom here. sometimes they are kept, and, perhaps, generally owned, by rich men who drive through the net. i know how hard it is to see through a dollar, though misery stand behind it, if the dollar be your own, and the misery belong to your brother. i feel pity for the man who helps ruin his race, who scatters firebrands and death throughout society, scathing the heads of rich and poor, and old and young. i would speak charitably of such an one as of a fellow-sinner. how he can excuse it to his own conscience is his affair, not mine. i speak only of the fact. for a poor man there may be some excuse; he has no other calling whereby to gain his bread; he would not see his own children beg, nor starve, nor steal! to see his neighbor go to ruin and drag thither his children and wife, was not so hard. but it is not the shops of the poor men that do most harm! had there been none but these, they had long ago been shut, and intemperance done with. it is not poor men that manufacture this poison; nor they who import it, or sell by the wholesale. if there were no rich men in this trade there would soon be no poor ones! but how does the rich man reconcile it to his conscience? i cannot answer that. it is difficult to find out the number of drink-shops in the city. the assessors say there are eight hundred and fifty; another authority makes the number twelve hundred. let us suppose there are but one thousand. i think that much below the real number, for the assistant assessors found three hundred in a single ward! these shops are open morning and night. more is sold on sunday, it is said, than any other day in the week! while you are here to worship your father, some of your brothers are making themselves as beasts; yes, lower. you shall probably see them at the doors of these shops as you go home; drunk in the streets this day! to my mind, the retailers are committing a great offence. i am no man's judge, and cannot condemn even them. there is one that judgeth. i cannot stand in the place of any man's conscience. i know well enough what is sin; god, only, who is a sinner. yet i cannot think the poor man that retails, half so bad as the rich man who distils, imports, or sells by wholesale the infamous drug. he knew better, and cannot plead poverty as the excuse of his crime. let me mention some of the statistics of this trade before i speak of its effects. if there are one thousand drink-shops, and each sells liquor to the amount of only six dollars a day, which is the price of only one hundred drams, or two hundred at the lowest shops, then we have the sum of $ , , paid for liquor to be drunk on the spot every year. this sum is considerably more than double the amount paid for the whole public education of the people in the entire state of massachusetts! in boston alone, last year, there were distilled, , , gallons of spirit. in five years, from to , boston exported , , , and imported , , gallons. they burnt up a man the other day, at the distillery in merrimack street. you read the story in the daily papers, and remember how the by-standers looked on with horror to see the wounded man attempting with his hands to fend off the flames from his naked head! great heaven! it was not the first man that distillery has burned up! no, not by thousands. you see men about your streets, all afire; some half-burnt down; some with all the soul burned out, only the cinders left of the man, the shell and wall, and that tumbling and tottering, ready to fall. who of you has not lost a relative, at least a friend, in that withering flame, that terrible _auto da fe_, that hell-fire on earth? let us look away from that. i wish we could look on something to efface that ghastly sight. but see the results of this trade. do you wonder at the poverty just now spoken of; at the vagrant children? in the poor house at albany, at one time, there were persons, and of them were intemperate! ask your city authorities how many of the poor are brought to their almshouse directly or remotely by intemperance! do you wonder at the crime which fills your jails, and swells the tax of county and city? three fourths of the petty crime in the state comes from this source directly or remotely. your jails were never so full before! when the parents are there, what is left for the children? in prussia, the government which imprisons the father takes care of the children, and sends them to school. here they are forced into crime. as i gave some statistics of the cause, let me also give some of the effects. two years ago your grand jury reports that one of the city police, on sunday morning, between the hours of twelve and two, in walking from cornhill square to cambridge street, passed more than one hundred persons more or less drunk! in there were committed to your house of correction, for drunkenness, persons; in , ; in , up to the th of august, that is, in seven months and twenty-four days, . besides there have been already in this year, complained of at the police court and fined, but not sent to the house of correction. thus, in seven months and twenty-four days, persons have been legally punished for public drunkenness. in the last two months and a half persons were thus punished. in the first twenty-four days of this month, ninety-four! in the last year there were , persons committed to your watch-houses, more than the twenty-fifth of the whole population. the thousand drink-shops levy a direct tax of more than $ , , . that is only the first outlay. the whole ultimate cost in idleness, sickness, crime, death and broken hearts--i leave you to calculate that! the men who live in the lower courts, familiar with the sinks of iniquity, speak of this crime as "most awful!" yet in this month and the last, there were but nine persons indicted for the illegal sale of the poison which so wastes the people's life! the head of your police and the foreman of your last grand jury are prominent in that trade. does the government know of these things; know of their cause? one would hope not. the last grand jury in their public report, after speaking manfully of some actual evils, instead of pointing at drunkenness and bar-rooms, direct your attention "to the increased number of omnibuses and other large carriages in the streets." * * * * * these are sad things to think of in a christian church. what shall we do for all these little ones that are perishing? "do nothing," say some. "am i my brother's keeper?" asked the first cain, after killing that brother. he thought the answer would be, "no! you are not." but he was his brother's keeper, and abel's blood cried from the ground for justice, and god heard it. some say we can do nothing. i will never believe that a city which in twelve years can build near a thousand miles of railroad, hedge up the merrimack and the lakes of new hampshire; i will never believe that a city, so full of the hardiest enterprise and the noblest charity, cannot keep these little ones from perishing. why the nation can annex new states and raise armies at uncounted cost. can it not extirpate pauperism, prevent intemperance, pluck up the causes of the present crime? all that is lacking is the prudent will! it seems as if something could easily be done to send the vagrant children to school; at least to give them employment, and so teach them some useful art. if some are catholics, and will not attend the protestant schools, perhaps it would be as possible to have a special and separate school for the irish as for the africans. it was recently proposed in a protestant assembly to found sunday schools, with catholic teachers for catholic children. the plan is large and noble, and indicates a liberality which astonishes one even here, where some men are ceasing to be sectarian and becoming human. much may be done to bring many of the children to our sunday and week-day schools, as they now are, and so brands be snatched from the burning. the state farm school for juvenile offenders, which a good man last winter suggested to your legislature, will doubtless do much for these idle boys, and may be the beginning of a greater and better work. could the state also take care of the children when it locks the parents in a jail, there would be a nearer approach to justice and greater likelihood of obtaining its end. still the laws act cumbrously and slow. the great work must be done by good men, acting separately or in concert, in their private way. you are your brother's keeper; god made you so. if you are rich, intelligent, refined and religious, why you are all the more a keeper to the poor, the weak, the vulgar and the wicked. in the pauses of your work there will be time to do something. in the unoccupied hours of the sunday there is yet leisure to help a brother's need. if there are times when you are disposed to murmur at your own hard lot, though it is not hard; or hours when grief presses heavy on your heart, go and look after these children, find them employment, and help them to start in life; you will find your murmurings are ended, and your sorrow forgot. it does not seem difficult to do something for the poor. it would be easy to provide comfortable and convenient houses and at a reasonable rate. the experiment has been tried by one noble-hearted man, and thus far works well. i trust the same plan, or one better, if possible, will soon be tried on a larger scale, and so repeated, till we are free from that crowding together of miserable persons, which now disgraces our city. it seems to me that a store might be established where articles of good quality should be furnished to the poor at cost. something has already been done in this way, by the "trade's union," who need it much less. a practical man could easily manage the details of such a scheme. all reform and elevation of this class of men must begin by mending their circumstances, though of course it must not end there. expect no improvement of men that are hungry, naked, and cold. few men respect themselves in that condition. hope not of others what would be impossible for you! you may give better pay when that is possible. i can hardly think it the boast of a man, that he has paid less for his labor than any other in his calling. but it is a common boast, though to me it seems the glory of a pirate! i cannot believe there is that sharp distinction between week-day religion and sunday religion, or between justice and charity, that is sometimes pretended. a man both just and charitable would find his charity run over into his justice, and the mixture improve its quality. when i remember that all value is the result of work, and see likewise that no man gets rich by his own work, i cannot help thinking that labor is often wickedly underpaid, and capital sometimes as grossly over-fed. i shall believe that capital is at the mercy of labor, when the two extremes of society change places. is it christian or manly to reduce wages in hard times, and not raise them in fair times? and not raise them again in extraordinary times? is it god's will that large dividends and small wages should be paid at the same time? the duty of the employer is not over, when he has paid "the hands" their wages. abraham is a special providence for eliezer, as god, the universal providence, for both. the usages of society make a sharp distinction between the rich and poor; but i cannot believe the churches have done wisely, by making that distinction appear through separating the two, in their worship. the poor are, undesignedly, driven out of the respectable churches. they lose self-respect; lose religion. those that remain, what have they gained by this expulsion of their brothers? a beautiful and costly house, but a church without the poor. the catholics were wiser and more humane than that. i cannot believe the mightiest abilities and most exquisite culture were ever too great to preach and apply christianity among the poor; and that "the best sermons would be wasted on them." yet such has not been the practical decision here! i trust we shall yet be able to say of all our churches, however costly, "there the rich and poor meet together." they are now equally losers by the separation. the seventy ministers of boston--how much they can do for this class of little ones, if they will! it has been suggested by some kindly and wise men, that there should be a prisoners' home established, where the criminal, on being released from jail, could go and find a home and work. as the case now is, there is almost no hope for the poor offender. "legal justice" proves often legal vengeance, and total ruin to the poor wretch on whom it falls; it grinds him to powder! all reform of criminals, without such a place, seems to me worse than hopeless. if possible, such an institution seems more needed for the women, than even for the men: but i have not now time to dwell on this theme. you know the efforts of two good men amongst us, who, with slender means, and no great encouragement from the public, are indeed the friends of the prisoner.[ ] god bless them in their labors. we can do something in all these schemes for helping the poor. each of us can do something in his own sphere, and now and then step out of that sphere to do something more. i know there are many amongst you, who only require a word before they engage in this work, and some who do not require even that, but are more competent than i to speak that word. your committee of benevolent action have not been idle. their works speak for them. * * * * * for the suppression of intemperance, redoubled efforts must be made. men of wealth, education and influence must use their strength of nature, or position, to protect their brothers, not drive them down to ruin. temperance cannot advance much further among the people, until this class of men lend their aid; at least, until they withdraw the obstacles they have hitherto and so often opposed to its progress. they must forbear the use, as well as the traffic. i cannot but think the time is coming, when he who makes or sells this poison as a drink, will be legally ranked with other poisoners, with thieves, robbers, and house-burners; when a fortune acquired by such means will be thought infamous, as one now would be if acquired by piracy! i know good men have formerly engaged in this trade; they did it ignorantly. now, we know the unavoidable effects thereof. i trust the excellent example lately set by the government of the university, will be followed at all public festivals. we must still have a watchful eye on the sale of this poison. it is not the low shops which do the most harm, but the costly tippling-houses which keep the low ones in countenance, and thus shield them from the law and public feeling. it seems as if a law were needed, making the owner of a tippling-house responsible for the illegal sale of liquors there. then the real offender might be reached, who now escapes the meshes of the law. it has long ago been suggested that a temperance home was needed for the reformation of the unfortunate drunkard. it is plain that the jail does not reform him. those sent to jail for drunkenness are, on the average, sentenced no less than five times; some of them, fifteen or twenty times! of what use to shut a man in a jail, and release him with the certainty that he will come out no better, and soon return for the same offence? when as much zeal and ability are directed to cure this terrible public malady, as now go to increase it, we shall not thus foolishly waste our strength. you all know how much has been done by one man in this matter;[ ] that in four years he saved three hundred drunkards from the prison, two hundred of whom have since done well! if it be the duty of the state to prevent crime, not avenge it, is it not plain what is the way? however, a reform in this matter will be permanent only through a deeper and wider reform elsewhere. drunkenness and theft in its various illegal forms, are confined almost wholly to the poorest class. so long as there is unavoidable misery, like the present, pauperism and popular ignorance; so long as thirty-seven are crowded into one house, and that not large; so long as men are wretched and without hope, there will be drunkenness. i know much has been done already; i think drunkenness will never be respectable again, or common amongst refined and cultivated men; it will be common among the ignorant, the outcast and the miserable, so long as the present causes of poverty, ignorance and misery continue. for that continuance, and the want, the crime, the unimaginable wretchedness and death of heart which comes thereof, it is not these perishing little ones, but the strong that are responsible before god! it will not do for your grand juries to try and hide the matter by indicting "omnibuses and other large carriages;" the voice of god cries, where is thy brother?--and that brother's blood answers from the ground. what i have suggested only palliates effects; it removes no cause;--of that another time. these little ones are perishing here in the midst of us. society has never seriously sought to prevent it, perhaps has not been conscious of the fact. it has not so much legislated for them as against them. its spirit is hostile to them. if the mass of able-headed men were in earnest about this, think you they would allow such unthrifty ways, such a waste of man's productive energies? never! no, never. they would repel the causes of this evil as now an invading army. the removal of these troubles must be brought about by a great change in the spirit of society. society is not christian in form or spirit. so there are many who do not love to hear christianity preached and applied, but to have some halting theology set upon its crutches. they like, on sundays, to hear of the sacrifice, not to have mercy and goodness demanded of them. a christian state after the pattern of that divine man, jesus--how different it would be from this in spirit and in form! taking all this whole state into account, things, on the whole, are better here, than in any similar population, after all these evils. i think there can be no doubt of that; better now, on the whole, than ever before. a day's work will produce a greater quantity of needful things than hitherto. so the number of little ones that perish is smaller than heretofore, in proportion to the whole mass. i do not believe the world can show such examples of public charity as this city has afforded in the last fifty years. alas! we want the justice which prevents causes no less than the charity which palliates effects. see yet the unnatural disparity in man's condition: bloated opulence and starving penury in the same street! see the pauperism, want, licentiousness, intemperance and crime in the midst of us; see the havoc made of woman; see the poor deserted by their elder brother, while it is their sweat which enriches your ground, builds your railroads, and piles up your costly houses. the tall gallows stands in the back-ground of society, overlooking it all; where it should be the blessed gospel of the living god. what we want to remove the cause of all this is the application of christianity to social life. nothing less will do the work. each of us can help forward that by doing the part which falls in his way. christianity, like the eagle's flight, begins at home. we can go further, and do something for each of these classes of little ones. then we shall help others do the same. some we may encourage to practical christianity by our example; some we may perhaps shame. still more, we can ourselves be pure, manly, christian; each of us that, in heart and life. we can build up a company of such, men of perpetual growth. then we shall be ready not only for this special work now before us, to palliate effects, but for every christian and manly duty when it comes. then, if ever some scheme is offered which is nobler and yet more christian than what we now behold, it will find us booted, and girded, and road-ready. i look to you to do something in this matter. you are many; most of you are young. i look to you to set an example of a noble life, human, clean and christian, not debasing these little ones, but lifting them up. will you cause them to perish; you? i know you will not. will you let them perish? i cannot believe it. will you not prevent their perishing? nothing less is your duty. some men say they will do nothing to help liberate the slave, because he is afar off, and "our mission is silence!" well--here are sufferers in a nearer need. do you say, i can do but little to christianize society! very well, do that little, and see if it does not amount to much, and bring its own blessing--the thought that you have given a cup of cold water to one of the little ones. did not jesus say, "inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these ye have done it unto me?" since last we met, one of our number[ ] has taken that step in life commonly called death. he was deeply interested and active in the movement for the perishing classes of men. after his spirit had passed on, a woman whom he had rescued, and her children with her, from intemperance and ruin, came and laid her hand on that cold forehead whence the kindly soul had fled, and mourning that her failures had often grieved his heart before, vowed solemnly to keep steadfast forever, and go back to evil ways no more! who would not wish his forehead the altar for such a vow? what nobler monument to a good man's memory! the blessing of those ready to perish fell on him. if his hand cannot help us, his example may. footnotes: [ ] this evil is now happily removed, and all men rejoice in a cheap and abundant supply of pure water. [ ] see the valuable tables and remarks, by mr. shattuck, in his census of boston, pp. - . [ ] for this much needed reform at the academical table, we are indebted to the hon. edward everett, the president of harvard college. for this he deserves the hearty thanks of the whole community. [ ] rev. john pierpont. [ ] the editors of the "prisoners' friend." [ ] mr. john augustus. [ ] nathaniel f. thayer, aged . vii. a sermon of merchants.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, november , . ecclesiasticus xxvii. . as a nail sticketh fast between the joinings of the stones; so doth sin stick close between buying and selling. i ask your attention to a sermon of merchants, their position, temptations, opportunities, influence and duty. for the present purpose, men may be distributed into four classes. i. men who create new material for human use, either by digging it out of mines and quarries, fishing it out of the sea, or raising it out of the land. these are direct producers. ii. men who apply their head and hands to this material and transform it into other shapes, fitting it for human use; men that make grain into flour and bread, cotton into cloth, iron into needles or knives, and the like. these are indirect producers; they create not the material, but its fitness, use, or beauty. they are manufacturers. iii. men who simply use these things, when thus produced and manufactured. they are consumers. iv. men who buy and sell: who buy to sell, and sell to buy the more. they fetch and carry between the other classes. these are distributors; they are the merchants. under this name i include the whole class who live by buying and selling, and not merely those conventionally called merchants, to distinguish them from small dealers. this term comprises traders behind counters and traders behind desks; traders neither behind counters nor desks. there are various grades of merchants. they might be classed and symbolized according as they use a basket, a wheelbarrow, a cart, a stall, a booth, a shop, a warehouse, counting-room, or bank. still all are the same thing--men who live by buying and selling. a ship is only a large basket, a warehouse, a costly stall. your peddler is a small merchant going round from house to house with his basket to mediate between persons; your merchant only a great peddler sending round from land to land with his ships to mediate between nations. the israelitish woman who sits behind a bench in her stall on the rialto at venice, changing gold into silver and copper, or loaning money to him who leaves hat, coat, and other collaterals in pledge, is a small banker. the israelitish man who sits at frankfort on the maine, changes drafts into specie, and lends millions to men who leave in pledge a mortgage on the states of the church, austria or russia--is a pawnbroker and money-changer on a large scale. by this arithmetic, for present convenience, all grades of merchants are reduced to one denomination--men who live by buying and selling. all these four classes run into one another. the same man may belong to all at the same time. all are needed. at home a merchant is a mediator to go between the producer and the manufacturer; between both and the consumer. on a large scale he is the mediator who goes between continents, between producing and manufacturing states, between both and consuming countries. the calling is founded in the state of society, as that in a compromise between man's permanent nature and transient condition. so long as there are producers and consumers, there must be distributors. the value of the calling depends on its importance; its usefulness is the measure of its respectability. the most useful calling must be the noblest. if it is difficult, demanding great ability and self-sacrifice, it is yet more noble. a useless calling is disgraceful; one that injures mankind--infamous. tried by this standard, the producers seem nobler than the distributors; they than the mere consumers. this may not be the popular judgment now, but must one day become so, for mankind is slowly learning to judge by the natural law published by jesus--that he who would be greatest of all, must be most effectively the servant of all. there are some who do not seem to belong to any of the active classes, who are yet producers, manufacturers, and distributors by their head, more than their hand; men who have fertile heads, producers, manufacturers, and distributors of thought, active in the most creative way. here, however, the common rule is inverted: the producers are few--men of genius; the manufacturers many--men of talent; the distributors--men of tact, men who remember, and talk with tongue or pen, their name is legion. i will not stop to distribute them into their classes, but return to the merchant. the calling of the merchant acquires a new importance in modern times. once nations were cooped up, each in its own country and language. then war was the only mediator between them. they met but on the battle-field, or in solemn embassies to treat for peace. now trade is the mediator. they meet on the exchange. to the merchant, no man who can trade is a foreigner. his wares prove him a citizen. gold and silver are cosmopolitan. once, in some of the old governments, the magistrates swore, "i will be evil-minded towards the people, and will devise against them the worst thing i can." now they swear to keep the laws which the people have made. once the great question was, how large is the standing army? now, what is the amount of the national earnings? statesmen ask less about the ships of the line, than about the ships of trade. they fear an over-importation oftener than a war, and settle their difficulties in gold and silver, not as before with iron. all ancient states were military; the modern mercantile. war is getting out of favor as property increases and men get their eyes open. once every man feared death, captivity, or at least robbery in war; now the worst fear is of bankruptcy and pauperism. this is a wonderful change. look at some of the signs thereof. once castles and forts were the finest buildings; now exchanges, shops, custom-houses, and banks. once men built a chinese wall to keep out the strangers--for stranger and foe were the same; now men build railroads and steamships to bring them in. england was once a strong-hold of robbers, her four seas but so many castle-moats; now she is a great harbor with four ship-channels. once her chief must be a bold, cunning fighter; now a good steward and financier. not to strike a hard blow, but to make a good bargain is the thing. formerly the most enterprising and hopeful young men sought fame and fortune in deeds of arms; now an army is only a common sewer, and most of those who go to the war, if they never return, "have left their country for their country's good." in days gone by, constructive art could build nothing better than hanging gardens, and the pyramids--foolishly sublime; now it makes docks, canals, iron roads and magnetic telegraphs. saint louis, in his old age, got up a crusade, and saw his soldiers die of the fever at tunis; now the king of the french sets up a factory, and will clothe his people in his own cottons and woollens. the old douglas and percy were clad in iron, and harried the land on both sides of the tweed; their descendants now are civil-suited men who keep the peace. no girl trembles, though "all the blue bonnets are over the border." the warrior has become a shopkeeper. "lord stafford mines for coal and salt; the duke of norfolk deals in malt, the douglas in red herrings; and noble name and cultured land, palace and park, and vassal band, are powerless to the notes of hand of rothschild or the barings." of merchants there are three classes. i. merchant-producers, who deal in labor applied to the direct creation of new material. they buy labor and land, to sell them in corn, cotton, coal, timber, salt, and iron. ii. merchant-manufacturers, who deal in labor applied to transforming that material. they buy labor, wool, cotton, silk, water-privileges and steam-power, to sell them all in finished cloth. iii. merchant-traders, who simply distribute the article raised or manufactured. these three divisions i shall speak of as one body. property is accumulated labor; wealth or riches a great deal of accumulated labor. as a general rule, merchants are the only men who become what we call rich. there are exceptions, but they are rare, and do not affect the remarks which are to follow. it is seldom that a man becomes rich by his own labor employed in producing or manufacturing. it is only by using other men's labor that any one becomes rich. a man's hands will give him sustenance, not affluence. in the present condition of society this is unavoidable; i do not say in a normal condition, but in the present condition. * * * * * here in america the position of this class is the most powerful and commanding in society. they own most of the property of the nation. the wealthy men are of this class; in practical skill, administrative talent, in power to make use of the labor of other men, they surpass all others. now, wealth is power, and skill is power--both to a degree unknown before. this skill and wealth are more powerful with us than any other people, for there is no privileged caste, priest, king, or noble, to balance against them. the strong hand has given way to the able and accomplished head. once head armor was worn on the outside, and of brass, now it is internal and of brains. to this class belongs the power both of skill and of wealth, and all the advantages which they bring. it was never so before in the whole history of man. it is more so in the united states than in any other place. i know the high position of the merchants in venice, pisa, florence, nuremberg and basel, in the middle ages and since. those cities were gardens in a wilderness, but a fringe of soldiers hung round their turreted walls; the trader was dependent on the fighter, and though their merchants became princes, they were yet indebted to the sword, and not entirely to their calling, for defence. their palaces were half castles, and their ships full of armed men. besides those were little states. here the merchant's power is wholly in his gold and skill. rome is the city of priests; vienna for nobles; berlin for scholars; the american cities for merchants. in italy the roads are poor, the banking-houses humble; the cots of the laborer mean and bare, but churches and palaces are beautiful and rich. god is painted as a pope. generally in europe, the clergy, the soldiers, and the nobles are the controlling class. the finest works of art belong to them, represent them, and have come from the corporation of priests, or the corporation of fighters. here a new era is getting symbolized in our works of art. they are banks, exchanges, custom-houses, factories, railroads. these come of the corporation of merchants; trade is the great thing. nobody tries to secure the favor of the army or navy--but of the merchants. once there was a permanent class of fighters. their influence was supreme. they had the power of strong arms, of disciplined valor, and carried all before them. they made the law and broke it. men complained, grumbling in their beard, but got no redress. they it was that possessed the wealth of the land. the producer, the manufacturer, the distributor could not get rich: only the soldier, the armed thief, the robber. with wealth they got its power; by practice gained knowledge, and so the power thereof; or, when that failed, bought it of the clergy, the only class possessing literary and scientific skill. they made their calling "noble," and founded the aristocracy of soldiers. young men of talent took to arms. trade was despised and labor was menial. their science is at this day the science of kings. when graziers travel they look at cattle; weavers at factories; philanthropists at hospitals; dandies at their equals and coadjutors; and kings at armies. those fighters made the world think that soldiers were our first men, and murder of their brothers the noblest craft in the world; the only honorable and manly calling. the butcher of swine and oxen was counted vulgar--the butcher of men and women great and honorable. foolish men of the past think so now; hence their terror at orations against war; hence their admiration for a red coat; their zeal for some symbol of blood in their family arms; hence their ambition for military titles when abroad. most foolish men are more proud of their ambiguous norman ancestor who fought at the battle of hastings--or fought not--than of all the honest mechanics and farmers who have since ripened on the family tree. the day of the soldiers is well-nigh over. the calling brings low wages and no honor. it opens with us no field for ambition. a passage of arms is a passage that leads to nothing. that class did their duty at that time. they founded the aristocracy of soldiers--their symbol the sword. mankind would not stop there. then came a milder age and established the aristocracy of birth--its symbol the cradle, for the only merit of that sort of nobility, and so its only distinction, is to have been born. but mankind who stopped not at the sword, delays but little longer at the cradle; leaping forward it founds a third order of nobility, the aristocracy of gold, its symbol the purse. we have got no further on. shall we stop there? there comes a to-morrow after every to-day, and no child of time is just like the last. the aristocracy of gold has faults enough, no doubt, this feudalism of the nineteenth century. but it is the best thing of its kind we have had yet; the wisest, the most human. we are going forward and not back. god only knows when we shall stop, and where. surely not now, nor here. now the merchants in america occupy the place which was once held by the fighters and next by the nobles. in our country we have balanced into harmony the centripetal power of the government, and the centrifugal power of the people: so have national unity of action, and individual variety of action--personal freedom. therefore a vast amount of talent is active here which lies latent in other countries, because that harmony is not established there. here the army and navy offer few inducements to able and aspiring young men. they are fled to as the last resort of the desperate, or else sought for their traditional glory, not their present value. in europe, the army, the navy, the parliament or the court, the church and the learned professions offer brilliant prizes to ambitious men. thither flock the able and the daring. here such men go into trade. it is better for a man to have set up a mill than to have won a battle. i deny not the exceptions. i speak only of the general rule. commerce and manufactures offer the most brilliant rewards--wealth, and all it brings. accordingly the ablest men go into the class of merchants. the strongest men in boston, taken as a body, are not lawyers, doctors, clergymen, book-wrights, but merchants. i deny not the presence of distinguished ability in each of those professions; i am now again only speaking of the general rule. i deny not the presence of very weak men, exceedingly weak in this class; their money their only source of power. the merchants then are the prominent class; the most respectable, the most powerful. they know their power, but are not yet fully aware of their formidable and noble position at the head of the nation. hence they are often ashamed of their calling; while their calling is the source of their wealth, their knowledge, and their power, and should be their boast and their glory. you see signs of this ignorance and this shame: there must not be shops under your athenæum, it would not be in good taste; you may store tobacco, cider, rum, under the churches, out of sight, you must have no shop there; it would be vulgar. it is not thought needful, perhaps not proper, for the merchant's wife and daughter to understand business, it would not be becoming. many are ashamed of their calling, and, becoming rich, paint on the doors of their coach, and engrave on their seal, some lion, griffin, or unicorn, with partisans and maces to suit; arms they have no right to, perhaps have stolen out of some book of heraldry. no man paints thereon a box of sugar, or figs, or candles couchant; a bale of cotton rampant; an axe, a lapstone, or a shoe hammer saltant. yet these would be noble, and christian withal. the fighters gloried in their horrid craft, and so made it pass for noble, but with us a great many men would be thought "the tenth transmitter of a foolish face," rather than honest artists of their own fortune; prouder of being born than of having lived never so manfully. in virtue of its strength and position, this class is the controlling one in politics. it mainly enacts the laws of this state and the nation; makes them serve its turn. acting consciously or without consciousness, it buys up legislators when they are in the market; breeds them when the market is bare. it can manufacture governors, senators, judges, to suit its purposes, as easily as it can make cotton cloth. it pays them money and honors; pays them for doing its work, not another's. it is fairly and faithfully represented by them. our popular legislators are made in its image; represent its wisdom, foresight, patriotism and conscience. your congress is its mirror. this class is the controlling one in the churches, none the less, for with us fortunately the churches have no existence independent of the wealth and knowledge of the people. in the same way it buys up the clergymen, hunting them out all over the land; the clergymen who will do its work, putting them in comfortable places. it drives off such as interfere with its work, saying, "go starve, you and your children!" it raises or manufactures others to suit its taste. the merchants build mainly the churches, endow theological schools; they furnish the material sinews of the church. hence the metropolitan churches are in general as much commercial as the shops. * * * * * now from this position, there come certain peculiar temptations. one is to an extravagant desire of wealth. they see that money is power, the most condensed and flexible form thereof. it is always ready; it will turn any way. they see that it gives advantages to their children which nothing else will give. the poor man's son, however well born, struggling for a superior education, obtains his culture at a monstrous cost; with the sacrifice of pleasure, comfort, the joys of youth, often of eyesight and health. he must do two men's work at once--learn and teach at the same time. he learns all by his soul, nothing from his circumstances. if he have not an iron body as well as an iron head, he dies in that experiment of the cross. the land is full of poor men who have attained a superior culture, but carry a crippled body through all their life. the rich man's son needs not that terrible trial. he learns from his circumstances, not his soul. the air about him contains a diffused element of thought. he learns without knowing it. colleges open their doors; accomplished teachers stand ready; science and art, music and literature, come at the rich man's call. all the outward means of educating, refining, elevating a child, are to be had for money, and for money alone. then, too, wealth gives men a social position, which nothing else save the rarest genius can obtain, and which that, in the majority of cases lacking the commercial conscience, is sure not to get. many men prize this social rank above every thing else, even above justice and a life unstained. since it thus gives power, culture for one's children, and a distinguished social position, rank amongst men, for the man and his child after him, there is a temptation to regard money as the great object of life, not a means but an end; the thing a man is to get even at the risk of getting nothing else. it "answereth all things." here and there you find a man who has got nothing else. men say of such an one, "he is worth a million!" there is a terrible sarcasm in common speech, which all do not see. he is "worth a million," and that is all; not worth truth, goodness, piety; not worth a man. i must say, i cannot but think there are many such amongst us. most rich men, i am told, have mainly gained wealth by skill, foresight, industry, economy, by honorable painstaking, not by trick. it may be so. i hope it is. still there is a temptation to count wealth the object of life--the thing to be had if they have nothing else. the next temptation is to think any means justifiable which lead to that end,--the temptation to fraud, deceit, to lying in its various forms, active and passive; the temptation to abuse the power of this natural strength, or acquired position, to tyrannize over the weak, to get and not give an equivalent for what they get. if a man get from the world more than he gives an equivalent for, to that extent he is a beggar and gets charity, or a thief and steals; at any rate, the rest of the world is so much the poorer for him. the temptation to fraud of this sort, in some of its many forms, is very great. i do not believe that all trade must be gambling or trickery, the merchant a knave or a gambler. i know some men say so. but i do not believe it. i know it is not so now; all actual trade, and profitable too, is not knavery. i know some become rich by deceit. i cannot but think these are the exceptions; that the most successful have had the average honesty and benevolence, with more than the average industry, foresight, prudence and skill. a man foresees future wants of his fellows, and provides for them; sees new resources hitherto undeveloped, anticipates new habits and wants; turns wood, stone, iron, coal, rivers and mountains to human use, and honestly earns what he takes. i am told, by some of their number, that the merchants of this place rank high as men of integrity and honor, above mean cunning, but enterprising, industrious and far-sighted. in comparison with some other places, i suppose it is true. still i must admit the temptation to fraud is a great one; that it is often yielded to. few go to a great extreme of deceit--they are known and exposed: but many to a considerable degree. he that makes haste to be rich is seldom innocent. young men say it is hard to be honest; to do by others as you would wish them to do by you. i know it need not be so. would not a reputation for uprightness and truth be a good capital for any man, old or young? this class owns the machinery of society, in great measure,--the ships, factories, shops, water privileges, houses and the like. this brings into their employment large masses of working men, with no capital but muscles or skill. the law leaves the employed at the employer's mercy. perhaps this is unavoidable. one wishes to sell his work dear, the other to get it cheap as he can. it seems to me no law can regulate this matter, only conscience, reason, the christianity of the two parties. one class is strong, the other weak. in all encounters of these two, on the field of battle, or in the market-place, we know the result: the weaker is driven to the wall. when the earthen and iron vessel strike together, we know beforehand which will go to pieces. the weaker class can seldom tell their tale, so their story gets often suppressed in the world's literature, and told only in outbreaks and revolutions. still the bold men who wrote the bible, old testament and new, have told truths on this theme which others dared not tell--terrible words which it will take ages of christianity to expunge from the world's memory. there is a strong temptation to use one's power of nature or position to the disadvantage of the weak. this may be done consciously or unconsciously. there are examples enough of both. here the merchant deals in the labor of men. this is a legitimate article of traffic, and dealing in it is quite indispensable in the present condition of affairs. in the southern states, the merchant, whether producer, manufacturer or trader, owns men and deals in their labor, or their bodies. he uses their labor, giving them just enough of the result of that labor to keep their bodies in the most profitable working state; the rest of that result he steals for his own use, and by that residue becomes rich and famous. he owns their persons and gets their labor by direct violence, though sanctioned by law. that is slavery. he steals the man and his labor. here it is possible to do a similar thing: i mean it is possible to employ men and give them just enough of the result of their labor to keep up a miserable life, and yourself take all the rest of the result of that labor. this may be done consciously or otherwise, but legally, without direct violence, and without owning the person. this is not slavery, though only one remove from it. this is the tyranny of the strong over the weak; the feudalism of money; stealing a man's work, and not his person. the merchants as a class are exposed to this very temptation. sometimes it is yielded to. some large fortunes have been made in this way. let me mention some extreme cases; one from abroad, one near at home. in belgium the average wages of men in manufactories is less than twenty-seven cents a day. the most skilful women in that calling can earn only twenty cents a day, and many very much less.[ ] in that country almost every seventh man receives charity from the public: the mortality of operatives, in some of the cities, is ten per cent. a year! perhaps that is the worst case which you can find on a large scale even in europe. how much better off are many women in boston who gain their bread by the needle? yes a large class of women in all our great cities? the ministers of the poor can answer that; your police can tell of the direful crime to which necessity sometimes drives women whom honest labor cannot feed! i know it will be said, "buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest; get work at the lowest wages." still there is another view of the case, and i am speaking to men whose professed religion declares that all are brothers, and demands that the strong help the weak. oppression of this sort is one fertile source of pauperism and crime. how much there is of it i know not, but i think men seldom cry unless they are hurt. when men are gathered together in large masses, as in the manufacturing towns, if there is any oppression of this sort, it is sure to get told of, especially in new england. but when a small number are employed, and they isolated from one another, the case is much harder. perhaps no class of laborers in new england is worse treated than the hired help of small proprietors. then, too, there is a temptation to abuse their political power to the injury of the nation, to make laws which seem good for themselves, but are baneful to the people; to control the churches, so that they shall not dare rebuke the actual sins of the nation, or the sins of trade, and so the churches be made apologizers for lowness, practising infidelity as their sacrament, but in the name of christ and god. the ruling power in england once published a volume of sermons, as well as a book of prayers, which the clergy were commanded to preach. what sort of a gospel got recommended therein, you may easily guess; and what is recommended by the class of merchants in new england, you may as easily hear. * * * * * but if their temptations are great, the opportunities of this class for doing good are greater still. their power is more readily useful for good than ill, as all power is. in their calling they direct and control the machinery, the capital, and thereby the productive labor of the whole community. they can as easily direct that well as ill; for the benefit of all, easier than to the injury of any one. they can discover new sources of wealth for themselves, and so for the nation; they can set on foot new enterprises, which shall increase the comfort and welfare of man to a vast degree, and not only that, but enlarge also the number of men, for that always greatens in a nation, as the means of living are made easy. they can bind the rivers, teaching them to weave and spin. the introduction of manufactures into england, and the application of machinery to that purpose, i doubt not has added some millions of new lives to her population in the present century--millions that otherwise would never have lived at all. the introduction of manufactures into the united states, the application of water-power and steam-power to human work, the construction of canals and railroads, has vastly increased the comforts of the living. it helps civilize, educate and refine men; yes, leads to an increase of the number of lives. there are men to whom the public owes a debt which no money could pay, for it is a debt of life. what adequate sum of gold, or what honors could mankind give to columbus, to faustus, to fulton, for their works? he that did the greatest service ever done to mankind got from his age a bad name and a cross for his reward. there are men whom mankind are to thank for thousands of lives; yet men who hold no lofty niche in the temple of fame. by their control of the legislature the merchants can fashion more wisely the institutions of the land, promote the freedom of all, break off traditionary yokes, help forward the public education of the people by the establishment of public schools, public academies, and public colleges. they can frame particular statutes which help and encourage the humble and the weak, laws which prevent the causes of poverty and crime, which facilitate for the poor man the acquisition of property, enabling him to invest his earnings in the most profitable stocks,--laws which bless the living, and so increase the number of lives. they can thus help organize society after the christian idea, and promote the kingdom of heaven. they can make our jails institutions which really render their inmates better, and send them out whole men, safe and sound. we have seen them do this with lunatics, why not with those poor wretches whom now we murder? they too can found houses of cure for drunkards, and men yet more unfortunate when released from our prisons. by their control of the churches, and all our seminaries, public and private, they can encourage freedom of thought; can promote the public morals by urging the clergy to point out and rebuke the sins of the nation, of society, the actual sins of men now living; can encourage them to separate theology from mythology, religion from theology, and then apply that religion to the state, to society and the individual; can urge them to preach both parts of religion--morality, the love of man, and piety, the love of god, setting off both by an appeal to that great soul who was christianity in one person. in this way they have an opportunity of enlarging tenfold the practical value of the churches, and helping weed licentiousness, intemperance, want, and ignorance and sin, clean out of man's garden here. with their encouragement, the clergy would form a noble army contending for the welfare of men--the church militant, but preparing to be soon triumphant. thus laboring, they can put an end to slavery, abolish war, and turn all the nation's creative energies to production--their legitimate work. then they can promote the advance of science, of literature, of the arts--the useful and the beautiful. we see what their famed progenitors did in this way at venice, florence, genoa. i know men say that art cannot thrive in a republic. an opportunity is offered now to prove the falsehood of that speech, to adorn our strength with beauty. a great amount of creative, artistic talent is rising here and seeks employment. they can endow hospitals, colleges, normal schools, found libraries and establish lectures for the welfare of all. he that has the wealth of a king may spend it like a king, not for ostentation, but for use. they can set before men examples of industry, economy, truth, justice, honesty, charity, of religion at her daily work, of manliness in life--all this as no other men. their charities need not stare you in the face; like violets their fragrance may reach you before you see them. the bare mention of these things recalls the long list of benefactors, names familiar to you all--for there is one thing which this city was once more famous for than her enterprise, and that is her charity--the charity which flows in public;--the noiseless stream that shows itself only in the greener growth which marks its path. * * * * * such are the position, temptations, opportunities of this class. what is their practical influence on church and state--on the economy of mankind? what are they doing in the nation? i must judge them by the highest standard that i know, the standard of justice, of absolute religion, not out of my own caprice. bear with me while i attempt to tell the truth, which i have seen. if i see it not, pity me and seek better instruction where you can find it. but if i see a needed truth, and for my own sake refuse to speak, bear with me no more. bid me then repent. i am speaking of men, strong men too, and shall not spare the truth. there is always a conservative element in society; yes, an element which resists the further application of christianity to public affairs. once the fighters and their children were uppermost, and represented that element. then the merchants were reformatory, radical, in collision with the nobles. they were "whigs"--the nobles were "tories." the merchants formed themselves into companies, and got power from the crown to protect themselves against the nobles, whom the crown also feared. it is so in england now. the great revolution in the laws of trade lately effected there, was brought about by the merchants, though opposed by the lords. the anti-corn law league was a trades-union of merchants contending against the owners of the soil. there the lord of land, and by birth, is slowly giving way to the lord of money, who is powerful by his knowledge or his wealth. there will always be such an element in society. here i think it is represented by the merchants. they are backward in all reforms, excepting such as their own interest demands. thus they are blind to the evils of slavery, at least silent about them. how few commercial or political newspapers in the land ever seriously oppose this great national wickedness! nay, how many of them favor its extension and preservation! a few years ago, in this very city, a mob of men, mainly from this class, it is said, insulted honest women peaceably met to consult for the welfare of christian slaves in a christian land--met to pray for them! a merchant of this city says publicly, that a large majority of his brethren would kidnap a fugitive slave in boston; says it with no blush and without contradiction.[ ] it was men of this class who opposed the abolition of the slave-trade, and had it guaranteed them for twenty years after the formation of the constitution; through their instigation that this foul blot was left to defile the republic and gather blackness from age to age; through their means that the nation stands before the world pledged to maintain it. they could end slavery at once, at least could end the national connection with it, but it is through their support that it continues; that it acquires new strength, new boldness, new territory, darkens the nation's fame and hope, delays all other reformations in church and state and the mass of the people. yes, it is through their influence that the chivalry, the wisdom, patriotism, eloquence, yea, religion of the free states, are all silent when the word slavery is pronounced. the senate of massachusetts represents this more than any other class. but all last winter it could not say one word against the wickedness of this sin, allowed to live and grow greater in the land.[ ] just before the last election something could be said! do speech and silence mean the same thing? this class opposed abolishing imprisonment for debt, thinking it endangered trade. they now oppose the progress of temperance and the abolition of the gallows. they see the evils of war; they cannot see its sin; will sustain men who help plunge the nation into its present disgraceful and cowardly conflict; will encourage foolish young men to go and fight in this wicked war. a great man said, or is reported to have said, that perhaps it is not an american habit to consider the natural justice of a war, but to count its cost! a terrible saying that! there is a power which considers its justice, and will demand of us the blood we have wickedly poured out; blood of americans, blood of the mexicans! they favor indirect taxation, which is taxing the poor for the benefit of the rich; they continue to support the causes of poverty; as a class they are blind to this great evil of popular ignorance--the more terrible evils of licentiousness, drunkenness and crime! they can enrich themselves by demoralizing their brothers. i wish it was an american habit to count the cost of that. some "fanatic" will consider its justice. if they see these evils they look not for their cause; at least, strive not to remove that cause. they have long known that every year more money is paid in boston for poison drink to be swallowed on the spot, a drink which does no man any good, which fills your asylums with paupers, your jails with criminals, and houses with unutterable misery in father, mother, wife and child,--more money every year than it would take to build your new aqueduct and bring abundance of water fresh to every house![ ] if they have not known it, why it was their fault, for the fact was there crying to heaven against us all. as they are the most powerful class, the elder brothers, american nobles if you will, it was their duty to look out for their weaker brother. no man has strength for himself alone. to use it for one's self alone, that is a sin. i do not think they are conscious of the evil they do, or the evils they allow. i speak not of motives, only of facts. this class controls the state. the effects of that control appear in our legislation. i know there are some noble men in political life, who have gone there with the loftiest motives, men that ask only after what is right. i honor such men--honor them all the more because they seem exceptions to a general rule; men far above the spirit of any class. i must speak of what commonly takes place. our politics are chiefly mercantile, politics in which money is preferred, and man postponed. when the two come into collision, the man goes to the wall and the street is left clear for the dollars. a few years ago in monarchical france a report was made of the condition of the working population in the large manufacturing towns--a truthful report, but painful to read, for it told of strong men oppressing the weak.[ ] i do not believe that such an undisguised statement of the good and ill could be tolerated in democratic america; no, not of the condition of men in new england; and what would be thought of a book setting forth the condition of the laboring men and women of the south? i know very well what is thought of the few men who attempt to tell the truth on this subject. i think there is no nation in europe, except russia and turkey, which cares so little for the class which reaps down its harvests and does the hard work. when you protect the rights of all, you protect also the property of each and by that very act. to begin the other way is quite contrary to nature. but our politicians cannot say too little for men, nor too much for money. take the politicians most famous and honored at this day, and what have they done? they have labored for a tariff, or for free trade; but what have they done for man? nay, what have they attempted?--to restore natural rights to men notoriously deprived of them; progressively to elevate their material, moral, social condition? i think no one pretends it. even in proclamations for thanksgiving and days of prayer, it is not the most needy we are bid remember. public sins are not pointed out to be repented of. slaveholding states shut up in their jails our colored seamen soon as they arrive in a southern port. a few years ago, at a time of considerable excitement here on the slavery question, a petition was sent from this place by some merchants and others, to one of our senators, praying congress to abate that evil. for a long time that senator could find no opportunity to present the petition. you know how much was said and what was done! had the south demanded every tenth or twentieth bale of "domestics" coming from the north; had a petition relative to that grievance been sent to congress, and a senator unreasonably delayed to present it--how much more would have been said and done; when he came back he would have been hustled out of boston! when south carolina and louisiana sent home our messengers--driving them off with reproach, insult, and danger of their lives--little is said and nothing done. but if the barbarous natives of sumatra interfere with our commerce, why, we send a ship and lay their towns in ruins and murder the men and women! we all know that for some years congress refused to receive petitions relative to slavery; and we know how tamely that was borne by the class who commonly control political affairs! what if congress had refused to receive petitions relative to a tariff, or free trade, to the shipping interest, or the manufacturing interest? when the rights of men were concerned, three million men, only the "fanatics" complained. the political newspapers said "hush!" the merchant-manufacturers want a protective tariff; the merchant-importers, free trade; and so the national politics hinge upon that question. when massachusetts was a carrying state, she wanted free trade; now a manufacturing state, she desires protection. that is all natural enough; men wish to protect their interests, whatsoever they may be. but no talk is made about protecting the labor of the rude man, who has no capital, nor skill, nothing but his natural force of muscles. the foreigner underbids him, monopolizing most of the brute labor of our large towns and internal improvements. there is no protection, no talk of protection for the carpenter, or the bricklayer. i do not complain of that. i rejoice to see the poor wretches of the old world finding a home where our fathers found one before. yet if we cared for men more than for money, and were consistent with our principles of protection, why, we should exclude all foreign workmen, as well as their work, and so raise the wages of the native hands. that would doubtless be very foolish legislation--but perhaps not, on that account, very strange. i know we are told that without protection, our hand-worker, whose capital is his skill, cannot compete with the operative of manchester and brussels, because that operative is paid but little. i know not if it be true, or a mistake. but who ever told us such men could not compete with the slave of south carolina who is paid nothing? we have legislation to protect our own capital against foreign capital; perhaps our own labor against the "pauper of europe;" why not against the slave labor of the southern states? because the controlling class prefers money and postpones man. yet the slave-breeder is protected. he has, i think, the only real monopoly in the land. no importer can legally spoil his market, for the foreign slave is contraband. if i understand the matter, the importation of slaves was allowed, until such men as pleased could accumulate their stock. the reason why it was afterwards forbidden i think was chiefly a mercantile reason: the slave-breeder wanted a monopoly, for god knows and you know that it is no worse to steal grown men in africa than to steal new born babies in maryland, to have them born for the sake of stealing them. free labor may be imported, for it helps the merchant-producer and the merchant-manufacturer. slave labor is declared contraband, for the merchant-slave-breeders want a monopoly. this same preference of money over men appears in many special statutes. in most of our manufacturing companies the capital is divided into shares so large that a poor man cannot invest therein! this could easily be avoided. a man steals a candlestick out of a church, and goes to the state prison for a year and a day. another quarrels with a man, maims him for life, and is sent to the common jail for six months. a bounty is paid, or was until lately, on every gallon of intoxicating drink manufactured here and sent out of the country. if we begin with taking care of the rights of man, it seems easy to take care of the rights of labor and of capital. to begin the other way is quite another thing. a nation making laws for the nation is a noble sight. the government of all, by all, and for all, is a democracy. when that government follows the eternal laws of god, it is founding what christ called the kingdom of heaven. but the predominating class making laws not for the nation's good, but only for its own, is a sad spectacle; no reasoning can make it other than a sorry sight. to see able men prostituting their talents to such a work, that is one of the saddest sights! i know all other nations have set us the example, yet it is painful to see it followed, and here. our politics, being mainly controlled by this class, are chiefly mercantile, the politics of peddlers. so political management often becomes a trick. hence we have many politicians, and raise a harvest of them every year, that crop never failing, party-men who can legislate for a class; but we have scarce one great statesman who can step before his class, beyond his age, and legislate for a whole nation, leading the people and giving us new ideas to incarnate in the multitude, his word becoming flesh. we have not planters, but trimmers! a great statesman never came of mercantile politics, only of politics considered as the national application of religion to life. our political morals, you all know what they are, the morals of a huckster. this is no new thing; the same game was played long ago in venice, pisa, florence, and the result is well known. a merely mercantile politician is very sharp-sighted and perhaps far-sighted, but a dollar will cover the whole field of his vision and he can never see through it. the number of slaves in the united states is considerably greater than our whole population when we declared independence, yet how much talk will a tariff make, or a public dinner; how little the welfare of three million men! said i not truly, our most famous politicians are, in the general way, only mercantile party-men? which of these men has shown the most interest in those three million slaves? the man who in the senate of a christian republic valued them at twelve hundred million dollars! shall respectable men say, "we do not care what sort of a government the people have, so long as we get our dividends." some say so; many men do not say that, but think so and act accordingly! the government, therefore, must be so arranged that they get their dividends. this class of men buys up legislators, consciously or not, and pays them, for value received. yes, so great is its daring and its conscious power, that we have recently seen our most famous politician bought up, the stoutest understanding that one finds now extant in this whole nineteenth century, perhaps the ablest head since napoleon. none can deny his greatness, his public services in times past, nor his awful power of intellect. i say we have seen him, a senator of the united states, pensioned by this class, or a portion thereof, and thereby put mainly in their hands! when a whole nation rises up and publicly throws its treasures at the feet of a great man who has stood forth manfully contending for the nation, and bids him take their honors and their gold as a poor pay for noble works, why that sight is beautiful, the multitude shouting hosanna to their king, and spreading their garments underneath his feet! man is loyal, and such honors so paid, and to such, are doubly gracious; becoming alike to him that takes and those who give. yes, when a single class, to whom some man has done a great service, goes openly and makes a memorial thereof in gold and honors paid to him, why that also is noble and beautiful. but when a single class, in a country where political doings are more public than elsewhere in the whole world, secretly buys up a man, in high place and world-famous, giving him a retaining fee for life, why the deed is one i do not wish to call by name! could such men do this without a secret shame? i will never believe it of my countrymen.[ ] a gift blinds a wise man's eyes, perverts the words even of the righteous, stopping his mouth with gold so that he cannot reprove a wrong! but there is an absolute justice which is neither bought nor sold! i know other nations have done the same and with like effect. fight with silver weapons, said the delphic oracle, and you'll conquer all. it has always been the craft of despots to buy up aspiring talent; some with a title; some with gold. allegiance to the sovereign is the same thing on both sides of the water, whether the sovereign be an eagle or a guinea. some american, it is said, wrote the lord's prayer on one side of a dime, and the ten commandments on the other. the constitution and a considerable commentary might perhaps be written on the two sides of a dollar! this class controls the churches, as the state. let me show the effect of that control. i am not to try men in a narrow way, by my own theological standard, but by the standard of manliness and christianity. as a general rule, the clergy are on the side of power. all history proves this, our own most abundantly. the clergy also are unconsciously bought up, their speech paid for, or their silence. as a class, did they ever denounce a public sin? a popular sin? perhaps they have. do they do it now and here? take boston for the last ten years, and i think there has been more clerical preaching against the abolitionists than against slavery; perhaps more preaching against the temperance movement than in its favor. with the exception of disbelieving the popular theology, your evangelical alliance knows no sin but "original sin," unless indeed it be "organic sins," which no one is to blame for; no sinner but adam and the devil; no saving righteousness but the "imputed." i know there are exceptions, and i would go far to do them honor, pious men who lift up a warning, yes, bear christian testimony against public sins. i am speaking of the mass of the clergy. christ said the priests of his time had made a den of thieves out of god's house of prayer. now they conform to the public sins and apologize for popular crime. it is a good thing to forgive an offence: who does not need that favor and often? but to forgive the theory of crime, to have a theory which does that, is quite another thing. large cities are alike the court and camp of the mercantile class, and what i have just said is more eminently true of the clergy in such towns. let me give an example. not long ago the unitarian clergy published a protest against american slavery. it was moderate, but firm, and manly. almost all the clergy in the country signed it. in the large towns few: they mainly young men and in the least considerable churches. the young men seemed not to understand their contract, for the essential part of an ecclesiastical contract is sometimes written between the lines and in sympathetic ink. is a steamboat burned or lost on the waters, how many preach on that affliction! yet how few preached against the war? a preacher may say he hates it as a man, no words could describe his loathing at it, but as a minister of christ, he dares not say a word! what clergymen tell of the sins of boston,--of intemperance, licentiousness; who of the ignorance of the people; who of them lays bare our public sin as christ of old; who tells the causes of poverty, and thousand-handed crime; who aims to apply christianity to business, to legislation, politics, to all the nation's life? once the church was the bride of christ, living by his creative, animating love; her children were apostles, prophets, men by the same spirit, variously inspired with power to heal, to help, to guide mankind. now she seems the widow of christ, poorly living on the dower of other times. nay, the christ is not dead, and 'tis her alimony, not her dower. her children--no such heroic sons gather about her table as before. in her dotage she blindly shoves them off, not counting men as sons of christ. is her day gone by? the clergy answer the end they were bred for, paid for. will they say, "we should lose our influence were we to tell of this and do these things?"[ ] it is not true. their ancient influence is already gone! who asks, "what do the clergy think of the tariff, or free trade, of annexation, or the war, of slavery, or the education movement?" why no man. it is sad to say these things. would god they were not true. look round you, and if you can, come tell me they are false. we are not singular in this. in all lands the clergy favors the controlling class. bossuet would make the monarchy swallow up all other institutions, as in history he sacrificed all nations to the jews. in england the established clergy favors the nobility, the crown, not the people; opposes all freedom of trade, all freedom in religion, all generous education of the people: its gospel is the gospel for a class, not christ's gospel for mankind. here also the sovereign is the head of the church, it favors the prevailing power, represents the morality, the piety which chances to be popular, nor less nor more; the christianity of the street, not of christ. here trade takes the place of the army, navy, and court in other lands. that is well, but it takes also the place in great measure of science, art and literature. so we become vulgar, and have little but trade to show. the rich man's son seldom devotes himself to literature, science, or art; only to getting more money, or to living in idleness on what he has inherited. when money is the end, what need to look for any thing more? he degenerates into the class of consumers, and thinks it an honor. he is ashamed of his father's blood, proud of his gold. a good deal of scientific labor meets with no reward, but itself. in our country this falls almost wholly upon poor men. literature, science and art are mainly in their hands, yet are controlled by the prevalent spirit of the nation. here and there an exceptional man differs from that, but the mass of writers conform. in england, the national literature favors the church, the crown, the nobility, the prevailing class. another literature is rising, but is not yet national, still less canonized. we have no american literature which is permanent. our scholarly books are only an imitation of a foreign type; they do not reflect our morals, manners, politics, or religion, not even our rivers, mountains, sky. they have not the smell of our ground in their breath. the real american literature is found only in newspapers and speeches, perhaps in some novel, hot, passionate, but poor, and extemporaneous. that is our national literature. does that favor man--represent man? certainly not. all is the reflection of this most powerful class. the truths that are told are for them, and the lies. therein the prevailing sentiment is getting into the form of thought. politics represent the morals of the controlling class, the morals and manners of rich peter and david on a large scale. look at that index, you would sometimes think you were not in the senate of a great nation, but in a board of brokers, angry and higgling about stocks. once in the nation's loftiest hour, she rose inspired and said: "all men are born equal, each with unalienable rights; that is self-evident." now she repents her of the vision and the saying. it does not appear in her literature, nor church, nor state. instead of that, through this controlling class, the nation says: "all dollars are equal, however got; each has unalienable rights. let no man question that!" this appears in literature and legislation, church and state. the morals of a nation, of its controlling class, always get summed up in its political action. that is the barometer of the moral weather. the voters are always fairly represented. * * * * * the wicked baron, bad of heart, and bloody of hand, has passed off with the ages which gave birth to such a brood, but the bad merchant still lives. he cheats in his trade; sometimes against the law, commonly with it. his truth is never wholly true, nor his lie wholly false. he overreaches the ignorant; makes hard bargains with men in their trouble, for he knows that a falling man will catch at red-hot iron. he takes the pound of flesh, though that bring away all the life-blood with it. he loves private contracts, digging through walls in secret. no interest is illegal if he can get it. he cheats the nation with false invoices, and swears lies at the custom-house; will not pay his taxes, but moves out of town on the last of april.[ ] he oppresses the men who sail his ships, forcing them to be temperate, only that he may consume the value of their drink. he provides for them unsuitable bread and meat. he would not engage in the african slave-trade, for he might lose his ships and perhaps more; but he is always ready to engage in the american slave-trade, and calls you a "fanatic" if you tell him it is the worse of the two. he cares not whether he sells cotton or the man who wears it, if he only gets the money; cotton or negro, it is the same to him. he would not keep a drink-hole in ann street, only own and rent it. he will bring or make whole cargoes of the poison that deals "damnation round the land." he thinks it vulgar to carry rum about in a jug, respectable in a ship. he makes paupers, and leaves others to support them. tell not him of the misery of the poor, he knows better; nor of our paltry way of dealing with public crime, he wants more jails and a speedier gallows. you see his character in letting his houses, his houses for the poor. he is a stone in the lame man's shoe. he is the poor man's devil. the hebrew devil that so worried job is gone; so is the brutal devil that awed our fathers. nobody fears them; they vanish before cock-crowing. but this devil of the nineteenth century is still extant. he has gone into trade, and advertises in the papers; his name is "good" in the street. he "makes money;" the world is poorer by his wealth. he spends it as he made it, like a devil, on himself, his family alone, or worse yet, for show. he can build a church out of his gains, to have his morality, his christianity preached in it, and call that the gospel, as aaron called a calf--god. he sends rum and missionaries to the same barbarians, the one to damn, the other to "save," both for his own advantage, for his patron saint is judas, the first saint who made money out of christ. ask not him to do a good deed in private, "men would not know it," and "the example would be lost;" so he never lets a dollar slip out between his thumb and finger without leaving his mark on both sides of it. he is not forecasting to discern effects in causes, nor skilful to create new wealth, only spry in the scramble for what others have made. it is easy to make a bargain with him, hard to settle. in politics he wants a government that will insure his dividends; so asks what is good for him, but ill for the rest. he knows no right, only power; no man but self; no god but his calf of gold. what effect has he on young men? they had better touch poison. if he takes you to his heart, he takes you in. what influence on society? to taint and corrupt it all round. he contaminates trade; corrupts politics, making abusive laws, not asking for justice but only dividends. to the church he is the anti-christ. yes, the very devil, and frightens the poor minister into shameful silence, or, more shameless yet, into an apology for crime; makes him pardon the theory of crime! let us look on that monster--look and pass by, not without prayer. the good merchant tells the truth and thrives by that; is upright and downright; his word good as his bible-oath. he pays for all he takes; though never so rich he owns no wicked dollar; all is openly, honestly, manfully earned, and a full equivalent paid for it. he owns money and is worth a man. he is just in business with the strong; charitable in dealing with the weak. his counting-room or his shop is the sanctuary of fairness, justice, a school of uprightness as well as thrift. industry and honor go hand in hand with him. he gets rich by industry and forecast, not by slight of hand and shuffling his cards to another's loss. no men become the poorer because he is rich. he would sooner hurt himself than wrong another, for he is a man, not a fox. he entraps no man with lies, active or passive. his honesty is better capital than a sharper's cunning. yet he makes no more talk about justice and honesty than the sun talks of light and heat; they do their own talking. his profession of religion is all practice. he knows that a good man is just as near heaven in his shop as in his church, at work as at prayer; so he makes all work sacramental; he communes with god and man in buying and selling--communion in both kinds. he consecrates his week-day and his work. christianity appears more divine in this man's deeds than in the holiest words of apostle or saint. he treats every man as he wishes all to treat him, and thinks no more of that than of carrying one for every ten. it is the rule of his arithmetic. you know this man is a saint, not by his creed, but by the letting of his houses, his treatment of all that depend on him. he is a father to defend the weak, not a pirate to rob them. he looks out for the welfare of all that he employs; if they are his help he is theirs, and as he is the strongest so the greater help. his private prayer appears in his public work, for in his devotion he does not apologize for his sin, but asking to outgrow that, challenges himself to new worship and more piety. he sets on foot new enterprises which develop the nation's wealth and help others while they help him. he wants laws that take care of man's rights, knowing that then he can take care of himself and of his own, but hurt no man by so doing. he asks laws for the weak, not against them. he would not take vengeance on the wicked, but correct them. his justice tastes of charity. he tries to remove the causes of poverty, licentiousness, of all crime, and thinks that is alike the duty of church and state. ask not him to make a statesman a party-man, or the churches an apology for his lowness. he knows better; he calls that infidelity. he helps the weak help themselves. he is a moral educator, a church of christ gone into business, a saint in trade. the catholic saint who stood on a pillar's top, or shut himself into a den and fed on grass, is gone to his place--that christian nebuchadnezzar. he got fame in his day. no man honors him now; nobody even imitates him. but the saint of the nineteenth century is the good merchant; he is wisdom for the foolish, strength for the weak, warning to the wicked, and a blessing to all. build him a shrine in bank and church, in the market and the exchange, or build it not, no saint stands higher than this saint of trade. there are such men, rich and poor, young and old; such men in boston. i have known more than one such, and far greater and better than i have told of, for i purposely under-color this poor sketch. they need no word of mine for encouragement or sympathy. have they not christ and god to aid and bless them? would that some word of mine might stir the heart of others to be such; your hearts, young men. they rise there clean amid the dust of commerce and the mechanic's busy life, and stand there like great square pyramids in the desert amongst the arabians' shifting tents. look at them, ye young men, and be healed of your folly. it is not the calling which corrupts the man, but the men the calling. the most experienced will tell you so. i know it demands manliness to make a man, but god sent you here to do that work. the duty of this class is quite plain. they control the wealth, the physical strength, the intellectual vigor of the nation. they now display an energy new and startling. no ocean is safe from their canvas; they fill the valleys; they level the hills; they chain the rivers; they urge the willing soil to double harvests. nature opens all her stores to them; like the fabled dust of egypt her fertile bosom teems with new wonders, new forces to toil for man. no race of men in times of peace ever displayed so manly an enterprise, an energy so vigorous as this class here in america. nothing seems impossible to them. the instinct of production was never so strong and creative before. they are proving that peace can stimulate more than war. would that my words could reach all of this class. think not i love to speak hard words, and so often; say not that i am setting the poor against the rich. it is no such thing. i am trying to set the strong in favor of the weak. i speak for man. are you not all brothers, rich or poor? i am here to gratify no vulgar ambition, but in religion's name to tell their duty to the most powerful class in all this land. i must speak the truth i know, though i may recoil with trembling at the words i speak; yes, though their flame should scorch my own lips. some of the evils i complain of are your misfortune, not your fault. perhaps the best hearts in the land, no less than the ablest heads, are yours. if the evils be done unconsciously, then it will be greatness to be higher than society, and with your good overcome its evil. all men see your energy, your honor, your disciplined intellect. let them see your goodness, justice, christianity. the age demands of you a development of religion proportionate with the vigor of your mind and arms. trade is silently making a wonderful revolution. we live in the midst of it, and therefore see it not. all property has become movable, and therefore power departs from the family of the first-born, and comes to the family of mankind. god only controls this revolution, but you can help it forward, or retard it. the freedom of labor, and the freedom of trade, will work wonders little dreamed of yet; one is now uniting all men of the same nation; the other, some day, will weave all tribes together into one mighty family. then who shall dare break its peace? i cannot now stop to tell half the proud achievements i foresee resulting from the fierce energy that animates your yet unconscious hearts. men live faster than ever before. life, like money, like mechanical power, is getting intensified and condensed. the application of science to the arts, the use of wind, water, steam, electricity, for human works, is a wonderful fact, far greater than the fables of old time. the modern cadmus has yoked fire and water in an iron bond. the new prometheus sends the fire of heaven from town to town to run his errands. we talk by lightning. even now these new achievements have greatly multiplied the powers of men. they belong to no class; like air and water they are the property of mankind. it is for you, who own the machinery of society, to see that no class appropriates to itself what god meant for all. remember it is as easy to tyrannize by machinery as by armies, and as wicked; that it is greater now to bless mankind thereby, than it was of old to conquer new realms. let men not curse you, as the old nobility, and shake you off, smeared with blood and dust. turn your power to goodness, its natural transfiguration, and men shall bless your name, and god bless your soul. if you control the nation's politics, then it is your duty to legislate for the nation,--for man. you may develop the great national idea, the equality of all men; may frame a government which shall secure man's unalienable rights. it is for you to organize the rights of man, thus balancing into harmony the man and the many, to organize the rights of the hand, the head, and the heart. if this be not done, the fault is yours. if the nation play the tyrant over her weakest child, if she plunder and rob the feeble indian, the feebler mexican, the negro, feebler yet, why the blame is yours. remember there is a god who deals justly with strong and weak. the poor and the weak have loitered behind in the march of man; our cities yet swarm with men half-savage. it is for you, ye elder brothers, to lead forth the weak and poor! if you do the national duty that devolves on you, then are you the saviors of your country, and shall bless not that alone, but all the thousand million sons of men. toil then for that. if the church is in your hands, then make it preach the christian truth. let it help the free development of religion in the self-consciousness of man, with jesus for its pattern. it is for you to watch over this work, promote it, not retard. help build the american church. the roman church has been, we know what it was, and what men it bore; the english church yet stands, we know what it is. but the church of america--which shall represent american vigor aspiring to realize the ideas of christianity, of absolute religion,--that is not yet. no man has come with pious genius fit to conceive its litany, to chant its mighty creed, and sing its beauteous psalm. the church of america, the church of freedom, of absolute religion, the church of mankind, where truth, goodness, piety, form one trinity of beauty, strength, and grace--when shall it come? soon as we will. it is yours to help it come. for these great works you may labor; yes, you are laboring, when you help forward justice, industry, when you promote the education of the people; when you practise, public and private, the virtues of a christian man; when you hinder these seemingly little things, you hinder also the great. you are the nation's head, and if the head be wilful and wicked, what shall its members do and be? to this class let me say: remember your position at the head of the nation; use it not as pirates, but americans, christians, men. remember your temptations, and be warned in time. remember your opportunities--such as no men ever had before. god and man alike call on you to do your duty. elevate your calling still more; let its nobleness appear in you. scorn a mean thing. give the world more than you take. you are to serve the nation, not it you; to build the church, not make it a den of thieves, nor allow it to apologize for your crime, or sloth. try this experiment and see what comes of it. in all things govern yourselves by the eternal law of right. you shall build up not a military despotism, nor a mercantile oligarchy, but a state, where the government is of all, by all, and for all; you shall found not a feudal theocracy, nor a beggarly sect, but the church of mankind, and that christ which is the same yesterday, to-day and for ever, will dwell in it, to guide, to warn, to inspire, and to bless all men. and you, my brothers, what shall you become? not knaves, higgling rather than earn; not tyrants, to be feared whilst living, and buried at last amid popular hate; but men, who thrive best by justice, reason, conscience, and have now the blessedness of just men making themselves perfect. footnotes: [ ] i gather these facts from a review of major poussin's _belgique et les belges, depuis _, in a foreign journal. the condition of the merchant manufacturer i know not. [ ] subsequent events (in and ) show that he was right in his statement. what was thought calumny then has become history since, and is now the glory and boast of boston. [ ] mr. _robert j. walker_ published a letter in favor of the annexation of texas. in it he said: "upon the refusal of re-annexation ... the tariff as a practical measure falls wholly and for ever, and we shall thereafter be compelled to resort to direct taxes to support the government." notwithstanding this foolish threat, a large number of citizens of massachusetts remonstrated against annexation. the house of representatives, by a large majority, passed a resolve declaring that massachusetts "announces her uncompromising opposition to the further extension of american slavery," and "declares her earnest and unalterable purpose to use every lawful and constitutional measure for its overthrow and entire extinction," etc. but the senate voted that the resistance of the state was already sufficient! the passage in the text refers to these circumstances. [ ] it was then thought that the aqueduct would cost but $ , , . [ ] i refer to the report of m. villerme, in the _mémoires de l'institut, tom._ lxxi. [ ] this was printed in . in , and since, these men have publicly gloried in a similar act even more atrocious. [ ] keble, in one of his poems, represents a mother seeing her sportive son "enacting holy rites," and thus describes her emotions: "she sees in heart an empty throne, and falling, falling far away, him whom the lord hath placed thereon: she hears the dread proclaimer say, 'cast ye the lot, in trembling cast, the traitor to his place hath past,-- strive ye with prayer and fast to guide the dangerous glory where it shall abide.'" [ ] it is the custom in massachusetts to tax men in the place where they reside, on the first day of may; as the taxes differ very much in different towns of the same state, it is easy for a man to escape the burden of taxation. viii. a sermon of the dangerous classes in society.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, january , . matthew xviii. . if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? we are first babies, then children, then youths, then men. it is so with the nation; so with mankind. the human race started with no culture, no religion, no morals, even no manners, having only desires and faculties within, and the world without. now we have attained much more. but it has taken many centuries for mankind to pass from primeval barbarism to the present stage of comfort, science, civilization, and refinement. it has been the work of two hundred generations; perhaps of more. but each new child is born at the foot of the ladder, as much as the first child; with only desires and faculties. he may have a better physical organization than the first child; he certainly has better teachers; but he, in like manner, is born with no culture, no religion, no morals, even with no manners; born into them, not with them; born bare of these things and naked as the first child. he must himself toil up the ladder which mankind have been so long in constructing and climbing up. to attain the present civilization he must pass over every point which the race passed through. the child of the civilized man, born with a good organization and under favorable circumstances, can do this rapidly, and in thirty or forty years attains the height of development which it took the whole human race sixty centuries or more to arrive at. he has the aid of past experience and the examples of noble men; he travels a road already smooth and beaten. the world's cultivation, so slowly and painfully achieved, helps civilize him. he may then go further on, and cultivate himself; may transcend the development of mankind, adding new rounds to the ladder. so doing he aids future children, who will one day climb above his head, he possibly crying against them,--that they climb only to fall, and thereby sweep off him and all below; that no new rounds can be added to the old ladder. still, after all the helps which our fathers have provided, every future child must go through the same points which we and our predecessors passed through, only more swiftly. every boy has his animal period, when he can only eat and sleep, intelligence slowly dawning on his mind. then comes his savage period, when he knows nothing of rights, when all thine is mine to him, if he can get it. then comes his barbarous period, when he is ignorant and dislikes to learn; study and restraint are irksome. he hates the school, disobeys his mother; has reverence for nobody. nothing is sacred to him--no time, nor place, nor person. he would grow up wild. the greater part of children travel beyond this stage. the unbearable boy becomes a tolerable youth; then a powerful man. he loves his duty; outstrips the men that once led him so unwilling and reluctant, and will set hard lessons for his grandsire which that grandsire, perhaps, will not learn. the young learns of the old, mounts the ladder they mounted and the ladder they made. the reverse is seldom true, that the old climbs the ladder which the young have made, and over that storms new heights. now and then you see it, but such are extraordinary and marvellous men. in the old story saturn did not take pains to understand his children, nor learn thereof; he only devoured them up, till some outgrew and overmastered him. did the generation that is passing from the stage ever comprehend and fairly judge the new generation coming on? in the world, the barbarian passes on and becomes the civilized, then the enlightened. in the physical process of growth from the baby to the man, there is no direct intervention of the will. therefore the process goes on regularly, and we do not see abortive men who have advanced in years, but stopped growth in their babyhood, or boyhood. but as the will is the soul of personality, so to say, the heart of intellect, morals and religion, so the force thereof may promote, retard, disturb, and perhaps for a time completely arrest the progress of intellectual, moral and religious growth. still more, this spiritual development of men is hindered or promoted by subtle causes hitherto little appreciated. hence, by reason of these outward or internal hinderances, you find persons and classes of men who do not attain the average culture of mankind, but stop at some lower stage of this spiritual development, or else loiter behind the rest. you even find whole nations whose progress is so slow, that they need the continual aid of the more civilized to quicken their growth. outward circumstances have a powerful influence on this development. if a single class in a nation lingers behind the rest, the cause thereof will commonly be found in some outward hinderance. they move in a resisting medium, and therefore with abated speed. no one expects the same progress from a russian serf and a free man of new england. i do not deny that in the case of some men personal will is doubtless the disturbing force. i am not now to go beyond that fact, and inquire how the will became as it is. here is a man who, from whatever cause, is bodily ill-born, with defective organs. he stops in the animal period; is incapable of any considerable degree of development, intellectual, moral, or religious. the defect is in his body. others disturbed by more occult causes do not attain their proper growth. this man wishes to stop in his savage period, he would be a freebooter, a privateer against society, having universal letters-of-marque and reprisal; a perpetual arab, his rule is to get what he can, as he will and where he pleases, to keep what he gets. another stops at the barbarous age. he is lazy and will not work, others must bear his share of the general burden of mankind. he claims letters patent to make all men serve him. he is not only indolent, constitutionally lazy, but lazy, consciously and wilfully idle. he will not work, but in one form or another will beg or steal. yet a fourth stops in the half-civilized period. he will work with his hands, but no more. he cannot discover; he will not study to learn; he will not even be taught what has been invented and taught before. none can teach him. the horse is led to the water, or the water brought to the horse, but the beast will not drink. "the idle fool is whipt at school," but to no purpose. he is always an oaf. no college or tutor mends him. the wild ass will go out free, wild, and an ass. these four, the idiot, the pirate, the thief, and the clown are exceptional men. they remain stationary. meanwhile, mankind advances, continually, but not with an even front. the human race moves not by column or line, but by _échelon_ as it were. we go up by stairs, not by slopes. now comes a great man, of far-reaching and prospective sight, a moses, and he tells men that there is a land of promise, which they have a right to who have skill to win it. then lesser men, the calebs and joshuas, go and search it out, bringing back therefrom new wine in the cluster and alluring tales. next troops of pioneers advance, yet lesser men; then a few bold men who love adventure. then comes the army, the people with their flocks and herds, the priesthood with their ark of the covenant and the tabernacle, the title-deeds of the new lands which they have heard of but not seen. at last there comes the mixed multitude, following in no order, but not without shouting and tumult, men treading one another under foot, cowards looking back and refusing to march, old men dying without seeing their consolation. if you will lie down on the ground and take the profile of a great city, and see how hill, steeple, dome, tower, the roof of the tall house, gain on the sky, and then come whole streets of warehouses and shops, then common dwellings, then cheap, low tenements, you will have a good profile of man's march to gain new conquests in science, art, morals, religion, and general development. it is so in the family, a bright boy shooting before all the rest, and taking the thunder out of the adverse cloud for his brothers and sisters, who follow and grow rich with unscathed forehead. it is so in the nation, a few great men bearing the brunt of the storm, and wading through the surges to set their weaker brothers, screaming and struggling, with dry feet, in safety, on the firm land of science or religion. it is so in the world, a tall nation achieving art, science, law, morals, religion, and by the fact revealing their beauty to the barbarian race. in all departments of human concern there are such pioneers for the family, the nation or mankind. it is instructive to study this law of human progress, to see the de gamas and columbuses, aspiring men who dream of worlds to come and lead the perilous van; to see the vespuccis, the cortezes, the pizarros, who get rank and fame by following in their track; to see next the merchant adventurers, soldiers, sutlers and the like, who make money out of the new conquest, while the great discoverers had for meet reward the joy of their genius, the nobleness of their work, a sight of the world's future welfare from the prophet's mountain--a hard life, a bad name, and a grave unknown. now while there are those men in the van of society, who aspire at more, chiding and taxing mankind with idleness, cowardice, and even sin, there are yet those others who loiter on the way, from weakness or wilfulness, refusing to advance--idlers, cowards, sinners. if born in the rear, afar from civilization, they are left to die--the savages, the inferior races, the perishing classes of the world. if born in the centre of civilization, for a while they impede the march by actively hindering others, by standing in their way, or by plundering the rest--the dangerous classes of society. they too are slain and trodden under foot of men, and likewise perish. in most large families there is a bad boy, a black sheep in the flock, an ishmael whom abraham will drive out into the wilderness, to meet an angel if he can find one. that story of hagar and her son is very old, but verified anew each year in families and nations. so in society there are criminals who do not keep up with the moral advance of the mass, stragglers from the march, whom society treats as abraham his base-born boy, but sending them off with no loaf or skin of water, not even a blessing, but a curse; sending them off as cain went, with a bad name and a mark on their forehead! so in the world there are inferior nations, savage, barbarous, half-civilized; some are inferior in nature, some perhaps only behind us in development; on a lower form in the great school of providence--negroes, indians, mexicans, irish, and the like, whom the world treats as ishmael and the gibeonites got treated: now their land is stolen from them in war; their children, or their persons, are annexed to the strong as slaves. the civilized continually preys on the savage, reannexing their territory and stealing their persons--owning them or claiming their work. esau is rough and hungry, jacob smooth and well fed. the smooth man overreaches the rough; buys his birthright for a mess of pottage; takes the ground from underneath his feet, thereby supplanting his brother. so the elder serves the younger, and the fresh civilization, strong, and sometimes it may be wicked also, overmasters the ruder age that is contented to stop. the young man now a barbarian will come up one day and take all our places, making us seem ridiculous, nothing but timid conservatives! all these three, the reputed pests of the family, society, and the world, are but loiterers from the march, bad boys, or dull ones. criminals are a class of such; savages are nations thereof--classes or nations that for some cause do not keep up with the movement of mankind. the same human nature is in us all, only there it is not so highly developed. yet the bad boy, who to-day is a curse to the mother that bore him, would perhaps have been accounted brave and good in the days of the conqueror; the dangerous class might have fought in the crusades and been reckoned soldiers of the lord whose chance for heaven was most auspicious. the savage nations would have been thought civilized in the days when "there was no smith in israel." david would make a sorry figure among the present kings of europe, and abraham would be judged of by a standard not known in his time. there have been many centuries in which the pirate, the land-robber and the murderer were thought the greatest of men. now it becomes a serious question, what shall be done for these stragglers, or even with them? it is sometimes a terrible question to the father and mother what they shall do for their reprobate son who is an offence to the neighborhood, a shame, a reproach and a heart-burning to them. it is a sad question to society, what shall be done with the criminals--thieves, housebreakers, pirates, murderers? it is a serious question to the world, what is to become of the humbler nations--irish, mexicans, malays, indians, negroes? in the world and in society the question is answered in about the same way. in a low civilization, the instinct of self-preservation is the strongest of all. they are done with, not for; are done away with. it is the old testament answer:--the inferior nation is hewn to pieces, the strong possess their lands, their cities, their cattle, their persons, also, if they will; the class of criminals gets the prophet's curse: the two bears, the jail and the gallows, eat them up. in the family alone is the christian answer given; the good shepherd goes forth to seek the one sheep that has strayed and gone, lost upon the mountains; the father goes out after the poor prodigal, whom the swine's meat could not feed nor fill.[ ] the world, which is the society of nations, and society, which is the family of classes, still belong mainly to the "old dispensation," heathen or hebrew, the period of force. in the family there is a certain instinctive love binding the parent to the child, and therefore a certain unity of action, growing out of that love. so the father feels his kinship to his boy, though a reprobate; looks for the causes of his son's folly or sin, and strives to cure him; at least to do something for him, not merely with him. the spirit of christianity comes into the family, but the recognition of human brotherhood stops mainly there. it does not reach throughout society; it has little influence on national politics or international law--on the affairs of the world taken as a whole. i know the idea of human brotherhood has more influence now than hitherto; i think in new england it has a wider scope, a higher range, and works with more power than elsewhere. our hearts bleed for the starving thousands of ireland, whom we only read of; for the down-trodden slave, though of another race and dyed by heaven with another hue; yes, for the savage and the suffering everywhere. the hand of our charity goes through every land. if there is one quality for which the men of new england may be proud it is this, their sympathy with suffering man. still we are far from the christian ideal. we still drive out of society the ishmaels and esaus. this we do not so much from ill-will as want of thought, but thereby we lose the strength of these outcasts. so much water runs over the dam--wasted and wasting! * * * * * in all these melancholy cases what is it best to do? what shall the parents do to mend their dull boy, or their wicked one? there are two methods which may be tried. one is the method of force, sometimes referred to solomon, and recommended by the maxim, "spare not the rod and spoil the child." that is the old testament way, "stripes are prepared for the fool's back." the mischief is, they leave it no wiser than they found it. by the law of the hebrews, a man brought his stubborn and rebellious son before the magistrates and deposed: "this our son is stubborn and rebellious: he will not obey our voice. he is a glutton and a drunkard." thereupon, the men of the city stoned him with stones and so "put away the evil from amongst them!" that was the method of force. it may bruise the body; it may fill men with fear; it may kill. i think it never did any other good. it belonged to a rude and bloody age. i may ask intelligent men who have tried it, and i think they will confess it was a mistake. i think i may ask intelligent men on whom it has been tried, and they will say, "it was a mistake on my father's part, but a curse to me!" i know there are exceptions to that reply; still i think it will be general. a man is seldom elevated by an appeal to low motives; always by addressing what is high and manly within him. is fear of physical pain the highest element you can appeal to in a child; the most effectual? i do not see how satan can be cast out by satan. i think a saviour never tries it. yet this method of force is brief and compact. it requires no patience, no thought, no wisdom for its application, and but a moment's time. for this reason, i think, it is still retained in some families and many schools, to the injury alike of all concerned. blows and violent words are not correction, often but an adjournment of correction: sometimes only an actual confession of inability to correct. the other is the method of love, and of wisdom not the less. force may hide, and even silence effects for a time; it removes not the real causes of evil. by the method of love and wisdom the parents remove the causes; they do not kill the demoniac, they cast out the demon, not by letting in beelzebub, the chief devil, but by the finger of god. they redress the child's folly and evil birth by their own wisdom and good breeding. the day drives out and off the night. sometimes you see that worthy parents have a weak and sickly child, feeble in body. no pains are too great for them to take in behalf of the faint and feeble one. what self-denial of the father; what sacrifice on the mother's part! the best of medical skill is procured; the tenderest watching is not spared. no outlay of money, time, or sacrifice is thought too much to save the child's life; to insure a firm constitution and make that life a blessing. the able-bodied children can take care of themselves, but not the weak. so the affection of father and mother centres on this sickly child. by extraordinary attention the feeble becomes strong; the deformed is transformed, and the grown man, strong and active, blesses his mother for health not less than life. did you ever see a robin attend to her immature and callow child which some heedless or wicked boy had stolen from the nest, wounded and left on the ground, half living; left to perish? patiently she brings food and water, gives it kind nursing. tenderly she broods over it all night upon the ground, sheltering its tortured body from the cold air of night and morning's penetrating dew. she perils herself; never leaves it--not till life is gone. that is nature; the strong protecting the feeble. human nature may pause and consider the fowls of the air, whence the greatest once drew his lessons. human history, spite of all its tears and blood, is full of beauty and majestic worth. but it shows few things so fair as the mother watching thus over her sickly and deformed child, feeding him with her own life. what if she forewent her native instinct and the mother said, "my boy is deformed, a cripple--let him die?" where would be the more hideous deformity? if his child be dull, slow-witted, what pains will a good father take to instruct him; still more if he is vicious, born with a low organization, with bad propensities--what admonitions will he administer; what teachers will he consult; what expedients will he try; what prayers will he not pray for his stubborn and rebellious son! though one experiment fail, he tries another, and then again, reluctant to give over. did it never happen to one of you to be such a child, to have outgrown that rebellion and wickedness? remember the pains taken with you; remember the agony your mother felt; the shame that bowed your father's head so oft, and brought such bitter tears adown those venerable cheeks. you cannot pay for that agony, that shame, not pay the hearts which burst with both--yet uttering only a prayer for you. pay it back then, if you can, to others like yourself, stubborn and rebellious sons. has none of you ever been such a father or mother? you know then the sad yearnings of heart which tried you. the world condemned you and your wicked child, and said, "let the elders stone him with stones. the gallows waiteth for its own!" not so you! you said: "nay, now, wait a little. perchance the boy will mend. come, i will try again. crush him not utterly and a father's heart besides!" the more he was wicked, the more assiduous were you for his recovery, for his elevation. you saw that he would not keep up with the moral march of men; that he was a barbarian, a savage, yes, almost a beast amongst men. you saw this; yes, felt it too as none others felt. yet you could not condemn him wholly and without hope. you saw some good mixed with his evil; some causes for the evil and excuses for it which others were blind to. because you mourned most you pitied most--all from the abundance of your love. though even in your highest hour of prayer, the sad conviction came that work or prayer was all in vain--you never gave him over to the world's reproach, but interposed your fortune, character, yes, your own person, to take the blows which the severe and tyrannous world kept laying on. at last if he would not repent, you hid him away, the best you could, from the mocking sight of other men, but never shut him from your heart; never from remembrance in your deepest prayers. how the whole family suffers for the prodigal till he returns. when he comes back, you rejoice over one recovered olive-plant more than over all the trees of your field which no storm has ever broke or bowed. how you went forth to meet him; with what joy rejoiced! "for this my son was lost and is found," says the old man; "he was dead and is alive once more. let us pray and be glad!" with what a serene and hallowed countenance you met your friends and neighbors, as their glad hearts smiled up in their faces when the prodigal came home from riot and swine's-bread, a new man safe and sound! many such things have i seen, and hearts long cold grew bright and warm again. towards evening the clouds broke asunder; simeon saw his consolation and went home in sunlight and in peace. the general result of this treatment in the family is, that the dull boy learns by degrees, learns what he is fit for: the straggler joins the troop, and keeps step with the rest, nay, sometimes becomes the leader of the march: the vicious boy is corrected; even the faults of his organization get overcome, not suddenly, but at length. the rejected stone finds its place on the wall, and its use. such is not always the result. some will not be mended. i stop not now to ask the cause. some will not return, though you go out to meet them a great way off. what then? will you refuse to go? can you wholly abandon a friend or a child who thus deserts himself? is he so bad that he cannot be made better? perhaps it is so. can you not hinder him from being worse? are you so good that you must forsake him? did not god send his greatest, noblest, purest son to seek and save the lost? send him to call sinners to repent? when sinners slew him, did god forsake mankind? not one of those sinners did his love forget. does the good physician spend the night in feasting with the sound, or in watching with the sick? nay, though the sick man be past all hope, he will look in to soothe affliction which he cannot cure; at least to speak a word of friendly cheer. the wise teacher spends most pains with backward boys, and is most bountiful himself where nature seems most niggard in her gifts. what would you say if a teacher refused to help a boy because the boy was slow to learn; because he now and then broke through the rules? what if the mother said: "my boy is a sickly dunce, not worth the pains of rearing. let him die!" what if the father said: "he is a born villain, to be bred only for the gallows; what use to toil or pray for him! let the hangman take my son!" * * * * * what shall be done for criminals, the backward children of society, who refuse to keep up with the moral or legal advance of mankind? they are a dangerous class. there are three things which are sometimes confounded: there is error, an unintentional violation of a natural law. sometimes this comes from abundance of life and energy; sometimes from ignorance, general or special; sometimes from heedlessness, which is ignorance for the time. next there is crime, the violation of a human statute. suppose the statute also represents a law of god; the violation thereof may be the result of ignorance, or of design, it may come from a bad heart. then it becomes a sin--the wilful violation of a known law of god. there are many errors which are not crimes; and the best men often commit them innocently, but not without harm, violating laws of the body or the soul, which they have not grown up to understand. there have been many crimes; yes, conscious violations of man's law which were not sins, but rather a keeping of god's law. there are still a great many sins not forbidden by any human statute, not considered as crimes. it is no crime to go and fight in a wicked war; nay, it is thought a virtue. it was a crime in the heroes of the american revolution to demand the unalienable rights of man--they were "traitors" who did it; a crime in jesus to sum up the "law and the prophets," in one word, love; he was reckoned an "infidel," guilty of blasphemy against moses! now to punish an error as a crime, a crime as a sin, leads to confusion at the first, and to much worse than confusion in the end. but there are crimes which are a violation of the eternal principles of justice. it is of such, and the men who commit them, that i am now to speak. what shall be done for the dangerous classes, the criminals? the first question is, what end shall we aim at in dealing with them? the means must be suited to accomplish that end. we may desire vengeance; then the hurt inflicted on the criminal will be proportioned to the loss or hurt sustained by society. a man has stolen my goods, injured my person, traduced my good name, sought to take my life. i will not ask for the motive of his deeds, or the cause of that motive. i will only consider my own damage, and will make him smart for that. i will use violence--having an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. i will deliver him over to the tormentors till my vengeance is satisfied. if he slew my friend, or sought to slay but lacked the power, as i have the ability i will kill him! this desire of vengeance, of paying a hurt with a hurt, has still very much influence on our treatment of criminals. i fear it is still the chief aim of our penal jurisprudence. when vengeance is the aim, violence is the most suitable method; jails and the gallows most appropriate instruments! but is it right to take vengeance; for me to hurt a man to-day solely because he hurt me yesterday? if so, the proof of that right must be found in my nature, in the law of god; a man can make a statute, god only a right. as i study my nature, i find no such right; reason gives me none; conscience none; religion quite as little. doubtless i have a right to defend myself by all manly means; to protect myself for the future no less than for the present. in doing that, it may be needful that i should restrain, and in restraining seize and hold, and in holding incidentally hurt my opponent. but i cannot see what right i have in cold blood wilfully to hurt a man because he once hurt me, and does not intend to repeat the wrong. do i look to the authority of the greatest son of man? i find no allusion to such a right. i find no law of god which allows vengeance. in his providence i find justice everywhere as beautiful as certain; but vengeance nowhere. i know this is not the common notion entertained of god and his providence. i shudder to think at the barbarism which yet prevails under the guise of christianity; the vengeance which is sought for in the name of god! the aim may be not to revenge a crime, but to prevent it; to deter the offender from repeating the deed, and others from the beginning thereof. in all modern legislation the vindictive spirit is slowly yielding to the design of preventing crime. the method is to inflict certain uniform and specific penalties for each offence, proportionate to the damage which the criminal has done; to make the punishment so certain, so severe, or so infamous, that the offender shall forbear for the future, and innocent men be deterred from crime. but have we a right to punish a man for the example's sake? i may give up my life to save a thousand lives, or one if i will. but society has no right to take it, without my consent, to save the whole human race! i admit that society has the right of eminent domain over my property, and may take my land for a street; may destroy my house to save the town; perhaps seize on my store of provisions in time of famine. it can render me an equivalent for those things. i have not the same lien on any portion of the universe as on my life, my person. to these i have rights which none can alienate except myself, which no man has given, which all men can never justly take away. for any injustice wilfully done to me, the human race can render me no equivalent. i know society claims the right of eminent domain over person and life not less than over house and land--to take both for the commonwealth. i deny the right--certainly it has never been shown. hence to me, resting on the broad ground of natural justice, the law of god, capital punishment seems wholly inadmissible, homicide with the pomp and formality of law. it is a relic of the old barbarism--paying hurt for hurt. no one will contend that it is inflicted for the offender's good. for the good of others i contend we have no right to inflict it without the sufferer's consent. to put a criminal to death seems to me as foolish as for the child to beat the stool it has stumbled over, and as useless too. i am astonished that nations with the name of christian ever on their lips, continue to disgrace themselves by killing men, formally and in cold blood; to do this with prayers--"forgive us as we forgive;" doing it in the name of god! i do not wonder that in the codes of nations, hebrew or heathen, far lower than ourselves in civilization, we should find laws enforcing this punishment; laws too enacted in the name of god. but it fills me with amazement that worthy men in these days should go back to such sources for their wisdom; should walk dry-shod through the gospels and seek in records of a barbarous people to justify this atrocious act! famine, pestilence, war, are terrible evils, but no one is so dreadful in its effects as the general prevalence of a great theological idea that is false. it makes me shudder to recollect that out of the twenty-eight states of this union twenty-seven should still continue the gallows as a part of the furniture of a christian government. i hope our own state, dignified already by so many noble acts, will soon rid herself of the stain. let us try the experiment of abolishing this penalty, if we will, for twenty years, or but ten, and i am confident we shall never return to that punishment. if a man be incapable of living in society, so ill-born or ill-bred that you cannot cure or mend him, why, hide him away out of society. let him do no harm, but treat him kindly, not like a wolf but a man. make him work, to be useful to himself, to society, but do not kill him. or if you do, never say again, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us." what if he should take you at your word! what would you think of a father who to-morrow should take the old testament for his legal warrant, and bring his son before your mayor and aldermen because he was "stubborn and rebellious, a drunkard and a glutton," and they should stone him to death in front of the city hall! but there is quite as good a warrant in the old testament for that as for hanging a man. the law is referred to jehovah as its author. how much better is it to choke the life out of a man behind the prison wall? is not society the father of us all, our protector and defender? hanging is vengeance; nothing but vengeance. i can readily conceive of that great son of man, whom the loyal world so readily adores, performing all needful human works with manly dignity. artists once loved to paint the saviour in the lowly toil of lowly men, his garments covered with the dust of common life; his soul sullied by no pollution. but paint him to your fancy as an executioner; legally killing a man; the halter in his hands, hanging judas for high treason! you see the relation which that punishment bears to christianity. yet what was unchristian in jesus does not become christian in the sheriff. we call ourselves christians; we often repeat the name, the words of christ,--but his prayer? oh no--not that. there are now in this land, i think, sixteen men under sentence of death; sixteen men to be hanged till they are dead! is there not in the nation skill to heal these men? perhaps it is so. i have known hearts which seemed to me cold stones, so hard, so dry. no kindly steel had alchemy to win a spark from them. yet their owners went about the streets and smiled their hollow smiles; the ghastly brother cast his shadow in the sun, or wrapped his cloak about him in the wintry hour, and still the world went on though the worst of men remained unhanged. perhaps you cannot cure these men!--is there not power enough to keep them from doing harm; to make them useful? shame on us that we know no better than thus to pour out life upon the dust, and then with reeking hands turn to the poor and weak and say, "ye shall not kill." but if the prevention of crime be the design of the punishment, then we must not only seek to hinder the innocent from vice, but we must reform the criminal. do our methods of punishment effect that object? during the past year we have committed to the various prisons in massachusetts five thousand six hundred sixty-nine persons for crime. how many of them will be reformed and cured by this treatment, and so live honest and useful lives hereafter? i think very few. the facts show that a great many criminals are never reformed by their punishment. thus in france, taking the average of four years, it seems that twenty-two out of each hundred criminals were punished oftener than once; in scotland thirty-six out of the hundred. of the seventy-eight received at your state's prison the last year--seventeen have been sent to that very prison before. how many of them have been tenants of other institutions i know not, but as only twenty-three of the seventy-eight are natives of this state, it is plain that many, under other names, may have been confined in jail before. yet of these seventy-eight, ten are less than twenty years old.[ ] of thirty-five men sent from boston to the state's prison in one year, fourteen had been there before. more than half the inmates of the house of correction in this city are punished oftener than once! these facts show that if we aim at the reformation of the offender we fail most signally. yet every criminal not reformed lives mainly at the charge of society; and lives too in the most costly way, for the articles he steals have seldom the same value to him as to the lawful owner. it seems to me that our whole method of punishing crimes is a false one; that but little good comes of it, or can come. we beat the stool which we have stumbled over. we punish a man in proportion to the loss or the fear of society; not in proportion to the offender's state of mind; not with a careful desire to improve that state of mind. this is wise if vengeance be the aim; if reformation, it seems sheer folly. i know our present method is the result of six thousand years' experience of mankind; i know how easy it is to find fault--how difficult to devise a better mode. still the facts are so plain that one with half an eye cannot fail to see the falseness of the present methods. to remove the evil, we must remove its cause,--so let us look a little into this matter, and see from what quarter our criminals proceed. here are two classes. i. there are the foes of society; men that are criminals in soul, born criminals, who have a bad nature. the cause of their crime therefore is to be found in their nature itself, in their organization if you will. all experience shows that some men are born with a depraved organization, an excess of animal passions, or a deficiency of other powers to balance them. ii. there are the victims of society; men that become criminals by circumstances, made criminals, not born; men who become criminals, not so much from strength of evil in their soul, or excess of evil propensities in their organization, as from strength of evil in their circumstances. i do not say that a man's character is wholly determined by the circumstances in which he is placed, but all experience shows that circumstances, such as exposure in youth to good men or bad men, education, intellectual, moral, and religious, or neglect thereof entire or partial, have a vast influence in forming the character of men, especially of men not well endowed by nature. now the criminals in soul are the most dangerous of men, the born foes of society. i will not at this moment undertake to go behind their organization and ask, "how comes it that they are so ill-born?" i stop now at that fact. the cause of their crime is in their bodily constitution itself. this is always a small class. there are in new england perhaps five hundred men born blind or deaf. apart from the idiots, i think there are not half so many who by nature and bodily constitution are incapable of attaining the average morality of the race at this day; not so many born foes of society as are born blind or deaf. the criminals from circumstances become what they are by the action of causes which may be ascertained, guarded against, mitigated, and at last overcome and removed. these men are born of poor parents, and find it difficult to satisfy the natural wants of food, clothing, and shelter. they get little culture, intellectual or moral. the school-house is open, but the parent does not send the children, he wants their services, to beg for him, perhaps to steal, it may be to do little services which lie within their power. besides, the child must be ill-clad, and so a mark is set on him. the boy of the perishing classes, with but common endowments, cannot learn at school as one of the thrifty or abounding class. then he receives no stimulus at home; there every thing discourages his attempts. he cannot share the pleasure and sport of his youthful fellows. his dress, his uncleanly habits, the result of misery, forbid all that. so the children of the perishing herd together, ignorant, ill-fed, and miserably clad. you do not find the sons of this class in your colleges, in your high schools where all is free for the people; few even in the grammar schools; few in the churches. though born into the nineteenth century after christ, they grow up almost in the barbarism of the nineteenth century before him. children that are blind and deaf, though born with a superior organization, if left to themselves become only savages, little more than animals. what are we to expect of children, born indeed with eyes and ears, but yet shut out from the culture of the age they live in? in the corruption of a city, in the midst of its intenser life, what wonder that they associate with crime, that the moral instinct, baffled and cheated of its due, becomes so powerless in the boy or girl; what wonder that reason never gets developed there, nor conscience, nor that blessed religious sense learns ever to assert its power? think of the temptations that beset the boy; those yet more revolting which address the other sex. opportunities for crime continually offer. want impels, desire leagues with opportunity, and the result we know. add to all this the curse that creates so much disease, poverty, wretchedness, and so perpetually begets crime; i mean intemperance! that is almost the only pleasure of the perishing class. what recognized amusement have they but this, of drinking themselves drunk? do you wonder at this? with no air, nor light, nor water, with scanty food and a miserable dress, with no culture, living in a cellar or a garret, crowded, stifling, and offensive even to the rudest sense, do you wonder that man or woman seeks a brief vacation of misery in the dram-shop and in its drunkenness? i wonder not. under such circumstances how many of you would have done better? to suffer continually from lack of what is needful for the natural bodily wants of food, of shelter, of warmth, that suffering is misery. it is not too much to say, there are always in this city thousands of persons who smart under that misery. they are indeed a perishing class. almost all our criminals, victims and foes, come from this portion of society. most of those born with an organization that is predisposed to crime are born there. the laws of nature are unavoidably violated from generation to generation. unnatural results must follow. the misfortunes of the father are visited on his miserable child. cows and sheep degenerate when the demands of nature are not met, and men degenerate not less. only the low, animal instincts, those of self-defence and self-perpetuation get developed; these with preternatural force. the animal man wakes, becomes brutish, while the spiritual element sleeps within him. unavoidably then the perishing is mother of the dangerous class. i deny not that a portion of criminals come from other sources, but at least nine tenths thereof proceed from this quarter. of two hundred and seventy-three thousand, eight hundred and eighteen criminals punished in france from to , more than half were wholly unable even to read, and had been brought up subject to no family affections. out of seventy criminals in one prison at glasgow who were under eighteen, fifty were orphans having lost one or both parents, and nearly all the rest had parents of bad character and reputation. taking all the criminals in england and wales in , there were not eight in a hundred that could read and write well. in our country, where everybody gets a mouthful of education, though scarce any one a full meal, the result is a little different. thus of the seven hundred and ninety prisoners in the mount pleasant state's prison in new york, one hundred it is said could read and understand. yet of all our criminals only a very small proportion have been in a condition to obtain the average intellectual and moral culture of our times. our present mode of treating criminals does no good to this class of men, these victims of circumstances. i do not know that their improvement is even contemplated. we do not ask what causes made this man a criminal, and then set ourselves to remove those causes. we look only at the crime; so we punish practically a man because he had a wicked father; because his education was neglected, and he exposed to the baneful influence of unholy men. in the main we treat all criminals alike if guilty of the same offence, though the same act denotes very different degrees of culpability in the different men, and the same punishment is attended with quite opposite results. two men commit similar crimes, we sentence them both to the state prison for ten years. at the expiration of one year let us suppose one man has thoroughly reformed, and has made strict and solemn resolutions to pursue an honest and useful life. i do not say such a result is to be expected from such treatment; still it is possible, and i think has happened, perhaps many times. we do not discharge the man; we care nothing for his penitence; nothing for his improvement; we keep him nine years more. that is an injustice to him; we have robbed him of nine years of time which he might have converted into life. it is unjust also to society, which needs the presence and the labor of all that can serve. the man has been a burden to himself and to us. suppose at the expiration of his ten years the other man is not reformed at all; this result, i fear, happens in the great majority of cases. he is no better for what he has suffered; we know that he will return to his career of crime, with new energy and with even malice. still he is discharged. this is unjust to him, for he cannot bear the fresh exposure to circumstances which corrupted him at first, and he will fall lower still. it is unjust to society, for the property and the persons of all are exposed to his passions just as much as before. he feels indignant as if he had suffered a wrong. he says, "society has taken vengeance on me, when i was to be pitied more than blamed. now i will have my turn. they will not allow me to live by honest toil. i will learn their lesson. i will plunder their wealth, their roof shall blaze!" he will live at the expense of society, and in the way least profitable and most costly to mankind. this idle savage will levy destructive contributions on the rich, the thrifty, and the industrious. yes, he will help teach others the wickedness which himself once, and perhaps unavoidably learned. so in the very bosom of society there is a horde of marauders waging perpetual war against mankind. do not say my sympathies are with the wicked, not the industrious and good. it is not so. my sympathies are not confined to one class, honorable or despised. but it seems to me this whole method of keeping a criminal a definite time and then discharging him, whether made better or worse is a mistake. certainly it is so if we aim at his reformation. what if a shepherd made it a rule to look one hour for each lost sheep, and then return with or without the wanderer? what if a smith decreed that one hour and no more should be spent in shoeing a horse, and so worked that time on each, though half that time were enough--or sent home the beast with but three shoes, or two, or one, because the hour passed by? what if the physicians decreed, that all men sick of some contagious disease, should spend six weeks in the hospital, then, if the patient were found well the next day after admission, still kept him the other forty; or, if not mended at the last day, sent him out sick to the world? such a course would be less unjust, less inhuman, only the wrong is more obvious. to aggravate the matter still more, we have made the punishment more infamous than the crime. a man may commit great crimes which indicate deep depravity; may escape the legal punishment thereof by gold, by flight, by further crimes, and yet hold up his head unblushing and unrepentant amongst mankind. let him commit a small crime, which shall involve no moral guilt, and be legally punished--who respects him again? what years of noble life are deemed enough to wipe the stain out of his reputation? nay, his children after him, to the third generation, must bear the curse! the evil does not stop with the infamy. a guilty man has served out his time. he is thoroughly resolved on industry and a moral life. perhaps he has not learned that crime is wrong, but found it unprofitable. he will live away from the circumstances which before led him to crime. he comes out of prison, and the jail-mark is on him. he now suffers the severest part of his punishment. friends and relations shun him. he is doomed and solitary in the midst of the crowd. honest men will seldom employ him. the thriving class look on him with shuddering pity; the abounding loathe the convict's touch. he is driven among the dangerous and the perishing; they open their arms and offer him their destructive sympathy. they minister to his wants; they exaggerate his wrongs; they nourish his indignation. his direction is no longer in his own hands. his good resolutions--he knows they were good, but only impossible. he looks back, and sees nothing but crime and the vengeance society takes for the crime. he looks around, and the world seems thrusting at him from all quarters. he looks forward, and what prospect is there? "hope never comes that comes to all." he must plunge afresh into that miry pit, which at last is sure to swallow him up. he plunges anew, and the jail awaits him; again; deeper yet; the gallows alone can swing him clear from that pestilent ditch. but he is a man and a brother, our companion in weakness. with his education, exposure, temptation, outward and from within, how much better would the best of you become? no better result is to be looked for from such a course. of the one thousand five hundred and ninety-two persons in the state's prison of new york, four hundred have been there more than once. in five years, from to , there were punished in the house of correction in this city, five thousand seven hundred and forty-eight persons; of these three thousand one hundred and forty-six received such a sentence oftener than once. yes, in five years, three hundred and thirteen were sent thither, each ten times or more! how many found a place in other jails i know not. what if fathers treated dull or vicious boys in this manner at home--making them infamous for the first offence, or the first dulness, and then refusing to receive them back again? what if the father sent out his son with bad boys, and when he erred and fell, said: "you did mischief with bad boys once; i know they enticed you. i knew you were feeble and could not resist their seductions. but i shall punish you. do as well as you please, i will not forgive you. if you err again, i will punish you afresh. if you do never so well, you shall be infamous for ever!" what if a public teacher never took back to college a boy who once had broke the academic law--but made him infamous for ever? what if the physicians had kept a patient the requisite time in the hospital, and discharged him as wholly cured, but bid men beware of him and shun him for ever? that is just what we are doing with this class of criminals; not intentionally, not consciously--but doing none the less! let us look a moment more carefully, though i have already touched on this subject, at the proximate causes of crime in this class of men. the first cause is obvious--poverty. most of the criminals are from the lowest ranks of society. if you distribute men into three classes, the abounding, the thriving, the perishing, you will find the inmates of your prisons come almost wholly from the latter class. the perishing fill the sink of society, and the dangerous the sink of the perishing--for in that "lowest deep there is a lower depth." of three thousand one hundred and eighty-eight persons confined in the house of correction in this city, one thousand six hundred and fifty-seven were foreigners; of the five hundred and fifty sent from this city in five years to the state's prison, one hundred and eighty-five were foreigners. of five hundred and forty-seven females in the prison on blackwell's island at one time--five hundred and nineteen were committed for "vagrancy;" women with no capital but their person, with no friend, no shelter. examine minutely, you shall find that more than nine tenths of all criminals come from the perishing class of men. there all cultivation, intellectual, moral, religious, is at the lowest ebb. they are a class of barbarians; yes, of savages, living in the midst of civilization, but not of it. the fact, that most criminals come from this class, shows that the causes of the crime lie out of them more than in them; that they are victims of society, not foes. the effect of property in elevating and moralizing a class of men is seldom appreciated. historically the animal man comes before the spiritual. animal wants are imperious; they must be supplied. the lower you go in the social scale, the more is man subordinated to his animal appetites and demonized by them. nature aims to preserve the individual and repeat the species--so all passions relative to these two designs are preëminently powerful. if a man is born into the intense life of an american city, and grows up, having no contact with the loftier culture which naturally belongs to that intense life, why the man becomes mainly an animal, all the more violent for the atmosphere he breathes in. what shall restrain him? he has not the normal check of reason, conscience, religion, these sleep in the man; nor the artificial and conventional check of honor, of manners. the public opinion which he bows to favors obscenity, drunkenness, and violence. he is doubly a savage. his wants cannot be legally satisfied. he breaks the law, the law which covers property, then goes on to higher crimes. the next cause is the result of the first--education is neglected, intellectual, moral, and religious. now and then a boy in whom the soul of genius is covered with the beggar's rags, struggles through the terrible environment of modern poverty to die, the hero of misery, in the attempt at education! his expiring light only makes visible the darkness out of which it shone. boys born into this condition find at home nothing to aid them, nothing to encourage a love of excellence, or a taste for even the rudiments of learning. what is unavoidably the lot of such? the land has been the schoolmaster of the human race--but the perishing class scarce sees its face. poverty brings privations, misery, and that a deranged state of the system; then unnatural appetites goad and burn the man. the destruction of the poor is their poverty. they see wealth about them, but have none; so none of what it brings; neither the cleanliness, nor health, nor self-respect, nor cultivation of mind, and heart, and soul. i am told that no quaker has ever been confined in any jail in new england for any real crime. are the quakers better born than other men? nay, but they are looked after in childhood. who ever saw a quaker in an almshouse? not a fiftieth part of the people of new york are negroes, yet more than a sixth part of all the criminals in her four state's prisons are men of color. these facts show plainly the causes of crime. it is almost impossible to exaggerate the temptations of the perishing class in our great cities. in boston at this moment there are more than four hundred boys employed about the various bowling-alleys of the city, exposed to the intemperance, the coarseness, the general corruption of the men who mainly frequent those places. what will be their fate? shall i speak of their sisters; of the education they are receiving; the end that awaits them? poverty brings misery with its family of vices. a third cause of crime comes with the rest--intemperance, the destroying angel that lays waste the household of the poor. in our country, misery in a healthy man is almost proof of vice; but the vice may belong to one alone, and the misery it brings be shared by the whole family. a large proportion of the perishing class are intemperate, and a great majority of all our criminals. now, our present method is wholly inadequate to reform men exposed to such circumstances. you may punish the man, but it does no good. you can seldom frighten men out of a fever. can you frighten them from crime, when they know little of the internal distinction between right and wrong; when all the circumstances about them impel to crime? can you frighten a starving girl into chastity? you cannot keep men from lewdness, theft and violence, when they have no self-respect, no culture, no development of mind, heart, and soul. the jail will not take the place of the church, of the school-house, of home. it will not remove the causes which are making new criminals. it does not reform the old ones. shall we shut men in a jail, and when there treat them with all manner of violence, crush out the little self-respect yet left, give them a degrading dress, and send them into the world cursed with an infamous name, and all that because they were born in the low places of society and caught the stain thereof? the jail does not alter the circumstances which occasioned the crime, and till these causes are removed a fresh crop will spring out of the festering soil. some men teach dogs and horses things unnatural to these animals; they use violence and blows as their instrument of instruction. but to teach man what is conformable to his nature, something more is required. to return to the other class, who are born criminals. bare confinement in the prison alters no man's constitutional tendencies; it can no more correct moral or mental weakness or obliquity than it can correct a deficiency of the organs of sensation. you all know the former treatment of men born with defective or deranged intellectual faculties--of madmen and fools. we still pursue the same course towards men born with defective or deranged moral faculties, idiots and madmen of a more melancholy class, and with a like result. i know how easy it is to find fault, and how difficult to propose a better way; how easy to misunderstand all that i have said, how easy to misrepresent it all. but it seems to me that hitherto we have set out wrong in this undertaking; have gone on wrong, and, by the present means, can never remove the causes of crime nor much improve the criminals as a class. let me modestly set down my thoughts on this subject, in hopes that other men, wiser and more practical, will find out a way yet better still. a jail, as a mere house of punishment for offenders, ought to have no place in an enlightened people. it ought to be a moral hospital where the offender is kept till he is cured. that his crime is great or little, is comparatively of but small concern. it is wrong to detain a man against his will after he is cured; wrong to send him out before he is cured, for he will rob and corrupt society, and at last miserably perish. we shall find curable cases and incurable. i would treat the small class of born criminals, the foes of society, as maniacs. i would not kill them more than madmen; i would not inflict needless pain on them. i would not try to shame, to whip, or to starve into virtue men morally insane. i would not torture a man because born with a defective organization. since he could not live amongst men, i would shut him out from society; would make him work for his own good and the good of society. the thought of punishment for its own sake, or as a compensation for the evil which a man has done, i would not harbor for a moment. if a man has done me a wrong, calumniated, insulted, abused me with all his power, it renders the matter no better that i turn round and make him smart for it. if he has burned my house over my head, and i kill him in return, it does not rebuild my house. i cannot leave him at large to burn other men's houses. he must be restrained. but if i cure the man perhaps he will rebuild it, at any rate, will be of some service to the world, and others gain much while i lose nothing. when the victims of society violated its laws, i would not torture a man for his misfortune, because his father was poor, his mother a brute; because his education was neglected. i would shut him out from society for a time. i would make him work for his own good and the good of others. the evil he had caught from the world i would overcome by the good that i would present to him. i would not clothe him with an infamous dress, crowd him with other men whom society had made infamous, leaving them to ferment and rot together. i would not set him up as a show to the public, for his enemy, or his rival, or some miserable fop to come and stare at with merciless and tormenting eye. i would not load him with chains, nor tear his flesh with a whip. i would not set soldiers with loaded gun to keep watch over him, insulting their brother by mocking and threats. i would treat the man with firmness, but with justice, with pity, with love. i would teach the man; what his family could not do for him, what society and the church had failed of, the jail should do, for the jail should be a manual labor school, not a dungeon of torture. i would take the most gifted, the most cultivated, the wisest and most benevolent, yes, the most christian man in the state, and set him to train up these poor savages of civilization. the best man is the natural physician of the wicked. a violent man, angry, cruel, remorseless, should never enter the jail except as a criminal. you have already taken one of the greatest, wisest, and best men of this commonwealth, and set him to watch over the public education of the people.[ ] true, you give him little money, and no honor; he brings the honor to you, not asking but giving that. you begin to see the result of setting such a man to such a work, though unhonored and ill paid. soon you will see it more plainly in the increase of temperance, industry, thrift, of good morals and sound religion! i would set such a man, if i could find such another, to look after the dangerous classes of society. i would pay him for it; honor him for it. i would have a board of public morals to look after this matter of crime, a secretary of public morals, a christian censor, whose business it should be to attend to this class, to look after the jails and make them houses of refuge, of instruction, which should do for the perishing class what the school-house and the church do for others. i would send missionaries amongst the most exposed portions of mankind as well as amongst the savages of new holland. i would send wise men, good men. there are already some such engaged in this work. i would strengthen their hands. i would make crime infamous. if there are men whose crime is to be traced not to a defective organization of body, not to the influence of circumstances, but only to voluntary and self-conscious wickedness,--i would make these men infamous. it should be impossible for such a man, a voluntary foe of mankind, to live in society. i would have the jail such a place that the friends of a criminal of either class should take him as now they take a lunatic or a sick man, and bring him to the court that he might be healed if curable, or if not might be kept from harm and hid away out of sight. crime and sin should be infamous; not its correction, least of all its cure. i would not loathe and abhor a man who had been corrected and reformed by the jail more than a boy who had been reformed by his teacher, or a man cured of lunacy. i would have society a father who goes out to meet the prodigal while yet a great way off; yes, goes and brings him away from his riotous living, washes him, clothes him, and restores him to a right mind. there is a prosecuting attorney for the state; i would have also a defending attorney for the accused, that justice might be done all round. is the state only a step-mother? then is she not a christian commonwealth but a barbarous despotism, fitly represented by that uplifted sword on her public seal, and that motto of barbarous and bloody latin. i would have the state aid men and direct them after they have been discharged from the jail, not leave them to perish; not force them to perish. society is the natural guardian of the weak. i cannot think the method here suggested would be so costly as the present. it seems to me that institutions of this character might be made not only to support themselves, but be so managed as to leave a balance of income considerably beyond the expense. this might be made use of for the advantage of the criminal when he returned to society; or with it he might help make restitution of what he had once stolen. besides being less costly, it would cure the offender and send back valuable men into society. it seems to me that our whole criminal legislation is based on a false principle--force and not love; that it is eminently well adapted to revenge, not at all to correct, to teach, to cure. the whole apparatus for the punishment of offenders, from the gallows down to the house of correction, seems to me wrong; wholly wrong, unchristian, and even inhuman. we teach crime while we punish it. is it consistent for the state to take vengeance when i may not? is it better for the state to kill a man in cold blood, than for me to kill my brother when in a rage? i cannot help thinking that the gallows and even the jail, as now administered, are practical teachers of violence and wrong! i cannot think it will always be so. hitherto we have looked on criminals as voluntary enemies of mankind. we have treated them as wild beasts, not as dull or loitering boys. we have sought to destroy by death, to disable by mutilation or imprisonment, to terrify and subdue, not to convince, to reform, encourage, and bless. the history of the past is full of prophecy for the future. not many years ago we shut up our lunatics in jails, in dungeons, in cages; we chained the maniac with iron; we gave him a bottle of water and a sack of straw; we left him in filth, in cold and nakedness. we set strong and brutal men to watch him. when he cried, when he gnashed his teeth and tore his hair, we beat him all the more! they do so yet in some places, for they think a madman is not a brother but a devil. what was the result? madness was found incurable. now lunacy is a disease, to be prescribed for as fever or rheumatism; when we find an incurable case we do not kill the man, nor chain him, nor count him a devil. yet lunacy is not curable by force, by jails, dungeons, and cages; only by the medicine of wise men and good men. what if christ had met one demoniac with a whip and another with chains! you know how we once treated criminals! with what scourgings and mutilations, what brandings, what tortures with fire and red-hot iron! death was not punishment enough, it must be protracted amid the most cruel torments that quivering flesh could bear. the multitude looked on and learned a lesson of deadly wickedness. a judicial murder was a holiday! it is but little more than two hundred years since a man was put to death in the most enlightened country of europe for eating meat on friday; not two hundred since men and women were hanged in massachusetts for a crime now reckoned impossible! it is not a hundred years since two negro slaves were judicially burned alive in this very city! these facts make us shudder, but hope also. in a hundred years from this day will not men look on our gallows, jails, and penal law as we look on the racks, the torture-chambers of the middle ages, and the bloody code of remorseless inquisitors? we need only to turn our attention to this subject to find a better way. we shall soon see that punishment as such is an evil to the criminal, and so swells the sum of suffering with which society runs over; that it is an evil also to the community at large by abstracting valuable force from profitable work, and so a loss.[ ] we shall one day remember that the offender is a man, and so his good also is to be consulted. he may be a bad man, voluntarily bad if you will. still we are to be economical even of his suffering, for the least possible punishment is the best. already a good many men think that error is better refuted by truth than by fagots and axes. how long will it be before we apply good sense and christianity to the prevention of crime? one day we must see that a jail, as it is now conducted, is no more likely to cure a crime than a lunacy or a fever! hitherto we have not seen the application of the great doctrines of christianity; not felt that all men are brothers. so our remedies for social evils have been bad almost as the disease; remedies which remedied nothing, but hid the patient out of sight. all great criminals have been thought incurable, and then killed. what if the doctors found a patient sick of a disease which he had foolishly or wickedly brought upon himself, and then, by the advice of twelve other doctors, professionally killed him for justice or example's sake? they would do what all the states in christendom have done these thousand years. i cannot see why the legislature has not as good right to authorize the medical college thus to kill men, as to authorize the present forms of destroying life! we do not look the facts of crime fairly in the face. we do not see what heathens we are. why, there is not a christian nation in the world that has not a secretary of war, armies, soldiers, and the terrible apparatus of destruction. but there is not one that has a secretary of peace, not one that takes half the pains to improve its own criminals which it takes to build forts and fleets! yet it seems to me that a christian state should be a great peace society, a society for mutual advancement in the qualities of a man! do we not see that by our present course we are teaching men violence, fraud, deceit, and murder? what is the educational effect of our present political conduct, of our invasions, our battles, our victories; of the speeches of "our great men?" you all know that this teaches the poor, the low, and the weak that murder and robbery are good things when done on a large scale; that they give wealth, fame, power, and honors. the ignorant man, ill-born and ill-bred, asks: "why not when done on a small scale; why not good for me?" if it is right in the president of the united states to rob and murder, why not for the president of the united states bank? do famous men say, "our country however bounded," and vote to plunder a sister state? then why shall not the poor man, hungry and cold, say, "my purse however bounded," and seize on all he can get? give one a seat in congress if you will, and the other a noose of hemp, there is a god before whom seats in congress and hempen halters are of equal value, but who does justice to great and little! * * * * * to reform the dangerous classes of society, to advance those who loiter behind our civilization, we need a special work designed directly for the good of the criminals and such as stand on that perilous ground which slopes towards crime. some good men undertook this work long ago. they found much to do; a good deal to encourage them. some of them are well known to you, are laboring here in the midst of us. they need counsel, encouragement, and aid. we must not look coldly on their enterprise nor on them. they can tell far better than i what specific plans are best for their specific work. already have they accomplished much in this noble enterprise. the society for aiding discharged convicts is a prophecy of yet better things. soon i trust it will extend its kind offices to all the prisons, and its work be made the affair of the state. the plan now before your legislature for a "state manual labor school," designed to reform vicious children, is also full of promise. the wise and anonymous charity which so beautifully and in silence has dropped its gold into the chest for these poor outcasts, is itself its hundred-fold reward. institutions like that which we contemplate have been found successful in england, germany, and france. they actually reform the juvenile delinquent and bring up useful men, not hardened criminals.[ ] we are beginning to attend to this special work of removing the causes of crime, and restoring at least the young offenders. however, the greater portion of this work is not special and for the criminal, but general and for society. to change the treatment of criminals, we must change every thing else. the dangerous class is the unavoidable result of our present civilization; of our present ideas of man and social life. to reform and elevate the class of criminals, we must reform and elevate all other classes. to do that, we must educate and refine men. we must learn to treat all men as brothers. this is a great work and one of slow achievement. it cannot be brought about by legislation, nor any mechanical contrivance and reorganization alone. there is no remedy for this evil and its kindred but keeping the laws of god; in one word, none but christianity, goodness, and piety felt in the heart, applied in all the works of life, individually, socially, and politically. while educated and abounding men acknowledge no rule of conduct but self-interest, what can you expect of the ignorant and the perishing? while great men say without rebuke that we do not look at "the natural justice of a war," do you expect men in the lowest places of society, ignorant and brutish, pinched by want, to look at the natural justice of theft, of murder? it were a vain expectation. we must improve all classes to improve one; perhaps the highest first. different men acting in the most various directions, without concert, often jealous one of another, and all partial in their aims, are helping forward this universal result. while we are contending against slavery, war, intemperance, or party rage, while we are building up hospitals, colleges, schools, while we are contending for freedom of conscience, or teaching abstractly the love of man and love of god, we are all working for the welfare of this neglected class. the gallows of the barbarian and the gospel of christianity cannot exist together. the times are full of promise. mankind slowly fulfils what a man of genius prophesies; god grants what a good man asks, and when it comes, it is better than what he prayed for. footnotes: [ ] the allusion is to the following passages of scripture, which were read as the lesson for the day: numb. xiv.; kings, ii. - ; and luke, xv. [ ] see other statistics in "sermon of the perishing classes," pp. , . [ ] mr. horace mann. [ ] the period of confinement in our states' prisons differs a good deal in the various states, as will appear from the following table. whole no. in prison. average sentence. in conn. , march , , yrs. mos. va. , sept , , " " mass. , sept. , , " " la. , sept , , " " n. j. , sept. , , " " ky. , sept. , , " d. c. , nov. , , " " md. , " phila. , sept. , , " " the difference between the average term of punishment in connecticut and philadelphia is per cent! if the same result is effected by each, there has then been a great amount of gratuitous suffering in one case. [ ] i refer to the prisons at stretton-upon-dunmore in warwickshire, that at horn near hamburg, and the one at mettray near tours in france. the french penal code allows the guardian or relatives of an offender under age to take him from prison on giving bonds for his good behavior. while these pages were first passing through the press, i learned the happy effect which followed the execution of the license laws in this city. in , from the th of march to the th of april, there were sent to the house of correction for intemperance one hundred eighty-nine persons. during the same period of the year , only eighty-four have been thus punished! but alas, in the evil has returned, and the demon of drunkenness mows down the wretched in boston with unrestricted scythe. ix. a sermon of poverty.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, january , . proverbs x. . the destruction of the poor is their poverty. last sunday something was said of riches. to-day i ask your attention to a sermon of poverty. by poverty, i mean the state in which a man does not have enough to satisfy the natural wants of food, raiment, shelter, warmth and the like. from the earliest times that we know of, there have been two classes of men, the rich who had more than enough, the poor who had less. in one of the earliest books which treats of the condition of men, we find that abraham, a rich man, owns the bodies of three hundred men that are poor. in four thousand years, the difference between rich and poor in our part of america is a good deal lessened, not done away with. in new england property is more uniformly distributed than in most countries, perhaps more equally than in any land as highly civilized. but even here the old distinction remains in a painful form and extended to a pitiful degree. at one extreme of society is a body called the rich, men who have abundance, not a very numerous body, but powerful, first through the energy which accumulates money, and secondly, through the money itself. then there is a body of men who are comfortable. this class comprises the mass of the people in all the callings of life. out of this class the rich men come, and into it their children or grandchildren commonly return. few of the rich men of boston were sons of rich men; still fewer grandsons; few of them perhaps will be fathers of men equally rich; still fewer grandfathers of such. then there is the class that is miserable. some of them are supported by public charity, some by private, some of them by their toil alone--but altogether they form a mass of men who only stay in the world, and do not live in the best sense of that word. such are the great divisions of society in respect to property. however, the lines between these three classes are not sharp and distinctly drawn. there are no sharp divisions in nature; but for our convenience, we distinguish classes by their centre where they are most unlike, and not by their circumference where they intermix and resemble each other. the line between the miserable and comfortable, between the comfortable and rich, is not distinctly drawn. the centre of each class is obvious enough while the limits thereof are a dissolving view. the poor are miserable. their food is the least that will sustain nature, not agreeable, not healthy; their clothing scanty and mean, their dwellings inconvenient and uncomfortable, with roof and walls that let in the cold and the rain--dwellings that are painful and unhealthy; in their personal habits they are commonly unclean. then they are ignorant; they have no time to attend school in childhood, no time to read or to think in manhood, even if they have learned to do either before that. if they have the time, few men can think to any profit while the body is uncomfortable. the cold man thinks only of the cold; the wretched of his misery. besides this they are frequently vicious. i do not mean to say they are wicked in the sight of god. i never see a poor man carried to jail for some petty crime, or even for a great one, without thinking that probably, in god's eye, the man is far better than i am, and from the state's prison or scaffold, will ascend into heaven and take rank a great ways before me. i do not mean to say they are wicked before god; but it is they who commit the minor crimes, against decency, sobriety, against property and person, and most of the major crimes, against human life. i mean that they commit the crimes that get punished by law. they crowd your courts, they tenant your jails; they occupy your gallows. if some man would write a book describing the life of all the men hanged in massachusetts for fifty years past, or tried for some capital offence, and show what class of society they were from, how they were bred, what influences were about them in childhood, how they passed their sundays, and also describe the configuration of their bodies, it would help us to a valuable chapter in the philosophy of crime, and furnish mighty argument against the injustice of our mode of dealing with offenders. poverty is the dark side of modern society. i say modern society, though poverty is not modern, for ancient society had poverty worse than ours and a side still darker yet. cannibalism, butchery of captives after battle, frequent or continual wars for the sake of plunder, and the slavery of the weak--these were the dark side of society in four great periods of human history, the savage, the barbarous, the classic and the feudal. poverty is the best of these five bad things, each of which, however, has grimly done its service in its day. there is no poverty among the gaboon negroes. put them in our latitude, and it soon comes. nay, as they get to learn the wants of cultivated men, there will be a poorer class even in the torrid zone. poverty prevails in every civilized nation on earth; yes, in every savage nation in austere climes. let us look at some examples. england is the richest country in europe. i mean she has more wealth in proportion to her population than any other in a similar climate. look at her possessions in every corner of the globe; at her armies which europe cannot conquer; at her ships which weave the great commercial web that spreads all round about the world; at home what factories, what farms, what houses, what towns, what a vast and wealthy metropolis; what an aristocracy--so rich, so cultivated, so able, so daring, and so unconquered. but in that very english nation the most frightful poverty exists. look at the two sister islands: this the queen, and that the beggar of all nations; the rose and the shamrock; the one throned in royal beauty, the other bowed to the dust, torn and trampled under foot. in that capital of the world's wealth, in that centre of power far greater than the power of all the cæsars, there is the most squalid poverty. look at st. giles and st. james--that the earthly hell of want and crime, this the worldly heaven of luxury and power! put on the one side the stately nobility of england, well born, well bred, armed with the power of manners, the power of money, the power of culture and the power of place, and on the other side put the beggary of england, the two million paupers who are kept wholly on public or private charity; the three million laborers who formerly fed on potatoes, god knows what they feed on now, and all the other hungry sons of want who are kept in awe only by the growling lion who guards the british throne; and you see at once the result of modern civilization in the ablest, the foremost, the freest, the most practical and the richest nation in the old world. even here in new england, a country not two hundred and fifty years old, a little patch of cleared land on the edge of the continent, we hear of poverty which is frightful to think of. it is a serious question what shall be done for the poor; there are few that can tell what shall be done with them, or what is to become of them. want is always here in boston. misery is here. starvation is not unknown. what is now serious will one day be alarming. even now it is awful to think of the misery that lurks in this christian town. new england in fifty years has increased vastly in wealth, but poverty increases too. there has been a great advance in the productiveness of human labor; with our tools a man can do as much rude work in one day as he could in three days a hundred years ago. i mean work with the axe, the plough, the spade; of nicer work, yet more; of the most delicate work, see what machines do for him. the end is not yet; soon we shall have engines that will whittle granite, as a gang of saws cleaves logs into broad smooth boards. yet with all this advance in the productiveness of human toil, still there is poverty. a day's work now will bring a man greater proportionate pay than ever before in new england. i mean to say that the ordinary wages for an ordinary day's work will support a man comfortably and respectably longer than they ever would before. on the whole, the price of things has come down and the price of work has gone up. yet still there are the poor; there is want, there is misery, there is starvation. the community gives more than ever before; a better public provision is made for the poor, private benevolence is more active and works far more wisely--yet still there is poverty, want, misery unremoved, unmitigated, and, many think, immitigable! now i am not going to deny that poverty, like other forms of suffering, plays a part in the economy of the human race. if god's children will not work, or will throw away their bread, i do not complain that he sends them to bed without their supper--to a hard bed and a narrow and a cold. "earn your breakfast before you eat it," is not merely the counsel of poor richard, but of almighty god; it is a just counsel, and not hard. but is poverty an essential, substantial, integral element in human civilization, or is it an accidental element thereof, and transiently present; is it amenable to suppression? for my own part, i believe that all evil is transient, a thing that belongs to the process of development, not to the nature of man, or the higher forms of social life towards which he is advancing. if god be absolutely good, then only good things are everlasting. this general opinion which comes from my religion as well as my philosophy, affects my special opinion of the history and design of poverty. i look on it as on cannibalism, the butchery of captives, the continual war for the sake of plunder, or on slavery; yes, as i look on the diseases incident to childhood, things that mankind live through and outgrow; which, painful as they are, do not make up the greatest part of the entire life of mankind. if it shall be said that i cannot know this, that i have not a clear intellectual perception of the providential design thereof, or the means of its removal, still i believe it, and if i have not the knowledge which comes of philosophy, i have still faith, the result of instinctive trust in god. * * * * * let us look a little at the causes of poverty. some things we see best on a large scale. so let us look at poverty thus, and then come down to the smaller forms thereof. i. there may be a natural and organic cause. the people of lapland, iceland and greenland are a poor people compared with the scotch, the danes, or the french. there is a natural and organic cause for their poverty in the soil and climate of those countries, which cannot be changed. they must emigrate before they can become rich or comfortable in our sense of the word. hence their poverty is to be attributed to their geographical position. put the new englanders there, even they would be a poor people. thus the poverty of a nation may depend on the geographical position of the nation. suppose a race of men has little vigor of body or of mind, and yet the same natural wants as a vigorous race; put them in favorable circumstances, in a good climate, on a rich soil, they will be poor on account of the feebleness of their mind and body; put them in a stern climate, on a sterile soil, and they will perish. such is the case with the mexicans. soil and climate are favorable, yet the people are poor. suppose a nation had only one third part of the laplander's ability, and yet needed the result of all his power, and was put in the laplander's position, they would not live through the first winter. had they been mexicans who came to plymouth in , not one of them, it is probable, would have seen the next summer. take away half the sense or bodily strength of the bushmans of south africa, and though they might have sense enough to dig nuts out of the ground, yet the lions and hyenas would eventually eat up the whole nation. so the poverty of a nation may come from want of power of body or of mind. then if a nation increases in numbers more rapidly than in wealth, there is a corresponding increase of want. let the number of births in england for the next ten years be double the number for the last ten, without a corresponding creation of new wealth, and the english are brought to the condition of the irish. let the number of births in ireland in like manner multiply, and one half the population must perish for want of food. so the poverty of a nation may depend on the disproportionate increase of its numbers. then an able race, under favorable outward circumstances, without an over-rapid increase of numbers, if its powers are not much developed, will be poor in comparison with a similar race under similar circumstances, but highly developed. thus england, under egbert in the ninth century, was poor compared with england under victoria in the nineteenth century. the single town of liverpool, manchester, birmingham, or even sheffield, is probably worth many times the wealth of all england in the ninth century. so the poverty of a nation may depend on its want of development. old england and new england are rich, partly through the circumstances of climate and soil, partly and chiefly through the great vigor of the race, with only a normal increase of numbers, and partly through a more complete development of the nations. such are the chief natural and organic causes of poverty on a large scale in a nation. ii. the causes may be political. by political, i mean such as are brought about by the laws, either the fundamental laws, the constitution, or the minor laws, statutes. sometimes the laws tend to make the whole nation poor. such are the laws which force the industry of the people out of the natural channel, restricting commerce, agriculture, manufactures, industry in general. sometimes this is done by promoting war, by keeping up armies and navies, by putting the destructive work of fighting, or the merely conservative work of ruling, before the creative works of productive industry. france was an example of that a hundred years ago. spain yet continues such, as she has been for two centuries. sometimes this is done by hindering the general development of the nation, by retarding education, by forbidding all freedom of thought. the states of the church are an example of this when compared with tuscany; all italy and austria, when compared with england; spain, when compared with germany, france, and holland. sometimes this is brought about by keeping up an unnatural institution--as slavery, for example. south carolina is an instance of this, when compared with massachusetts. south carolina has many advantages over us, yet south carolina is poor while massachusetts is rich. sometimes this political action primarily affects only the distribution of wealth, and so makes one class rich and another poor. such is the case with laws which give all the real estate to the oldest son, laws which allow property to be entailed for a long time or forever, laws which cut men off from the land. these laws at first seem only to make one class rich and the others poor, and merely to affect the distribution of wealth in a nation, but they are unnatural and retard the industry of the people, and diminish their productive power, and make the whole nation less rich. legislation may favor wealth and not men--property which is accumulated labor, rather than labor which is the power that accumulates property. such legislation always endangers wealth in the end, lessening its quantity and making its tenure uncertain. two things may be said of european legislation in general, and especially of english legislation. first, that it has aimed to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few and keep it there. hence it favors primogeniture, entails monopolies of posts of profit and of honor. second, it has always looked out for the proprietor and his property, and cared little for the man without property; hence it always wanted the price of things high, the wages of men low, and in addition to natural and organic obstacles it continually put social impediments in the poor man's way. in england no son of a laborer could rise to eminence in the law or in medicine, scarcely in the church; no, not even in the army or navy. these two statements will bear examination. the genius of england has demanded these two things. the genius of america demands neither, but rejects both; demands the distribution of property, puts the rights of man first, the rights of things last. such are the political causes, and such their effects. iii. then there are social causes which make a nation poor. such are the prevalence of an opinion that industry is not respectable; that it is honorable to consume, disgraceful to create; that much must be spent, though little earned. the spanish nation is poor in part through the prevalence of this opinion. sometimes social causes seem only to affect a class. the pariahs in india must not fill any office that is well paid. they are despised, and of course they are poor and miserable. the blacks in new england are despised and frowned down, not admitted to the steamboat, the omnibus, to the school-houses in boston, or even to the meeting-house with white men; not often allowed to work in company with the whites; and so they are kept in poverty. in europe the jews have been equally despised and treated in the same way, but not made poor, because they are in many respects a superior race of men, and because they have the advantage of belonging to a nation whose civilization is older than any other in europe; a nation specially gifted with the faculty of thrift; a tribe whom none but other jews, scotchmen, or new englanders, could outwit, over-reach, and make poor. no ferdinand and isabella, no inquisition could so completely expel them from any country, as the superior craft and cunning of the yankee has driven them out of new england. there are jews in every country of europe, everywhere despised and maltreated, and forced into the corners of society, but everywhere superior to the men who surround them. such are the social causes which produce poverty. * * * * * now let us look at the matter on a smaller scale, and see the cause of poverty in new-england, of poverty in broad street and sea street. from the great mass let me take out a class who are accidentally poor. there are the widows and orphan children who inherit no estate; the able men reduced by sickness before they have accumulated enough to sustain them. then let me take out a class of men transiently poor, men who start with nothing, but have vigor and will to make their own way in the world. the majority of the poor still remain--the class who are permanently poor. the accidentally poor can easily be taken care of by public or private charity; the transient poor will soon take care of themselves. the young man who lives on six cents a day while studying medicine in boston, is doubtless a poor man, but will soon repay society for the slight aid it has lent him, and in time will take care of other poor men. so these two classes, the accidental and the transient poor, can easily be disposed of. what causes have produced the class that is permanently poor? what has just been said of nations, is true also of individuals. first, there are natural and organic causes of poverty. some men are born into the midst of want, ignorance, idleness, filthiness, intemperance, vice, crime; their earliest associations are debasing, their companions bad. they are born into the iceland of society, into the frigid zone, some of them under the very pole-star of want. such men are born and bred under the greatest disadvantages. every star in their horoscope has a malignant aspect, and sheds disastrous influence. i do not remember five men in new england, from that class, becoming distinguished in any manly pursuit,--not five. almost all of our great men and our rich men came from the comfortable class, none from the miserable. the old poverty is parent of new poverty. it takes at least two generations to outgrow the pernicious influence of such circumstances. then much of the permanent poverty comes from the lack of ability, power of body and of mind. in that iceland of society men are commonly born with a feeble organization, and bred under every physical disadvantage; the man is physically weak, or else runs to muscle and not brain, and so is mentally weak. his feebleness is the result of the poverty of his fathers, and his own want in childhood. the oak tree grows tall and large in a rich valley, stunted, small, and scrubby on the barren sand. again this class of men increase most rapidly in numbers. when the poor man has not half enough to fill his own mouth, and clothe his own back, other backs are added, other mouths opened. he abounds in nothing but naked and hungry children. further still, he has not so good a chance as the comfortable to get education and general development. a rude man, with superior abilities, in this century, will often be distanced by the well-trained man who started at birth with inferior powers. but if the rude man begin with inferior abilities, inferior circumstances, encumbered also with a load becoming rapidly more burdensome, you see under what accumulated disadvantages he labors all his life. so to the first natural and organic cause of poverty, his untoward position in society; to the second, his inferior ability; and to the third, the increase of his family, excessively rapid, we must add a fourth cause, his inferior development. an ignorant man, who is also weak in body, and besides that, starts with every disadvantage, his burdens annually increasing, may be expected to continue a poor man. it is only in most extraordinary cases that it turns out otherwise. to these causes we must add what comes therefrom as their joint result: idleness, by which the poor waste their time; thriftlessness and improvidence, by which they lose their opportunities and squander their substance. the poor are seldom so economical as the rich; it is so with children, they spoil the furniture, soil and rend their garments, put things to a wasteful use, consume heedlessly and squander, careless of to-morrow. the poor are the children of society. to these five causes i must add intemperance, the great bane of the miserable class. i feel no temptation to be drunken, but if i were always miserable, cold, hungry, naked, so ignorant that i did not know the result of violating god's laws, had i been surrounded from youth with the worst examples, not respected by other men, but a loathsome object in their sight, not even respecting myself, i can easily understand how the temporary madness of strong drink would be a most welcome thing. the poor are the prey of the rum-seller. as the lion in the hebrew wilderness eateth up the wild ass, so in modern society the rum-seller and rum-maker suck the bones of the miserable poor. i never hear of a great fortune made in the liquor trade, but i think of the wives that have been made widows thereby, of the children bereft of their parents, of the fathers and mothers whom strong drink has brought down to shame, to crime, and to ruin. the history of the first barrel of rum that ever visited new england is well known. it brought some forty men before the bar of the court. the history of the last barrel can scarcely be much better. such are the natural and organic causes which make poverty. with the exception of laws which allow the sale of intoxicating drink, i think there are few political causes of poverty in new england, and they are too inconsiderable to mention in so brief a sketch as this. however, there are some social causes of our permanent poverty. i do not think we have much respect for the men who do the rude work of life, however faithfully and well--little respect for work itself. the rich man is ashamed to have begun to make his fortune with his own hard hands; even if the rich man is not, his daughter is for him. i do not think we have cared much to respect the humble efforts of feeble men; not cared much to have men dear, and things cheap. it has not been thought the part of political economy, of sound legislation, or of pure christianity, to hinder the increase of pauperism, to remove the causes of poverty, yes, the causes of crime--only to take vengeance on it when committed! boston is a strange place; here is energy enough to conquer half the continent in ten years; power of thought to seize and tame the connecticut and the merrimack; charity enough to send missionaries all over the world; but not justice enough to found a high school for her own daughters, or to forbid her richest citizens from letting bar-rooms as nurseries of poverty and crime, from opening wide gates which lead to the almshouse, the jail, the gallows, and earthly hell! * * * * * such are the causes of poverty, organic, political, social. you may see families pass from the comfortable to the miserable class, by intemperance, idleness, wastefulness, even by feebleness of body and of mind; yet while it is common for the rich to descend into the comfortable class, solely by lack of the eminent thrift which raised their fathers thence, or because they lack the common stimulus to toil and save, it is not common for the comfortable to fall into the pit of misery in new england, except through wickedness, through idleness, or intemperance. it is not easy to study poverty in boston. but take a little inland town, which few persons migrate into, you will find the miserable families have commonly been so, for a hundred years; that many of them are descended from the "servants," or white slaves, brought here by our fathers; that such as fall from the comfortable classes, are commonly made miserable by their own fault, sometimes by idleness, which is certainly a sin, for any man who will not work, and persists in living, eats the bread of some other man, either begged or stolen--but chiefly by intemperance. three fourths of the poverty of this character, is to be attributed to this cause. now there is a tendency in poverty to drive the ablest men to work, and so get rid of the poverty, and this i take it is the providential design thereof. poverty, like an armed man, stalks in the rear of the social march, huge and haggard, and gaunt and grim, to scare the lazy, to goad the idle with his sword, to trample and slay the obstinate sluggard. but he treads also the feeble under his feet, for no fault of theirs, only for the misfortune of being born in the rear of society. but in poverty there is also a tendency to intimidate, to enfeeble, to benumb. the poverty of the strong man compels him to toil; but with the weak, the destruction of the poor is his poverty. an active man is awakened from his sleep by the cold; he arises and seeks more covering; the indolent, or the feeble, shiver on till morning, benumbed and enfeebled by the cold. so weakness begets weakness; poverty, poverty; intemperance, intemperance; crime, crime. every thing is against the poor man; he pays the dearest tax, the highest rent for his house, the dearest price for all he eats or wears. the poor cannot watch their opportunity, and take advantage of the markets, as other men. they have the most numerous temptations to intemperance and crime; they have the poorest safeguards from these evils. if the chief value of wealth, as a rich man tells us, be this--that "it renders its owner independent of others," then on what shall the poor men lean, neglected and despised by others, looked on as loathsome, and held in contempt, shut out even from the sermons and the prayers of respectable men? it is no marvel if they cease to respect themselves. the poor are the most obnoxious to disease; their children are not only most numerous, but most unhealthy. more than half of the children of that class, perish at the age of five. amongst the poor, infectious diseases rage with frightful violence. the mortality in that class is amazing. if things are to continue as now, i thank god it is so. if death is their only guardian, he is at least powerful, and does not scorn his work. in addition to the poor, whom these causes have made and kept in poverty, the needy of other lands flock hither. the nobility of old england, so zealous in pursuing their game, in keeping their entails unbroken, and primogeniture safe, have sent their beggary to new england, to be supported by the crumbs that fall from our table. so, in the same new england city, the extremes of society are brought together. here is health, elegance, cultivation, sobriety, decency, refinement--i wish there was more of it; there is poverty, ignorance, drunkenness, violence, crime, in most odious forms--starvation! we have our st. giles's and st. james's; our nobility, not a whit less noble than the noblest of other lands, and our beggars, both in a christian city. amid the needy population, misery and death have found their parish. who shall dare stop his ears, when they preach their awful denunciation of want and woe? good men ask, what shall we do? foreign poverty has had this good effect; it has shamed or frightened the american beggar into industry and thrift. poverty will not be removed till the causes thereof are removed. there are some who look for a great social revolution. so do i; only i do not look for it to come about suddenly, or by mechanical means. we are in a social revolution, and do not know it. while i cannot accept the peculiar doctrines of the associationists, i rejoice in their existence. i sympathize with their hope. they point out the evils of society, and that is something. they propose a method of removing its evils. i do not believe in that method, but mankind will probably make many experiments before we hit upon the right one. for my own part, i confess i do not see any way of removing poverty wholly or entirely, in one or two, or in four or five generations. i think it will linger for some ages to come. like the snow, it is to be removed by a general elevation of the temperature of the air, not all at once, and will long hang about the dark and cold places of the world. but i do think it will at last be overcome, so that a man who cannot subsist, will be as rare as a cannibal. "ye have the poor with you always," said jesus, and many who remember this, forget that he also said, "and when soever ye will, ye may do them good." i expect to see a mitigation of poverty in this country, and that before long. it is likely that the legal theory of property in europe will undergo a great change before many years; that the right to bequeathe enormous estates to individuals will be cut off; that primogeniture will cease, and entailments be broken, and all monopolies of rank and power come to an end, and so a great change take place in the social condition of europe, and especially of england. that change will bring many of the comfortable into the rich class, and eventually many of the miserable into the comfortable class. but i do not expect such a radical change here, where we have not such enormous abuses to surmount. i think something will be done in europe for the organization of labor, i do not know what; i do not know how; i have not the ability to know; and will not pretend to criticize what i know i cannot create, and do not at present understand. i think there will be a great change in the form of society; that able men will endeavor to remove the causes of crime, not merely to make money out of that crime; that intemperance will be diminished; that idleness in rich or poor will be counted a disgrace; that labor will be more respected; education more widely diffused; and that institutions will be founded, which will tend to produce these results. but i do not pretend to devise those institutions, and certainly shall not throw obstacles in the way of such as can or will try. it seems likely that something will be first done in europe, where the need is greatest. there a change must come. by and by, if it does not come peaceably, the continent will not furnish "special constables" enough to put down human nature. if the white republicans cannot make a revolution peacefully, wait a little, and the red republicans will make it in blood. "peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must," says mankind, first in a whisper, then in a voice of thunder. if powerful men will not write justice with black ink, on white paper, ignorant and violent men will write it on the soil, in letters of blood, and illuminate their rude legislation with burning castles, palaces and towns. while the social change is taking place never so peacefully, men will think the world is going to ruin. but it is an old world, pretty well put together, and, with all these changes, will probably last some time longer. human society is like one of those enormous boulders, so nicely poised on another rock, that a man may move it with a single hand. you are afraid to come under its sides, lest it fall. when the wind blows, it rocks with formidable noise, and men say it will soon be down upon us. now and then a rude boy undertakes to throw it over, but all the men who can get their shoulders under, cannot raise the ponderous mass from its solid and firm-set base. still, after all these changes have taken place, there remains the difference between the strong and the weak, the active and the idle, the thrifty and the spendthrift, the temperate and the intemperate, and though the term poverty ceases to be so dreadful, and no longer denotes want of the natural necessaries of the body, there will still remain the relatively rich and the relatively poor. but now something can be done directly, to remove the causes of poverty, something to mitigate their effects; we need both the palliative charity, and the remedial justice. tenements for the poor can be provided at a cheap rent, that shall yet pay their owner a reasonable income. this has been proved by actual experiment, and, after all that has been said about it, i am amazed that no more is done. i will not exhort the churches to this in the name of religion--they have other matters to attend to; but if capitalists will not, in a place like boston, it seems to me the city should see that this class of the population is provided with tenements, at a rate not ruinous. it would be good economy to do it, in the pecuniary sense of good economy; certainly to hire money at six per cent., and rent the houses built therewith, at eight per cent., would cost less than to support the poor entirely in almshouses, and punish them in jails. something yet more may be done, in the way of furnishing them with work, or of directing them to it; something towards enabling them to purchase food and other articles cheap. something might be done to prevent street beggary, and begging from house to house, which is rather a new thing in this town. the indiscriminate charity, which it is difficult to withhold from a needy and importunate beggar, does more harm than good. much may be done to promote temperance; much more, i fear, than is likely to be done; that is plainly the duty of society. intemperance is bad enough with the comfortable and the rich; with the poor it is ruin--sheer, blank and swift ruin. the example of the rich, of the comfortable, goes down there like lightning, to shatter, to blast, and to burn. it is marvellous, that in christian boston, men of wealth, and so above the temptation which lurks behind a dollar, men of character otherwise thought to be elevated, can yet continue a traffic which leads to the ruin and slow butchery of such masses of men. i know not what can be done by means of the public law. i do know what can be done by private self-denial, by private diligence. something also may be done to promote religion amongst the poor, at least something to make it practicable for a poor man to come to church on sunday, with his fellow-creatures who are not miserable--and to hear the best things that the ablest men in the church have to offer. we are very democratic in our state, not at all so in our church. in this matter the catholics put us quite to shame. if, as some men still believe, it be a manly calling and a noble, to preach christianity, then to preach it to men who stand in the worst and most dangerous positions in society; to take the highest truths of human consciousness, the loftiest philosophy, the noblest piety, and bring them down into the daily life of poor men, rude men, men obscure, unfriended, ready to perish; surely this is the noblest part of that calling, and demands the noblest gifts, the fairest and the largest culture, the loftiest powers. it is no hard thing to reason with reasoning men, and be intelligible to the intelligent; to talk acceptably and even movingly to scholars and men well read, is no hard thing if you are yourself well read and a scholar. but to be intelligible to the ignorant, to reason with men who reason not, to speak acceptably and movingly with such men, to inspire them with wisdom, with goodness and with piety, that is the task only for some men of rare genius who can stride over the great gulf betwixt the thrones of creative power, and the humble positions of men ignorant, poor and forgot! yet such men there are, and here is their work. something can be done for the children of the poor--to promote their education, to find them employment, to snatch these little ones from underneath the feet of that grim poverty. it is not less than awful, to think while there are more children born in boston of catholic parents than of protestant, that yet more than three fifths thereof die before the sun of their fifth year shines on their luckless heads. i thank god that thus they die. if there be not wisdom enough in society, nor enough of justice there to save them from their future long-protracted suffering, then i thank god that death comes down betimes, and moistens his sickle while his crop is green. i pity not the miserable babes who fall early before that merciful arm of death. they are at rest. poverty cannot touch them. let the mothers who bore them rejoice, but weep only for those that are left--left to ignorance, to misery, to intemperance, to vice that i shall not name; left to the mercies of the jail, and perhaps the gallows at the last. yet boston is a christian city--and it is eighteen hundred years since one great son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost! i see not what more can be done directly, and i see not why these things should not be done. still some will suffer: the idle, the lazy, the proud who will not work, the careless who will voluntarily waste their time, their strength, or their goods--they must suffer, they ought to suffer. want is the only schoolmaster to teach them industry and thrift. such as are merely unable, who are poor not by their fault--we do wrong to let them suffer; we do wickedly to leave them to perish. the little children who survive--are they to be left to become barbarians in the midst of our civilization? want is not an absolutely needful thing, but very needful for the present distress, to teach us industry, economy, thrift and its creative arts. there is nature--the whole material world--waiting to serve. "what would you have thereof?" says god. "pay for it and take it, as you will; only pay as you go!" there are hands to work, heads to think; strong hands, hard heads. god is an economist: he economizes suffering; there is never too much of it in the world for the purpose it is to serve, though it often falls where it should not fall. it is here to teach us industry, thrift, justice. it will be here no more when we have learned its lesson. want is here on sufferance; misery on sufferance; and mankind can eject them if we will. poverty, like all evils, is amenable to suppression. can we not end this poverty--the misery and crime it brings? no, not to-day. can we not lessen it? soon as we will. think how much ability there is in this town, cool, far-sighted talent. if some of the ablest men directed their thoughts to the reform of this evil, how much might be done in a single generation; and in a century--what could not they do in a hundred years? what better work is there for able men? i would have it written on my tombstone: "this man had but little wit, and less fame, yet he helped remove the causes of poverty, making men better off and better," rather by far than this: "here lies a great man; he had a great place in the world, and great power, and great fame, and made nothing of it, leaving the world no better for his stay therein, and no man better off." * * * * * after all the special efforts to remove poverty, the great work is to be done by the general advance of mankind. we shall outgrow this as cannibalism, butchery of captives, war for plunder, and other kindred miseries have been outgrown. god has general remedies in abundance, but few specific. something will be done by diffusing throughout the community principles and habits of economy, industry, temperance; by diffusing ideas of justice, sentiments of brotherly love, sentiments and ideas of religion. i hope every thing from that--the noiseless and steady progress of christianity; the snow melts, not by sunlight, or that alone, but as the whole air becomes warm. you may in cold weather melt away a little before your own door, but that makes little difference till the general temperature rises. still while the air is getting warm, you facilitate the process by breaking up the obdurate masses of ice and putting them where the sun shines with direct and unimpeded light. so must we do with poverty. it is only a little that any of us can do--for any thing. still we can do a little; we can each do by helping towards raising the general tone of society: first, by each man raising himself; by industry, economy, charity, justice, piety; by a noble life. so doing, we raise the moral temperature of the whole world, and just in proportion thereto. next, by helping those who come in our way; nay, by going out of our way to help them. in each of these modes, it is our duty to work. to a certain extent each man is his brother's keeper. of the powers we possess we are but trustees under providence, to use them for the benefit of men, and render continually an account of our stewardship to god. each man can do a little directly to help convince the world of its wrong, a little in the way of temporizing charity, a little in the way of remedial justice; so doing, he works with god, and god works with him. x. a sermon of the moral condition of boston.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, february , . samuel vii. . hitherto hath the lord helped us. a man who has only the spirit of his age can easily be a popular man; if he have it in an eminent degree, he must be a popular man in it: he has its hopes and its fears; his trumpet gives a certain and well-known sound; his counsel is readily appreciated; the majority is on his side. but he cannot be a wise magistrate, a just judge, a competent critic, or a profitable preacher. a man who has only the spirit of a former age can be none of these four things; and not even a popular man. he remembers when he ought to forecast, and compares when he ought to act; he cannot appreciate the age he lives in, nor have a fellow-feeling with it. he may easily obtain the pity of his age, not its sympathy or its confidence. the man who has the spirit of his own, and also that of some future age, is alone capable of becoming a wise magistrate, a just judge, a competent critic, and a profitable preacher. such a man looks on passing events somewhat as the future historian will do, and sees them in their proportions, not distorted; sees them in their connection with great general laws, and judges of the falling rain not merely by the bonnets it may spoil and the pastime it disturbs, but by the grass and corn it shall cause to grow. he has hopes and fears of his own, but they are not the hopes and fears of men about him; his trumpet cannot give a welcome or well-known sound, nor his counsel be presently heeded. majorities are not on his side, nor can he be a popular man. to understand our present moral condition, to be able to give good counsel thereon, you must understand the former generation, and have potentially the spirit of the future generation; must appreciate the past, and yet belong to the future. who is there that can do this? no man will say, "i can." conscious of the difficulty, and aware of my own deficiencies in all these respects, i will yet endeavor to speak of the moral condition of boston. * * * * * first, i will speak of the actual moral condition of boston, as indicated by the morals of trade. in a city like rome, you must first feel the pulse of the church, in st. petersburg that of the court, to determine the moral condition of those cities. now trade is to boston what the church is to rome and the imperial court to st. petersburg: it is the pendulum which regulates all the common and authorized machinery of the place; it is an organization of the public conscience. we care little for any pius the ninth, or nicholas the first; the dollar is our emperor and pope, above all the parties in the state, all sects in the church, lord paramount over both, its spiritual and temporal power not likely to be called in question; revolt from what else we may, we are loyal still to that. a little while ago, in a sermon of riches, speaking of the character of trade in boston, i suggested that men were better than their reputation oftener than worse; that there were a hundred honest bargains to one that was dishonest. i have heard severe strictures from friendly tongues, on that statement, which gave me more pain than any criticism i have received before. the criticism was, that i overrated the honesty of men in trade. now, it is a small thing to be convicted of an error--a just thing and a profitable to have it detected and exposed; but it is a painful thing to find you have overrated the moral character of your townsmen. however, if what i said be not true as history, i hope it will become so as prophecy; i doubt not my critics will help that work. love of money is out of proportion to love of better things--to love of justice, of truth, of a manly character developing itself in a manly life. wealth is often made the end to live for; not the means to live by, and attain a manly character. the young man of good abilities does not commonly propose it to himself to be a noble man, equipped with all the intellectual and moral qualities which belong to that, and capable of the duties which come thereof. he is satisfied if he can become a rich man. it is the highest ambition of many a youth in this town to become one of the rich men of boston; to have the social position which wealth always gives, and nothing else in this country can commonly bestow. accordingly, our young men that are now poor, will sacrifice every thing to this one object; will make wealth the end, and will become rich without becoming noble. but wealth without nobleness of character is always vulgar. i have seen a clown staring at himself in the gorgeous mirror of a french palace, and thought him no bad emblem of many an ignoble man at home, surrounded by material riches which only reflected back the vulgarity of their owner. other young men inherit wealth, but seldom regard it as a means of power for high and noble ends, only as the means of selfish indulgence; unneeded means to elevate yet more their self-esteem. now and then you find a man who values wealth only as an instrument to serve mankind withal. i know some such men; their money is a blessing akin to genius, a blessing to mankind, a means of philanthropic power. but such men are rare in all countries, perhaps a little less so in boston than in most other large trading towns; still, exceeding rare. they are sure to meet with neglect, abuse, and perhaps with scorn; if they are men of eminent ability, superior culture, and most elevated moral aims, set off, too, with a noble and heroic life, they are sure of meeting with eminent hatred. i fear the man most hated in this town would be found to be some one who had only sought to do mankind some great good, and stepped before his age too far for its sympathy. truth, justice, humanity, are not thought in boston to have come of good family; their followers are not respectable. i am not speaking to blame men, only to show the fact; we may meddle with things too high for us, but not understand nor appreciate. now this disproportionate love of money appears in various ways. you see it in the advantage that is taken of the feeblest, the most ignorant, and the most exposed classes in the community. it is notorious that they pay the highest prices, the dearest rents, and are imposed upon in their dealings oftener than any other class of men; so the raven and the hooded crow, it is said, seek out the sickliest sheep to pounce upon. the fact that a man is ignorant, poor, and desperate, furnishes to many men an argument for defrauding the man. it is bad enough to injure any man; but to wrong an ignorant man, a poor and friendless man; to take advantage of his poverty or his ignorance, and to get his services or his money for less than a fair return--that is petty baseness under aggravated circumstances, and as cowardly as it is mean. you are now and then shocked at rich men telling of the arts by which they got their gold--sometimes of their fraud at home, sometimes abroad, and a good man almost thinks there must be a curse on money meanly got at first, though it falls to him by honest inheritance. this same disproportionate love of money appears in the fact that men, not driven by necessity, engage in the manufacture, the importation, and the sale of an article which corrupts and ruins men by hundreds; which has done more to increase poverty, misery, and crime than any other one cause whatever; and, as some think, more than all other causes whatever. i am not speaking of men who aid in any just and proper use of that article, but in its ruinous use. yet such men, by such a traffic, never lose their standing in society, their reputation in trade, their character in the church. a good many men will think worse of you for being an abolitionist; men have lost their place in society by that name; even dr. channing "hurt his usefulness" and "injured his reputation" by daring to speak against that sin of the nation; but no man loses caste in boston by making, importing, and selling the cause of ruin to hundreds of families--though he does it with his eyes open, knowing that he ministers to crime and to ruin! i am told that large quantities of new england rum have already been sent from this city to california; it is notorious that much of it is sent to the nations of africa--if not from boston, at least from new england--as an auxiliary in the slave-trade. you know with what feelings of grief and indignation a clergyman of this city saw that characteristic manufacture of his town on the wharves of a mahometan city. i suppose there are not ten ministers in boston who would not "get into trouble," as the phrase is, if they were to preach against intemperance, and the causes that produce intemperance, with half so much zeal as they innocently preach "regeneration" and a "form of piety" which will never touch a single corner of the earth. as the minister came down, the spirit of trade would meet him on the pulpit stairs to warn him: "business is business; religion is religion; business is ours, religion yours; but if you make or even allow religion to interfere with our business, then it will be the worse for you--that is all!" you know it is not a great while since we drove out of boston the one unitarian minister who was a fearless apostle of temperance.[ ] his presence here was a grief to that "form of piety;" a disturbance to trade. since then the peace of the churches has not been much disturbed by the preaching of temperance. the effect has been salutary; no unitarian minister has risen up to fill that place! this same disproportionate love of money appears in the fact, that the merchants of boston still allow colored seamen to be taken from their ships and shut up in the jails of another state. if they cared as much for the rights of man as for money, as much for the men who sail the ship as for the cargo it carries, i cannot think there would be brass enough in south carolina, or all the south, to hold another freeman of massachusetts in bondage, merely for the color of his skin. no doubt, a merchant would lose his reputation in this city by engaging directly in the slave-trade, for it is made piracy by the law of the land.[ ] but did any one ever lose his reputation by taking a mortgage on slaves as security for a debt; by becoming, in that way or by inheritance, the owner of slaves, and still keeping them in bondage? you shall take the whole trading community of boston, rich and poor, good and bad, study the phenomena of trade as astronomers the phenomena of the heavens, and from the observed facts, by the inductive method of philosophy, construct the ethics of trade, and you will find one great maxim to underlie the whole: money must be made. money-making is to the ethics of trade what attraction is to the material world; what truth is to the intellect, and justice in morals. other things must yield to that; that to nothing. in the effort to comply with this universal law of trade, many a character gives way; many a virtue gets pushed aside; the higher, nobler qualities of a man are held in small esteem. this characteristic of the trading class appears in the thought of the people as well as their actions. you see it in the secular literature of our times; in the laws, even in the sermons; nobler things give way to love of gold. so in an ill-tended garden, in some bed where violets sought to open their fragrant bosoms to the sun, have i seen a cabbage come up and grow apace, with thick and vulgar stalk, with coarse and vulgar leaves, with rank unsavory look; it thrust aside the little violet, which, underneath that impenetrable leaf, lacking the morning sunshine and the dew of night, faded and gave up its tender life; but above the grave of the violet there stood the cabbage, green, expanding, triumphant, and all fearless of the frost. yet the cabbage also had its value and its use. there are men in boston, some rich, some poor, old and young, who are free from this reproach; men that have a well-proportioned love of money, and make the pursuit thereof an effort for all the noble qualities of a man. i know some such men, not very numerous anywhere, men who show that the common business of life is the place to mature great virtues in; that the pursuit of wealth, successful or not, need hinder the growth of no excellence, but may promote all manly life. such men stand here as violets among the cabbages, making a fragrance and a loveliness all their own; attractive anywhere, but marvellous in such a neighborhood as that. * * * * * look next on the morals of boston, as indicated by the newspapers, the daily and the weekly press. take the whole newspaper literature of boston, cheap and costly, good and bad, study it all as a whole, and by the inductive method construct the ethics of the press, and here you find no signs of a higher morality in general than you found in trade. it is the same centre about which all things gravitate here as there. but in the newspapers the want of great principles is more obvious, and more severely felt than in trade--the want of justice, of truth, of humanity, of sympathy with man. in trade you meet with signs of great power; the highway of commerce bears marks of giant feet. our newspapers seem chiefly in the hands of little men, whose cunning is in a large ratio to their wisdom or their justice. you find here little ability, little sound learning, little wise political economy; of lofty morals almost nothing at all. here, also, the dollar is both pope and king; right and truth are vassals, not much esteemed, nor over-often called to pay service to their lord, who has other soldiers with more pliant neck and knee. a newspaper is an instrument of great importance; all men read it; many read nothing else; some it serves as reason and conscience too: in lack of better, why not? it speaks to thousands every day on matters of great moment--on matters of morals, of politics, of finance. it relates daily the occurrences of our land, and of all the world. all men are affected by it; hindered or helped. to many a man his morning paper represents more reality than his morning prayer. there are many in a community like this who do not know what to say--i do not mean what to think, thoughtful men know what to think--about any thing till somebody tells them; yet they must talk, for "the mouth goes always." to such a man a newspaper is invaluable; as the idolater in the judges had "a levite to his priest," so he has a newspaper to his reason or his conscience, and can talk to the day's end. an able and humane newspaper would get this class of persons into good habits of speech, and do them a service, inasmuch as good habits of speech are better than bad. one portion of this literature is degrading; it seems purposely so, as if written by base men, for base readers, to serve base ends. i know not which is most depraved thereby, the taste or the conscience. obscene advertisements are there, meant for the licentious eye; there are loathsome details of vice, of crime, of depravity, related with the design to attract, yet so disgusting that any but a corrupt man must revolt from them; there are accounts of the appearance of culprits in the lower courts, of their crime, of their punishment; these are related with an impudent flippancy, and a desire to make sport of human wretchedness and perhaps depravity, which amaze a man of only the average humanity. we read of judge jeffreys and the bloody assizes in england, one hundred and sixty years ago, but never think there are in the midst of us men who, like that monster, can make sport of human misery; but for a cent you can find proof that the race of such is not extinct. if a penny-a-liner were to go into a military hospital, and make merry at the sights he saw there, at the groans he heard, and the keen smart his eye witnessed, could he publish his fiendish joy at that spectacle--you would not say he was a man. if one mock at the crimes of men, perhaps at their sins, at the infamous punishments they suffer--what can you say of him? it is a significant fact that the commercial newspapers, which of course in such a town are the controlling newspapers, in reporting the european news, relate first the state of the markets abroad, the price of cotton, of consols, and of corn; then the health of the english queen, and the movements of the nations. this is loyal and consistent; at rome, the journal used to announce first some tidings of the pope, then of the lesser dignitaries of the church, then of the discovery of new antiques, and other matters of great pith and moment; at st. petersburg, it was first of the emperor that the journal spoke; at boston, it is legitimate that the health of the dollar should be reported first of all. the political newspapers are a melancholy proof of the low morality of this town. you know what they will say of any party movement; that measures and men are judged on purely party grounds. the country is commonly put before mankind, and the party before the country. which of them in political matters pursues a course that is fair and just; how many of them have ever advanced a great idea, or been constantly true to a great principle of natural justice; how many resolutely oppose a great wrong; how many can be trusted to expose the most notorious blunders of their party; how many of them aim to promote the higher interests of mankind? what servility is there in some of these journals, a cringing to the public opinion of the party; a desire that "our efforts may be appreciated!" in our politics every thing which relates to money is pretty carefully looked after, though not always well looked after; but what relates to the moral part of politics is commonly passed over with much less heed. men would compliment a senator who understood finance in all its mysteries, and sneer at one who had studied as faithfully the mysteries of war, or of slavery. the mexican war tested the morality of boston, as it appears both in the newspapers and in trade, and showed its true value. there are some few exceptions to this statement; here and there is a journal which does set forth the great ideas of this age, and is animated by the spirit of humanity. but such exceptions only remind one of the general rule. in the sectarian journals the same general morality appears, but in a worse form. what would have been political hatred in the secular prints, becomes theological odium in the sectarian journals; not a mere hatred in the name of party, but hatred in the name of god and christ. here is less fairness, less openness, and less ability than there, but more malice; the form, too, is less manly. what is there a strut or a swagger, is here only a snivel. they are the last places in which you need look for the spirit of true morality. which of the sectarian journals of boston advocates any of the great reforms of the day? nay, which is not an obstacle in the path of all manly reform? but let us not dwell upon this, only look and pass by. i am not about to censure the conductors of these journals, commercial, political, or theological. i am no judge of any man's conscience. no doubt they write as they can or must. this literature is as honest and as able as "the circumstances will admit of." i look on it as an index of our moral condition, for a newspaper literature always represents the general morals of its readers. grocers and butchers purchase only such articles as their customers will buy; the editors of newspapers reveal the moral character of their subscribers as well as their correspondents. the transient literature of any age is always a good index of the moral taste of the age. these two witnesses attest the moral condition of the better part of the city; but there are men a good deal lower than the general morals of trade and the press. other witnesses testify to their moral character. * * * * * let me now speak of your moral condition as indicated by the poverty in this city. i have so recently spoken on the subject of poverty in boston, and printed the sermon, that i will not now mention the misery it brings. i will only speak of the moral condition which it indicates, and the moral effect it has upon us. in this age, poverty tends to barbarize men; it shuts them out from the educational influences of our times. the sons of the miserable class cannot obtain the intellectual, moral, and religious education which is the birthright of the comfortable and the rich. there is a great gulf between them and the culture of our times. how hard it must be to climb up from a cellar in cove place to wisdom, to honesty, to piety. i know how comfortable pharisaic self-righteousness can say, "i thank thee i am not wicked like one of these," and god knows which is the best before his eyes, the scorner, or the man he loathes and leaves to dirt and destruction. i know this poverty belongs to the state of transition we are now in, and can only be ended by our passing through this into a better. i see the medicinal effect of poverty, that with cantharidian sting it drives some men to work, to frugality and thrift; that the irish has driven the american beggar out of the streets, and will shame him out of the almshouse ere long. but there are men who have not force enough to obey this stimulus; they only cringe and smart under its sting. such men are made barbarians by poverty, barbarians in body, in mind and conscience, in heart and soul. there is a great amount of this barbarism in boston; it lowers the moral character of the place, as icebergs in your harbor next june would chill the air all day. the fact that such poverty is here, that so little is done by public authority, or by the ablest men in the land, to remove the evil tree and dig up its evil root; that amid all the wealth of boston and all its charity, there are not even comfortable tenements for the poor to be had at any but a ruinous rent--that is a sad fact, and bears a sad testimony to our moral state! sometimes the spectacle of misery does good, quickening the moral sense and touching the electric tie which binds all human hearts into one great family; but when it does not lead to this result, then it debases the looker-on. to know of want, of misery, of all the complicated and far-extended ill they bring; to hear of this, and to see it in the streets; to have the money to alleviate, and yet not to alleviate; the wisdom to devise a cure therefor, and yet make no effort towards it--that is to be yourself debased and barbarized. i have often thought, in seeing the poverty of london, that the daily spectacle of such misery did more in a year to debauch the british heart than all the slaughter at waterloo. i know that misery has called out heroic virtue in some men and women, and made philanthropists of such as otherwise had been only getters and keepers of gain. we have noble examples of that in the midst of us; but how many men has poverty trod down into the mire; how many has this sight of misery hardened into cold worldliness, the man frozen into mere respectability, its thin smile on his lips, its ungodly contempt in his heart! * * * * * out of this barbarism of poverty there come three other forms of evil which indicate the moral condition of boston; of that portion named just now as below the morals of trade and the press. these also i will call up to testify. * * * * * one is intemperance. this is a crime against the body; it is felony against your own frame. it makes a schism amongst your own members. the amount of it is fearfully great in this town. some of our most wealthy citizens, who rent their buildings for the unlawful sale of rum to be applied to an intemperate abuse, are directly concerned in promoting this intemperance; others, rich but less wealthy, have sucked their abundance out of the bones of the poor, and are actual manufacturers of the drunkard and the criminal. here are numerous distilleries owned, and some of them conducted, i am told, by men of wealth. the fire thereof is not quenched at all by day, and there is no night there; the worm dieth not. there out of the sweetest plant which god has made to grow under a tropic sun, men distil a poison the most baneful to mankind which the world has ever known. the poison of the borgias was celebrated once; cold-hearted courtiers shivered at its name. it never killed many; those with merciful swiftness. the poison of rum is yet worse; it yearly murders thousands; kills them by inches, body and soul. here are respectable and wealthy men, men who this day sit down in a christian church and thank god for his goodness, with contrite hearts praise him for that son of man who gave his life for mankind, and would gladly give it to mankind; yet these men have ships on the sea to bring the poor man's poison here, or bear it hence to other men as poor; have distilleries on the land to make still yet more for the ruin of their fellow christians; have warehouses full of this plague, which "outvenoms all the worms of nile;" have shops which they rent for the illegal and murderous sale of this terrible scourge. do they not know the ruin which they work; are they the only men in the land who have not heard of the effects of intemperance? i judge them not, great god! i only judge myself. i wish i could say, "they know not what they do;" but at this day who does not know the effect of intemperance in boston? i speak not of the sale of ardent spirits to be used in the arts, to be used for medicine, but of the needless use thereof; of their use to damage the body and injure the soul of man. the chief of your police informs me there are twelve hundred places in boston, where this article is sold to be drunk on the spot; illegally sold. the charitable association of mechanics, in this city, have taken the accumulated savings of more than fifty years, and therewith built a costly establishment, where intoxicating drink is needlessly but abundantly sold! low as the moral standard of boston is, low as are the morals of the press and trade, i had hoped better things of these men, who live in the midst of hard-working laborers, and see the miseries of intemperance all about them. but the dollar was too powerful for their temperance. here are splendid houses, where the rich man or the thrifty needlessly drinks. let me leave them; the evil demon of intemperance appears not there; he is there, but under well-made garments, amongst educated men, who are respected and still respect themselves. amid merriment and song the demon appears not. he is there, gaunt, bony, and destructive, but so elegantly clad, with manners so unoffending, you do not mark his face, nor fear his steps. but go down to that miserable lane, where men mothered by misery and sired by crime, where the sons of poverty and the daughters of wretchedness, are huddled thick together, and you see this demon of intemperance in all his ugliness. let me speak soberly: exaggeration is a figure of speech i would always banish from my rhetoric, here, above all, where the fact is more appalling than any fiction i could devise. in the low parts of boston, where want abounds, where misery abounds, intemperance abounds yet more, to multiply want, to aggravate misery, to make savage what poverty has only made barbarian; to stimulate passion into crime. here it is not music and the song which crown the bowl; it is crowned by obscenity, by oaths, by curses, by violence, sometimes by murder. these twine the ivy round the poor man's bowl; no, it is the upas that they twine. think of the sufferings of the drunkard himself, of his poverty, his hunger and his nakedness, his cold; think of his battered body; of his mind and conscience, how they are gone. but is that all? far from it. these curses shall become blows upon his wife; that savage violence shall be expended on his child. in his senses this man was a barbarian; there are centuries of civilization betwixt him and cultivated men. but the man of wealth, adorned with respectability and armed with science, harbors a demon in the street, a profitable demon to the rich man who rents his houses for such a use. the demon enters our barbarian, who straightway becomes a savage. in his fury he tears his wife and child. the law, heedless of the greater culprits, the demon, and the demon-breeder, seizes our savage man and shuts him in the jail. now he is out of the tempter's reach; let us leave him; let us go to his home. his wife and children still are there, freed from their old tormentor. enter: look upon the squalor, the filth, the want, the misery still left behind. respectability halts at the door with folded arms, and can no further go. but charity, the love of man which never fails, enters even there; enters to lift up the fallen, to cheer the despairing, to comfort and to bless. let us leave her there, loving the unlovely, and turn to other sights. in the streets, there are about nine hundred needy boys, and about two hundred needy girls, the sons and daughters mainly of the intemperate; too idle or too thriftless to work; too low and naked for the public school. they roam about--the nomadic tribes of this town, the gipsies of boston--doing some chance work for a moment, committing some petty theft. the temptations of a great city are before them.[ ] soon they will be impressed into the regular army of crime, to be stationed in your jails, perhaps to die on your gallows. such is the fate of the sons of intemperance; but the daughters! their fate--let me not tell of that. in your legislature they have just been discussing a law against dogs, for now and then a man is bitten and dies of hydrophobia. perhaps there are ten mad dogs in the state at this moment, and it may be that one man in a year dies from the bite of such. do the legislators know how many shops there are in this town, in this state, which all the day and all the year sell to intemperate men a poison that maddens with a hydrophobia still worse? if there were a thousand mad dogs in the land, if wealthy men had embarked a large capital in the importation or the production of mad dogs, and if they bit and maddened and slew ten thousand men in a year, do you believe your legislature would discuss that evil with such fearless speech? then you are very young, and know little of the tyranny of public opinion, and the power of money to silence speech, while justice still comes in, with feet of wool, but iron hands.[ ] there is yet another witness to the moral condition of boston. i mean crime. where there is such poverty and intemperance, crime may be expected to follow. i will not now dwell upon this theme, only let me say, that in , three thousand four hundred and thirty-five grown persons, and six hundred and seventy-one minors were lawfully sentenced to your jail and house of correction; in all, four thousand one hundred and six; three thousand four hundred and forty-four persons were arrested by the night police, and eleven thousand one hundred and seventy-eight were taken into custody by the watch; at one time there were one hundred and forty-four in the common jail. i have already mentioned that more than a thousand boys and girls, between six and sixteen, wander as vagrants about your streets; two hundred and thirty-eight of these are children of widows, fifty-four have neither parent living. it is a fact known to your police, that about one thousand two hundred shops are unlawfully open for retailing the means of intemperance. these are most thickly strown in the haunts of poverty. on a single sunday the police found three hundred and thirteen shops in the full experiment of unblushing and successful crime. these rum-shops are the factories of crime; the raw material is furnished by poverty; it passes into the hands of the rum-seller, and is soon ready for delivery at the mouth of the jail, or the foot of the gallows. it is notorious that intemperance is the proximate cause of three fourths of the crime in boston; yet it is very respectable to own houses and rent them for the purpose of making men intemperate; nobody loses his standing by that. i am not surprised to hear of women armed with knives, and boys with six-barrelled revolvers in their pockets; not surprised at the increase of capital trials. * * * * * one other matter let me name--i call it the crime against woman. let us see the evil in its type, its most significant form. look at that thing of corruption and of shame, almost without shame, whom the judge, with brief words, despatches to the jail. that was a woman once. no! at least, she was once a girl. she had a mother; perhaps, beyond the hills, a mother, in her evening prayer, remembers still this one child more tenderly than all the folded flowers that slept the sleep of infancy beneath her roof; remembers, with a prayer, her child, whom the world curses after it has made corrupt! perhaps she had no such mother, but was born in the filth of some reeking cellar, and turned into the mire of the streets, in her undefended innocence, to mingle with the coarseness, the intemperance, and the crime of a corrupt metropolis. in either case, her blood is on our hands. the crime which is so terribly avenged on woman--think you that god will hold men innocent of that? but on this sign of our moral state, i will not long delay. * * * * * put all these things together: the character of trade, of the press; take the evidence of poverty, intemperance, and crime--it all reveals a sad state of things. i call your attention to these facts. we are all affected by them more or less; all more or less accountable for them. * * * * * hitherto i have only stated facts, without making comparisons. let me now compare the present condition of boston with that in former times. every man has an ideal, which is better than the actual facts about him. some men amongst us put that ideal in times past, and maintain it was then an historical fact; they are commonly men who have little knowledge of the past, and less hope for the future; a good deal of reverence for old precedents, little for justice, truth, humanity; little confidence in mankind, and a great deal of fear of new things. such men love to look back and do homage to the past, but it is only a past of fancy, not of fact, they do homage to. they tell us we have fallen; that the golden age is behind us, and the garden of eden; ours are degenerate days; the men are inferior, the women less winning, less witty, and less wise, and the children are an untoward generation, a disgrace, not so much to their fathers, but certainly to their grandsires. sometimes this is the complaint of men who have grown old; sometimes of such as seem to be old without growing so, who seem born to the gift of age, without the grace of youth. other men have a similar ideal, commonly a higher one, but they place it in the future, not as an historical reality, which has been, and is therefore to be worshipped, but one which is to be made real by dint of thought, of work. i have known old persons who stoutly maintained that the pears and the plums and the peaches, are not half so luscious as they were many years ago; so they bewailed the existing race of fruits, complaining of "the general decay" of sweetness, and brought over to their way of speech some aged juveniles. meanwhile, men born young, set themselves to productive work, and, instead of bewailing an old fancy, realized a new ideal in new fruits, bigger, fairer, and better than the old. it is to men of this latter stamp, that we must look for criticism and for counsel. the others can afford us a warning, if not by their speech, at least by their example. it is very plain, that the people of new england are advancing in wealth, in intelligence, and in morality; but in this general march, there are little apparent pauses, slight waverings from side to side; some virtues seem to straggle from the troop; some to lag behind, for it is not always the same virtue that leads the van. it is with the flock of virtues, as with wild fowl--the leaders alternate. it is probable that the morals of new england in general, and of boston in special, did decline somewhat from to ; there were peculiar but well-known causes, which no longer exist, to work that result. in the previous fifteen years, it seems probable that there had been a rapid increase of morality, through the agency of causes equally peculiar and transient. to estimate the moral growth or decline of this town, we must not take either period as a standard. but take the history of boston, from to , from to , thence to , and you will see a gradual, but a decided progress in morality in each of these periods. it is not easy to prove this in a short sermon; i can only indicate the points of comparison, and state the general fact. from to , this progress is well marked, indisputable, and very great. let us look at this a little in detail, pursuing the same order of thought as before. it is generally conceded that the moral character of trade has improved a good deal within fifty or sixty years. it was formerly a common saying, that "if a yankee merchant were to sell salt water at high-tide, he would yet cheat in the measure." the saying was founded on the conduct of american traders abroad, in the west indies and elsewhere. now things have changed for the better. i have been told by competent authority, that two of the most eminent merchants of boston, fifty or sixty years ago, who conducted each a large business, and left very large fortunes, were notoriously guilty of such dishonesty in trade, as would now drive any man from the exchange. the facility with which notes are collected by the banks, compared to the former method of collection, is itself a proof of an increase of practical honesty; the law for settling the affairs of a bankrupt tells the same thing. now this change has not come from any special effort, made to produce this particular effect, and, accordingly, it indicates the general moral progress of the community. the general character of the press, since the end of the last century, has decidedly improved, as any one may convince himself of, by comparing the newspapers of that period, with the present; yet a publicity is now-a-days given to certain things which were formerly kept more closely from the public eye and ear. this circumstance sometimes produces an apparent increase of wrong-doing, while it is only an increased publicity thereof. political servility, and political rancor, are certainly bad enough, and base enough, at this day, but not long ago both were baser and worse; to show this, i need only appeal to the memories of men before me, who can recollect the beginning of the present century. political controversies are conducted with less bitterness than before; honesty is more esteemed; private worth is more respected. it is not many years since the federal party, composed of men who certainly were an honor to their age, supported aaron burr, for the office of president of the united states; a man whose character, both public and private, was notoriously marked with the deepest infamy. political parties are not very puritanical in their virtue at this day; but i think no party would now for a moment accept such a man as mr. burr, for such a post.[ ] there is another pleasant sign of this improvement in political parties: last autumn the victorious party, in two wards of this city, made a beautiful demonstration of joy, at their success in the presidential election, and on thanksgiving day, and on christmas, gave a substantial dinner to each poor person in their section of the town. it was a trifle, but one pleasant to remember. even the theological journals have improved within a few years. i know it has been said that some of them are not only behind their times, which is true, "but behind all times." it is not so. compared with the sectarian writings--tracts, pamphlets, and hard-bound volumes of an earlier day--they are human, enlightened, and even liberal. in respect to poverty, there has been a great change for the better. however, it may be said in general, that a good deal of the poverty, intemperance, and crime, is of foreign origin; we are to deal with it, to be blamed if we allow it to continue; not at all to be blamed for its origin. i know it is often said, "the poor are getting poorer, and soon will become the mere vassals of the rich;" that "the past is full of discouragement; the future full of fear." i cannot think so. i feel neither the discouragement nor the fear. it should be remembered that many of the fathers of new england owned the bodies of their laborers and domestics! the condition of the working man has improved, relatively to the wealth of the land, ever since. the wages of any kind of labor, at this day, bear a higher proportion to the things needed for comfort and convenience, than ever before for two hundred years. if you go back one hundred years, i think you will find that, in proportion to the population and wealth of this town or this state, there was considerably more suffering from native poverty then than now. i have not, however, before me the means of absolute proof of this statement; but this is plain, that now public charity is more extended, more complete, works in a wiser mode, and with far more beneficial effect; and that pains are now taken to uproot the causes of poverty--pains which our fathers never thought of. in proof of this increase of charity, and even of the existence of justice, i need only refer to the numerous benevolent societies of modern origin, and to the establishment of the ministry at large, in this city--the latter the work of unitarian philanthropy. some other churches have done a little in this good work. but none have done much. i am told the catholic clergy of this city do little to remove the great mass of poverty, intemperance, and crime among their followers. i know there are some few honorable exceptions, and how easy it is for protestant hostility to exaggerate matters; still, i fear the reproach is but too well founded, that the catholic clergy are not vigilant shepherds, who guard their sacred flock against the terrible wolves which prowl about the fold. i wish to find myself mistaken here. some of you remember the "old almshouse" in park-street; the condition and character of its inmates; the effect of the treatment they there received. i do not say that our present attention to the subject of poverty is any thing to boast of--certainly we have done little in comparison with what common sense demands; very little in comparison with what christianity enjoins; still it is something; in comparison with "the good old times," it is much that we are doing. there has been a great change for the better in the matter of intemperance in drinking. within thirty years, the progress towards sobriety is surprising, and so well marked and obvious that to name it is enough. probably there is not a "respectable" man in boston who would not be ashamed to have been seen drunk yesterday; even to have been drunk in ever so private a manner; not one who would willingly get a friend or a guest in that condition to-day! go back a few years, and it brought no public reproach, and, i fear, no private shame. a few years further back, it was not a rare thing, on great occasions, for the fathers of the town to reel and stagger from their intemperance--the magistrates of the land voluntarily furnishing the warning which a romantic historian says the spartans forced upon their slaves. it is easy to praise the fathers of new england; easier to praise them for virtues they did not possess, than to discriminate, and fairly judge those remarkable men. i admire and venerate their characters, but they were rather hard drinkers; certainly a love of cold water was not one of their loves. let me mention a fact or two: it is recorded in the probate office, that in , at the funeral of mrs. mary norton, widow of the celebrated john norton, one of the ministers of the first church in boston, fifty-one gallons and a half of the best malaga wine were consumed by the "mourners;" in , at the funeral of the rev. thomas cobbett, minister at ipswich, there were consumed one barrel of wine and two barrels of cider--"and as it was cold," there was "some spice and ginger for the cider." you may easily judge of the drunkenness and riot on occasions less solemn than the funeral of an old and beloved minister. towns provided intoxicating drink at the funeral of their paupers; in salem, in , at the funeral of a pauper, a gallon of wine and another of cider are charged as "incidental;" the next year, six gallons of rum on a similar occasion; in lynn, in , the town furnished "half a barrel of cider for the widow dispaw's funeral." affairs had come to such a pass, that in , the general court forbade the use of wine and rum at funerals. in , increase mather published his "wo unto drunkards." governor winthrop complains, in , that "the young folk gave themselves to drink hot waters very immoderately."[ ] but i need not go back so far. who that is fifty years of age, does not remember the aspect of boston on public days; on the evening of such days? compare the "election day," or the fourth of july, as they were kept thirty or forty years ago, with such days in our time. some of you remember the celebration of peace, in ; many of you can recollect the similar celebration in . on each of those days the inhabitants from the country towns came here to rejoice with the citizens of this town. compare the riot, the confusion, the drunkenness then, with the order, decorum, and sobriety of the celebration at the introduction of water last autumn, and you see what has been done in sixty or seventy years for temperance. a great deal of the crime in boston is of foreign origin: of the one thousand and sixty-six children vagrant in your streets, only one hundred and three had american parents; of the nine hundred and thirty-three persons in the house of correction here, six hundred and sixteen were natives of other countries; i know not how many were the children of irishmen, who had not enjoyed the advantages of our institutions. i cannot tell how many rum-shops are kept by foreigners.[ ] now in ireland no pains have been taken with the education of the people by the government; very little by the catholic church; indeed, the british government for a long time rendered it impossible for the church to do any thing in this way. for more than seventy years, in that catholic country, none but a protestant could keep a school or even be a tutor in a private family. a catholic schoolmaster was to be transported, and, if he returned, adjudged guilty of high treason, barbarously put to death, drawn and quartered. a protestant schoolmaster is as repulsive to a catholic, as a mahometan schoolmaster or an atheist would be to you. it is not surprising, therefore, that the irish are ignorant, and, as a consequence thereof, are idle, thriftless, poor, intemperate, and barbarian; not to be wondered at if they conduct like wild beasts when they are set loose in a land where we think the individual must be left free to the greatest extent. of course they will violate our laws, those wild bisons leaping over the fences which easily restrain the civilized domestic cattle; will commit the great crimes of violence, even capital offences, which certainly have increased rapidly of late. this increase of foreigners is prodigious: more than half the children in your public schools are children of foreigners; there are more catholic than protestant children born in boston. with the general and unquestionable advance of morality, some offences are regarded as crimes which were not noticed a few years ago. drunkenness is an example of this. an irishman in his native country thinks little of beating another or being beaten; he brings his habits of violence with him, and does not at once learn to conform to our laws. then, too, a good deal of crime which was once concealed is now brought to light by the press, by the superior activity of the police; and yet, after all that is said, it seems quite clear that what is legally called crime and committed by americans, has diminished a good deal in fifty years. such crime, i think, never bore so small a proportion to the population, wealth, and activity of boston, as now. even if we take all the offences committed by these strangers who have come amongst us, it does not compare so very unfavorably as some allege with the "good old times." i know men often look on the fathers of this colony as saints; but in , at a time when the whole state contained less than one tenth of the present population of boston, and they were scattered from weymouth fore-river to the merrimack, the first grand jury ever impanelled at boston "found" a hundred bills of indictment at their first coming together. if you consider the circumstances of the class who commit the greater part of the crimes which get punished, you will not wonder at the amount. the criminal court is their school of morals; the constable and judge are their teachers; but under this rude tuition i am told that the irish improve and actually become better. the children who receive the instruction of our public schools, imperfect as they are, will be better than their fathers; and their grandchildren will have lost all trace of their barbarian descent. i have often spoken of our penal law as wrong in its principle, taking it for granted that the ignorant and miserable men who commit crime do it always from wickedness, and not from the pressure of circumstances which have brutalized the man; wrong in its aim, which is to take vengeance on the offender, and not to do him a good in return for the evil he has done; wrong in its method, which is to inflict a punishment that is wholly arbitrary, and then to send the punished man, overwhelmed with new disgrace, back to society, often made worse than before,--not to keep him till we can correct, cure, and send him back a reformed man. i would retract nothing of what i have often said of that; but not long ago all this was worse; the particular statutes were often terribly unjust; the forms of trial afforded the accused but little chance of justice; the punishments were barbarous and terrible. the plebeian tyranny of the lord brethren in new england was not much lighter than the patrician despotism of the lord bishops in the old world, and was more insulting. let me mention a few facts, to refresh the memories of those who think we are going to ruin, and can only save ourselves by holding to the customs of our fathers, and of the "good old times." in , a man was fined forty pounds, whipped on the naked back, both his ears cut off, and then banished this colony, for uttering hard speeches against the government and the church at salem. in the first century of the existence of this town, the magistrates could banish a woman because she did not like the preaching, nor all the ministers, and told the people why; they could whip women naked in the streets, because they spoke reproachfully of the magistrates; they could fine men twenty pounds, and then banish them, for comforting a man in jail before his trial; they could pull down, with legal formality, the house of a man they did not like; they could whip women at a cart's tail from salem to rhode island, for fidelity to their conscience; they could beat, imprison, and banish men out of the land, simply for baptizing one another in a stream of water, instead of sprinkling them from a dish; they could crop the ears, and scourge the backs, and bore the tongues of men, for being quakers; yes, they could shut them in jails, could banish them out of the colony, could sell them as slaves, could hang them on a gallows, solely for worshipping god after their own conscience; they could convulse the whole land, and hang some thirty or forty men for witchcraft, and do all this in the name of god, and then sing psalms, with most nasal twang, and pray by the hour, and preach--i will not say how long, nor what, nor how! it is not yet one hundred years since two slaves were judicially burnt alive, on boston neck, for poisoning their master. but why talk of days so old? some of you remember when the pillory and the whipping-post were a part of the public furniture of the law, and occupied a prominent place in the busiest street in town. some of you have seen men and women scourged, naked, and bleeding, in state street; have seen men judicially branded in the forehead with a hot iron, their ears clipped off by the sheriff, and held up to teach humanity to the gaping crowd of idle boys and vulgar men. a magistrate was once brought into odium in boston, for humanely giving back to his victim a part of the ear he had officially shorn off, that the mutilated member might be restored and made whole. how long is it since men sent their servants to the "workhouse," to be beaten "for disobedience," at the discretion of the master? it is not long since the gallows was a public spectacle here in the midst of us, and a hanging made a holiday for the rabble of this city and the neighboring towns; even women came to see the death-struggle of a fellow-creature, and formed the larger part of the mob; many of you remember the procession of the condemned man sitting on his coffin, a procession from the jail to the gallows, from one end of the city to the other. i remember a public execution some fourteen or fifteen years ago, and some of the students of theology at cambridge, of undoubted soundness in the unitarian faith, came here to see men kill a fellow-man! who can think of these things, and not see that a great progress has been made in no long time. but if these things be not proof enough, then consider what has been done here in this century for the reformation of juvenile offenders; for the discharged convict; for the blind, the deaf, and the dumb; for the insane, and now even for the idiot. think of the numerous societies for the widows and orphans; for the seamen; the temperance societies; the peace societies; the prison discipline society; the mighty movement against slavery, which, beginning with a few heroic men who took the roaring lion of public opinion by the beard, fearless of his roar, has gone on now, till neither the hardest nor the softest courage in the state dares openly defend the unholy institution. a philanthropic female physician delivers gratuitous lectures on physiology to the poor of this city, to enable them to take better care of their houses and their bodies; an unpretending man, for years past, responsible to none but god, has devoted all his time and his toil to the most despised class of men, and has saved hundreds from the jail, from crime and ruin at the last. here are many men and women not known to the public, but known to the poor, who are daily ministering to the wants of the body and the mind. consider all these things, and who can doubt that a great moral progress has been made? it is not many years since we had white slaves, and a scotch boy was invoiced at fourteen pounds lawful money, in the inventory of an estate in boston. in , governor dudley complains that some of the founders of new england, in consequence of a famine, were obliged to set free one hundred and eighty servants, "to our extreme loss," for they had cost sixteen or twenty pounds apiece. seventy years since, negro slavery prevailed in massachusetts, and men did not blush at the institution. think of the treatment which the leaders of the anti-slavery reform met with but a few years ago, and you see what a progress has been made![ ] i have extenuated nothing of our condition; i have said the morals of trade are low morals, and the morals of the press are low; that poverty is a terrible evil to deal with, and we do not deal with it manfully; that intemperance is a mournful curse, all the more melancholy when rich men purposely encourage it; that here is an amount of crime which makes us shudder to think of; that the voice of human blood cries out of the ground against us. i disguise nothing of all this; let us confess the fact, and, ugly as it is, look it fairly in the face. still, our moral condition is better than ever before. i know there are men who seem born with their eyes behind, their hopes all running into memory; some who wish they had been born long ago: they might as well; sure it is no fault of theirs that they were not. i hear what they have to tell us. still, on the whole, the aspect of things is most decidedly encouraging; for if so much has been done when men understood the matter less than we, both cause and cure, how much more can be done for the future? * * * * * what can we do to make things better? i have so recently spoken of poverty that i shall say little now. a great change will doubtless take place before many years in the relations between capital and labor; a great change in the spirit of society. i do not believe the disparity now existing between the wealth of men has its origin in human nature, and therefore is to last for ever; i do not believe it is just and right that less than one twentieth of the people in the nation should own more than ten twentieths of the property of the nation, unless by their own head, or hands, or heart, they do actually create and earn that amount. i am not now blaming any class of men; only stating a fact. there is a profound conviction in the hearts of many good men, rich as well as poor, that things are wrong; that there is an ideal right for the actual wrong; but i think no man yet has risen up with ability to point out for us the remedy of these evils, and deliver us from what has not badly been named the feudalism of capital. still, without waiting for the great man to arise, we can do something with our littleness even now; the truant children may be snatched from vagrancy, beggary, and ruin; tenements can be built for the poor, and rented at a reasonable rate. it seems to me that something more can be done in the way of providing employment for the poor, or helping them to employment. in regard to intemperance, i will not say we can end it by direct efforts. so long as there is misery there will be continued provocation to that vice, if the means thereof are within reach. i do not believe there will be much more intemperance amongst well-bred men; among the poor and wretched it will doubtless long continue. but if we cannot end, we can diminish it, fast as we will. if rich men did not manufacture, nor import, nor sell; if they would not rent their buildings for the sale of intoxicating liquor for improper uses; if they did not by their example favor the improper use thereof, how long do you think your police would arrest and punish one thousand drunkards in the year? how long would twelve hundred rum-shops disgrace your town? boston is far more sober, at least in appearance, than other large cities of america, but it is still the headquarters of intemperance for the state of massachusetts. in arresting intemperance, two thirds of the poverty, three fourths of the crime of this city would end at once, and an amount of misery and sin which i have not the skill to calculate. do you say we cannot diminish intemperance, neither by law, nor by righteous efforts without law? oh, fie upon such talk. come, let us be honest, and say we do not wish to, not that we cannot. it is plain that in sixteen years we can build seven great railroads radiating out of boston, three or four hundred miles long; that we can conquer the connecticut and the merrimack, and all the lesser streams of new england; can build up lowell, and chicopee, and lawrence; why, in four years massachusetts can invest eight and fifty millions of dollars in railroads and manufactures, and cannot prevent intemperance; cannot diminish it in boston! so there are no able men in this town! i am amazed at such talk, in such a place, full of such men, surrounded by such trophies of their work! when the churches preach and men believe that mammon is not the only god we are practically to serve; that it is more reputable to keep men sober, temperate, comfortable, intelligent, and thriving, than it is to make money out of other men's misery; more christian, than to sell and manufacture rum, to rent houses for the making of drunkards and criminals, then we shall set about this business with the energy that shows we are in earnest, and by a method which will do the work. in the matter of crime, something can be done to give efficiency to the laws. no doubt a thorough change must be made in the idea of criminal legislation; vengeance must give way to justice, policemen become moral missionaries, and jails moral hospitals, that discharge no criminal until he is cured. it will take long to get the idea into men's minds. you must encounter many a doubt, many a sneer, and expect many a failure, too. men who think they "know the world," because they know that most men are selfish, will not believe you. we must wait for new facts to convince such men. after the idea is established, it will take long to organize it fittingly. much can be done for juvenile offenders, much for discharged convicts, even now. we can pull down the gallows, and with it that loathsome theological idea on which it rests,--the idea of a vindictive god. a remorseless court, and careful police, can do much to hinder crime;[ ] but they cannot remove the causes thereof. last year, a good man, to whom the state was deeply indebted before, suggested that a moral police should be appointed to look after offenders; to see why they committed their crime; and if only necessity compelled them, to seek out for them some employment, and so remove the causes of crime in detail. the thought was worthy of the age, and of the man. in the hands of a practical man, this thought might lead to good results. a beginning has already been made in the right direction, by establishing the state reform school for boys. it will be easy to improve on this experiment, and conduct prisons for men on the same scheme of correction and cure, not merely of punishment, in the name of vengeance. but, after all, so long as poverty, misery, intemperance, and ignorance continue, no civil police, no moral police, can keep such causes from creating crime. what keeps you from a course of crime? your morality, your religion? is it? take away your property, your home, your friends, the respect of respectable men; take away what you have received from education, intellectual, moral, and religious, and how much better would the best of us be than the men who will to-morrow be huddled off to jail, for crimes committed in a dram-shop to-day? the circumstances which have kept you temperate, industrious, respectable, would have made nine tenths of the men in jail as good men as you are. it is not pleasant to think that there are no amusements which lie level to the poor, in this country. in paris, naples, rome, vienna, berlin, there are cheap pleasures for poor men, which yet are not low pleasures. here there are amusements for the comfortable and the rich, not too numerous, rather too rare, perhaps, but none for the poor, save only the vice of drunkenness; that is hideously cheap; the inward temptation powerful; the outward occasion always at hand. last summer, some benevolent men treated the poor children of the city to a day of sunshine, fresh air, and frolic in the fields. once a year the children, gathered together by another benevolent man, have a floral procession in the streets; some of them have charitably been taught to dance. these things are beautiful to think of; signs of our progress, from "the good old times," and omens of a brighter day, when christianity shall bear more abundantly flowers and fruit even yet more fair. the morals of the current literature, of the daily press--you can change when you will. if there is not in us a demand for low morals, there will be no supply. the morals of trade, and of politics, the handmaid thereof, we can make better soon as we wish. * * * * * it has been my aim to give suggestions, rather than propose distinct plans of action; i do not know that i am capable of that. but some of you are rich men, some able men; many of you, i think, are good men. i appeal to you to do something to raise the moral character of this town. all that has been done in fifty years, or a hundred and fifty, seems very little, while so much still remains to do; only a hint and an encouragement. you cannot do much, nor i much: that is true. but, after all, every thing must begin with individual men and women. you can at least give the example of what a good man ought to be and to do, to-day; to-morrow you will yourself be the better man for it. so far as that goes, you will have done something to mend the morals of boston. you can tell of actual evils, and tell of your remedy for them; can keep clear from committing the evils yourself: that also is something. here are two things that are certain: we are all brothers, rich and poor, american and foreign; put here by the same god, for the same end, and journeying towards the same heaven, owing mutual help. then, too, the wise men and good men are the natural guardians of society, and god will not hold them guiltless, if they leave their brothers to perish. i know our moral condition is a reproach to us; i will not deny that, nor try to abate the shame and grief we should feel. when i think of the poverty and misery in the midst of us, and all the consequences thereof, i hardly dare feel grateful for the princely fortunes some men have gathered together. certainly it is not a christian society, where such extremes exist; we are only in the process of conversion; proselytes of the gate, and not much more. there are noble men in this city, who have been made philanthropic, by the sight of wrong, of intemperance, and poverty, and crime. let mankind honor great conquerors, who only rout armies, and "plant fresh laurels where they kill;" i honor most the men who contend against misery, against crime and sin; men that are the soldiers of humanity, and in a low age, amidst the mean and sordid spirits of a great trading town, lift up their serene foreheads, and tell us of the right, the true, first good, first perfect, and first fair. from such men i hear the prophecy of the better time to come. in their example i see proofs of the final triumph of good over evil. angels are they, who keep the tree of life, not with flaming sword, repelling men, but, with friendly hand, plucking therefrom, and giving unto all the leaves, the flower, and the fruit of life, for the healing of the nations. a single good man, kindling his early flame, wakens the neighbors with his words of cheer; they, at his lamp, shall light their torch and household fire, anticipating the beamy warmth of day. soon it will be morning, warm and light; we shall be up and a-doing, and the lighted lamp, which seemed at first too much for eyes to bear, will look ridiculous, and cast no shadow in the noonday sun. a hundred years hence, men will stand here as i do now, and speak of the evils of these times as things past and gone, and wonder that able men could ever be appalled by our difficulties, and think them not to be surpassed. still, all depends on the faithfulness of men--your faithfulness and mine. the last election has shown us what resolute men can do on a trifling occasion, if they will. you know the efforts of the three parties--what meetings they held, what money they raised, what talent was employed, what speeches made, what ideas set forth: not a town was left unattempted; scarce a man who had wit to throw a vote, but his vote was solicited. you see the revolution which was wrought by that vigorous style of work. when such men set about reforming the evils of society, with such a determined soul, what evil can stand against mankind? we can leave nothing to the next generation worth so much as ideas of truth, justice, and religion, organized into fitting institutions; such we can leave, and, if true men, such we shall. footnotes: [ ] rev. john pierpont [ ] this statement was made in ; subsequent events have shown that i was mistaken. it is now thought respectable and patriotic not only to engage in the slave-trade, but to kidnap men and women in boston. most of the prominent newspapers, and several of the most prominent clergy, defend the kidnapping. attempts have repeatedly been made to kidnap my own parishioners. kidnapping is not even a matter of church discipline in boston in . [ ] the conduct of public magistrates who are paid for serving the people, is not what it should be in respect to temperance. the city authorities allow the laws touching the sale of the great instrument of demoralization to be violated continually. there is no serious effort made to enforce these laws. nor is this all: the shameless conduct of conspicuous men at the supper given in this city after the funeral of john quincy adams, and the debauchery on that occasion, are well known and will long be remembered. at the next festival (in september, ), it is notorious, that the city authorities, at the expense of the citizens, provided a large quantity of intoxicating drink for the entertainment of our guests during the excursion in the harbor. it is also a matter of great notoriety, that many were drunk on that occasion. i need hardly add, that on board one of the crowded steamboats, three cheers were given for the "fugitive slave law," by men who it is hoped will at length become sober enough to "forget" it. when the magistrates of boston do such deeds, and are not even officially friends of temperance, what shall we expect of the poor and the ignorant and the miserable? "cain, where is thy brother?" may be asked here and now as well as in the bible story. [ ] the statistics of intemperance are instructive and surprising. of the one thousand two hundred houses in boston where intoxicating drink is retailed to be drunken on the premises, suppose that two hundred are too insignificant to be noticed, or else are large hotels to be considered presently; then there are one thousand common retail groggeries. suppose they are in operation three hundred and thirteen days in the year, twelve hours each day; that they sell one glass in a little less than ten minutes, or one hundred glasses in the day, and that five cents is the price of a glass. then each groggery receives $ a day, or $ , ( × ) in a year, and the one thousand groggeries receive $ , , . let us suppose that each sells drink for really useful purposes to the amount of $ per annum, or all to the amount of $ , ; there still remains the sum of $ , , spent for intemperance in these one thousand groggeries. this is about twice the sum raised by taxation for the public education of all the children in the state of massachusetts! but this calculation does not equal the cost of intemperance in these places; the receipts of these retail houses cannot be less than $ , per annum, or in the aggregate, $ , , . this sum in two years would pay for the new aqueduct. suppose the amount paid for the needless, nay, for the injurious use of intoxicating drink in private families, in boarding houses and hotels, is equal to the smallest sum above named ($ , , ), then it appears that the city of boston spends ($ , , + $ , , =) $ , , annually for an article that does no good to any but harm to all, and brings ruin on thousands each year. but if a school-house or a school costs a little money, a complaint is soon made. [ ] it must be remembered that this was written, not in , but in . [ ] in , "the reforming synod," assembled at boston, thus complained of intemperance, amongst other sins of the times: "that heathenish and idolatrous practice of health-drinking is too frequent. that shameful iniquity of sinful drinking is become too general a provocation. days of training and other public solemnities have been abused in this respect: and not only english but indians have been debauched by those that call themselves christians.... this is a crying sin, and the more aggravated in that the first planters of this colony did ... come into this land with a design to convert the heathen unto christ, but if instead of that they be taught wickedness ... the lord may well punish by them.... there are more temptations and occasions unto that sin publicly allowed of, than any necessity doth require. the proper end of taverns, &c., being for the entertainment of strangers ... a far less number would suffice," etc. cotton mather says of intemperance in his time: "to see ... a drunken man become a drowned man, is to see but a most retaliating hand of god. why we have seen this very thing more than threescore times in our land. and i remember the drowning of one drunkard, so oddly circumstanced; it was in the hold of a vessel that lay full of water near the shore. we have seen it so often, that i am amazed at you, o ye drunkards of new england; i am amazed that you can harden your hearts in your sin, without expecting to be destroyed suddenly and without remedy. yea, and we have seen the devil that has possessed the drunkard, throwing him into fire, and then kept shrieking fire! fire! till they have gone down to the fire that never shall be quenched. yea, more than one or two drunken women in this very town, have, while in their drink, fallen into the fire, and so they have tragically gone roaring out of one fire into another. o ye daughters of belial, hear and fear and do wickedly no more." the history of the first barrel of rum which was brought to plymouth has been carefully traced out to a considerable extent. nearly forty of the "pilgrims" or their descendants were publicly punished for the drunkenness it occasioned. [ ] over eight hundred in . [ ] this statement appears somewhat exaggerated in . [ ] in , the amount of goods stolen in boston, and reported to the police, beyond what was received, was more than $ , ; in , less than $ , . in , the police were twice as numerous as in the former year, and organized and directed with new and remarkable skill. appendix note to p. . some account of the installation of mr. parker. letter of the committee to mr. parker. boston, november , . dear sir:-- among your friends and congregation at the melodeon, a society has been organized according to law; and we have been instructed, as the standing committee, to invite you to become its minister. it gives us great pleasure to be the means to forward, in this small degree, the end proposed, and we cordially extend you the invitation, with the sincere hope that it will meet a favorable answer. we are, truly and respectfully, your friends, mark healey, john flint, levi b. meriam, amos coolidge, john g. king, sidney homer, henry smith, geo. w. robinson, c. m. ellis. to the rev. theodore parker, _west roxbury, mass_. mr. parker's reply. to mark healey, john flint, levi b. meriam, amos coolidge, john g. king, sidney homer, henry smith, george w. robinson, and c. m. ellis, esquires. dear friends:-- when i received your communication of the th ult. i did not hesitate in my decision, but i have delayed giving you a formal reply, in order that i might confer with my friends in this place, whom it becomes my painful duty to leave. i accept your invitation; but wish it to be provided that our connection may at any time be dissolved, by either party giving notice to the other of a desire to that effect, six months before such a separation is to take place. it is now nearly a year since i began to preach at the melodeon. i came at the request of some of you; but i did not anticipate the present result. far from it. i thought but few would come and listen to what was so widely denounced. but i took counsel of my hopes and not of my fears. it seems to me now that, if we are faithful to our duty, we shall in a few years build up a society which shall be not only a joy to our own hearts, but a blessing also to others, now strangers and perhaps hostile to us. i feel that we have begun a good work. with earnest desires for the success of our common enterprise, and a willingness to labor for the advancement of real christianity, i am, faithfully, your friend, theodore parker. _west roxbury, th dec., ._ * * * * * on sunday, january , , rev. theodore parker was installed as pastor of the twenty-eighth congregational society in boston. the exercises on the occasion were as follows:-- introductory hymn. prayer. voluntary on the organ. the chairman of the standing committee then addressed the congregation as follows:-- by the instructions of the society, the committee have made an arrangement with mr. parker, by which the services of this society, under its new organization, should commence with the new year; and this being our first meeting, it has been set apart for such introductory services as may seem fitting for our position and prospects. the circumstances under which this society has been formed, and its progress hitherto, are familiar to most of those present. it first began from certain influences which seemed hostile to the cause of religious freedom. it was the opinion of many of those now present, that a minister of the gospel, truly worthy of that name, was proscribed on account of his opinions, branded as a heretic, and shut out from the pulpits of this city. at a meeting of gentlemen held january , , the following resolution was passed:-- "_resolved_, that the rev. theodore parker shall have a chance to be heard in boston." to carry this into effect, this hall was secured for a place of meeting, and the numbers who have met here from sunday to sunday, have fully answered our most sanguine expectations. our meetings have proved that though our friend was shut out from the temples, yet "the people heard him gladly." of the effects of his preaching among us i need not speak. the warm feelings of gratitude and respect expressed on every side, are the best evidences of the efficacy of his words, and of his life. out of these meetings our society has naturally sprung. it became necessary to assume some permanent form--the labor of preaching to two societies, would of course be too much for mr. parker's health and strength--the conviction that his settlement in boston would be not only important for ourselves, but also for the cause of liberal christianity and religious freedom--these were some of the reasons which induced us to form a society, and invite him to become its minister. to this he has consented; with the understanding that the connection may be dissolved by either party, on giving six months notice to that effect. at his suggestion, and with the warm approval of the committee, we have determined to adopt the old congregational form of settling our minister; without the aid of bishop, churches, or ministers. as to our choice, we are, upon mature reflection, and after a year's trial, fully persuaded that we have found our minister, and we ask no ecclesiastical council to ratify our decision. as to the charge usually given on such occasions, we prefer to do without it, and trust to the conscience of our minister for his faithfulness. as to the right hand of fellowship, there are plenty of us ready and willing to give that, and warm hearts with it. and for such of the other ceremonies usual on such occasions, as mr. parker chooses to perform, we gladly accept the substitution of his services for those of any stranger. the old puritan form of settling a minister is, for the people to do it themselves; and this let us now proceed to do. in adopting this course, we are strongly supported both by principle and precedent. congregationalism is the republicanism of the church; and it is fitting that the people themselves should exercise their right of self-government in that most important particular, the choice and settlement of a minister. for examples, i need only remind you of the settlement of the first minister in new england, on which occasion this form was used, and that it is also used at this day by one of the most respectable churches in this city. * * * * * the society then ratified the proceedings by an unanimous vote; and mr. parker publicly signified that he adhered to his consent to become the minister of this society, and the organization of the society was thus completed. occasional hymn. discourse, by mr. parker. anthem. benediction. unitarianism in america a history of its origin and development by george willis cooke member of the american historical association, american association for the advancement of science, american academy of political and social science, etc. preface. the aim i have had in view in writing this book has been to give a history of the origin of unitarianism in the united states, how it has organized itself, and what it has accomplished. it seemed desirable to deal more fully than has been done hitherto with the obscure beginnings of the unitarian movement in new england; but limits of space have made it impossible to treat this phase of the subject in other than a cursory manner. it deserves an exhaustive treatment, which will amply repay the necessary labor to this end. the theological controversies that led to the separation of the unitarians from the older congregational body have been only briefly alluded to, the design of my work not requiring an ampler treatment. it was not thought best to cover the ground so ably traversed by rev. george e. ellis, in his half-century of the unitarian controversy; rev. joseph henry allen, in his our liberal movement in theology; rev. william channing gannett, in his memoir of dr. ezra stiles gannett; and by rev. john white chadwick, in his old and new unitarian beliefs. the attempt here made has been to supplement these works, and to treat of the practical side of unitarianism,--its organizations, charities, philanthropies, and reforms. with the theological problems involved in the history of unitarianism this volume deals only so far as they have affected its general development. i have endeavored to treat of them fairly and without prejudice, to state the position of each side to the various controversies in the words of those who have accepted its point of view, and to judge of them as phases of a larger religious growth. i have not thought it wise to attempt anything approaching an exhaustive treatment of the controversies produced by the transcendental movement and by "the western issue." if they are to be dealt with in the true spirit of the historical method, it must be at a period more remote from these discussions than that of one who participated in them, however slightly. i have endeavored to treat of all phases of unitarianism without reference to local interests and without sectional preferences. if my book does not indicate such regard to what is national rather than to what is provincial, as some of my readers may desire, it is due to inability to secure information that would have given a broader character to my treatment of the subject. the present work may appear to some of its readers to have been written in a sectarian spirit, with a purpose to magnify the excellences of unitarianism, and to ignore its limitations. such has not been the purpose i have kept before me; but, rather, my aim has been to present the facts candidly and justly, and to treat of them from the standpoint of a student of the religious evolution of mankind. unitarianism in this country presents an attempt to bring religion into harmony with philosophy and science, and to reconcile christianity with the modern spirit. its effort in this direction is one that deserves careful consideration, especially in view of the unity and harmony it has developed in the body of believers who accept its teachings. the unitarian body is a small one, but it has a history of great significance with reference to the future development of christianity. the names of those who accept unitarianism have not been given in this book in any boastful spirit. a faith that is often spoken against may justify itself by what it has accomplished, and its best fruits are the men and women who have lived in the spirit of its teachings. in presenting the names of those who are not in any way identified with unitarian churches, the purpose has been to suggest the wide and inclusive character of the unitarian movement, and to indicate that it is not represented merely by a body of churches, but that it is an individual way of looking at the facts of life and its problems. in writing the following pages, i have had constantly in mind those who have not been educated as unitarians, and who have come into this inheritance through struggle and search. not having been to the manner born myself, i have sought to provide such persons with the kind of information that would have been helpful to me in my endeavors to know the unitarian life and temper. something of what appears in these pages is due to this desire to help those who wish to know concretely what unitarianism is, and what it has said and done to justify its existence. this will account for the manner of treatment and for some of the topics selected. when this work was begun, the design was that it should form a part of the exhibit of unitarianism in this country presented at the seventy-fifth anniversary of the formation of the american unitarian association. the time required for a careful verification of facts made it impossible to have the book ready at that date. the delay in its publication has not freed the work from all errors and defects, but it has given the opportunity for a more adequate treatment of many phases of the subject. much of the work required in its preparation does not show itself in the following pages; but it has involved an extended examination of manuscript journals and records, as well as printed reports of societies, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and books. many of the subjects dealt with, not having been touched upon in any previous historical work, have demanded a first-hand study of records, often difficult to find access to, and even more difficult to summarize in an interesting and adequate manner. i wish here to warmly thank all those persons, many in number and too numerous to give all their names, who have generously aided me with their letters and manuscripts, and by the loan of books, magazines, pamphlets, and newspapers. without their aid the book would have been much less adequate in its treatment of many subjects than it is at present. though i am responsible for the book as it presents itself to the reader, much of its value is due to those who have thus labored with me in its preparation. in manuscript and in proof-sheet it has been read by several persons, who have kindly aided in securing accuracy to names, dates, and historic facts. g.w.c. boston, october , . contents i. introduction.--english sources of american unitarianism renaissance reformation toleration arminianism english rationalists ii. the liberal side of puritanism the church of authority and the church of freedom seventeenth-century liberals growth of liberty in church methods a puritan rationalist harvard college iii. the growth of democracy in the churches arminianism the growth of arminianism robert breck books read by liberal men the great awakening cardinal beliefs of the liberals publications defining the liberal beliefs phases of religious progress iv. the silent advance of liberalism subordinate nature of christ some of the liberal leaders the first unitarian a pronounced universalist other men of mark the second period of revivals king's chapel becomes unitarian other unitarian movements growth of toleration v. the period of controversy the monthly anthology society for promoting christian knowledge, piety, and charity general repository the christian disciple dr. morse and american unitarianism evangelical missionary society the berry street conference the publishing fund society harvard divinity school the unitarian miscellany the christian register results of the division in congregationalism final separation of state and church vi. the american unitarian association initial meetings work of the first year work of the first quarter of a century publication of tracts and books domestic missions vii. the period of radicalism depression in denominational activities publications a firm of publishers the brooks fund missionary efforts the western unitarian conference the autumnal conventions influence of the civil war the sanitary commission results of fifteen years viii. the denominational awakening the new york convention of new life in the unitarian association the new theological position organization of the free religious association unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation the year book controversy missionary activities college town missions theatre preaching organization of local conferences fellowship and fraternity results of the denominational awakening ix. growth of denominational consciousness "the western issue" fellowship with universalists officers of the american unitarian association the american unitarian association as a representative boy the church building loan fund the unitarian building in boston growth of the devotional spirit the seventy-fifth anniversary x. the ministry at large association of young men preaching to the poor tuckerman as minister to the poor tuckerman's methods organization of charities benevolent fraternity of churches other ministers at large ministry at large in other cities xi. organized sunday-school work boston sunday school society unitarian sunday school society western unitarian sunday school society unity clubs the ladies' commission on sunday-school books xii. the women's alliance and its predecessors women's western unitarian conference women's auxiliary conference the national alliance cheerful letter and post-office missions associate alliances alliance methods xiii. missions to india and japan society respecting the state of religion in india dall's work in india recent work in india the beginnings in japan xiv. the meadville theological school the beginnings in meadville the growth of the school xv. unitarian philanthropies unitarian charities education of the blind care of the insane child-saving missions care of the poor humane treatment of animals young men's christian unions educational work in the south educational work for the indians xvi. unitarians and reforms peace movement temperance reform anti-slavery the enfranchisement of women civil service reform xvii. unitarian men and women eminent statesmen some representative unitarians judges and legislators boston unitarianism xviii. unitarians and education pioneers of the higher criticism the catholic influence of harvard university the work of horace mann elizabeth peabody and the kindergarten work of unitarian women for education popular education and public libraries mayo's southern ministry of education xix. unitarianism and literature influence of unitarian environment literary tendencies literary tastes of unitarian ministers unitarians as historians scientific unitarians unitarian essayists unitarian novelists unitarian artists and poets xx. the future of unitarianism appendix. a. formation of the local conferences b. unitarian newspapers and magazines unitarianism in america. a history of its origin and development. i. introduction.--english sources of american unitarianism. the sources of american unitarianism are to be found in the spirit of individualism developed by the renaissance, the tendency to free inquiry that manifested itself in the protestant reformation, and the general movement of the english churches of the seventeenth century toward toleration and rationalism. the individualism of modern thought and life first found distinct expression in the renaissance; and it was essentially a new creation, and not a revival. hitherto the tribe, the city, the nation, the guild, or the church, had been the source of authority, the centre of power, and the giver of life. although greece showed a desire for freedom of thought, and a tendency to recognize the worth of the individual and his capacity as a discoverer and transmitter of truth, it did not set the individual mind free from bondage to the social and political power of the city. socrates and plato saw somewhat of the real worth of the individual, but the great mass of the people were never emancipated from the old tribal authority as inherited by the city-state; and not one of the great dramatists had conceived of the significance of a genuine individualism.[ ] [sidenote: renaissance.] the renaissance advanced to a new conception of the worth and the capacity of the individual mind, and for the first time in history recognized the full social meaning of personality in man. it sanctioned and authenticated the right of the individual to think for himself, and it developed clearly the idea that he may become the transmitter of valid revelations of spiritual truth. that god may speak through individual intuition and reason, and that this inward revelation may be of the highest authority and worth, was a conception first brought to distinct acceptance by the renaissance. a marked tendency of the reformation which it received from the renaissance was its acceptance of the free spirit of individualism. the roman church had taught that all valid religious truth comes to mankind through its own corporate existence, but the reformers insisted that truth is the result of individual insight and investigation. the reformation magnified the worth of personality, and made it the central force in all human effort.[ ] to gain a positive personal life, one of free initiative power, that may in itself become creative, and capable of bringing truth and life to larger issues, was the chief motive of the protestant leaders in their work of reformation. the result was that, wherever genuine protestantism appeared, it manifested itself by its attitude of free inquiry, its tendency to emphasize individual life and thought, and its break with the traditions of the past, whether in literature or in religion. the reformation did not, however, bring the principle of individuality to full maturity; and it retained many of the old institutional methods, as well as a large degree of their social motive. the reformed churches were often as autocratic as the catholic church had been, and as little inclined to approve of individual departures from their creeds and disciplines; but the motive of individualism they had adopted in theory, and could not wholly depart from in practice. their merit was that they had recognized and made a place for the principle of individuality; and it proved to be a developing social power, however much they might ignore or try to suppress it. [sidenote: reformation.] in its earliest phases protestantism magnified the importance of reason in religious investigations, although it used an imperfect method in so doing. all doctrines were subjected more or less faithfully to this test, every rite was criticised and reinterpreted, and the bible itself was handled in the freest manner. the individualism of the movement showed itself in luther's doctrine of justification by faith, and his confidence in the validity of personal insight into spiritual realities. most of all this tendency manifested itself in the assertion of the right of every believer to read the bible for himself, and to interpret it according to his own needs. the vigorous assertion of the right to the free interpretation of the word of god, and to personal insight into spiritual truth, led their followers much farther than the first reformers had anticipated. individualism showed itself in an endless diversity of personal opinions, and in the creation of many little groups of believers, who were drawn together by an interest in individual leaders or by a common acceptance of hair-splitting interpretations of religious truths.[ ] the protestant church inculcated the law of individual fidelity to god, and declared that the highest obligation is that of personal faith and purity. what separated the catholic and the protestant was not merely a question of socialism as against individualism,[ ] but it was also a problem of outward or inward law, of environment or intuition as the source of wholesome teaching, of ritualism or belief as the higher form of religious expression. the protestants held that belief is better than ritual, faith than sacraments, inward authority than external force. they insisted that the individual has a right to think his own thoughts and to pray his own prayer, and that the revelation of the supreme good will is to all who inwardly bear god's image and to every one whose will is a centre of new creative force in the world of conduct. they affirmed that the individual is of more worth than the social organism, the soul than the church, the motive than the conduct, the search for truth than the truth attained. these tendencies of protestantism found expression in the rationalism that appeared in england at the time of the commonwealth, and especially at the restoration. all the men of broader temper proclaimed the use of reason in the discussion of theological problems. in their opinion the bible was to be interpreted as other books are, while with regard to doctrines there must be compromise and latitude. we find such a theologian as chillingworth recognizing "the free right of the individual reason to interpret the bible."[ ] to such men as milton, jeremy taylor, and locke the free spirit was essential, even though they had not become rationalists in the modern philosophical sense. they were slow to discard tradition, and they desired to establish the validity of the bible; but they would not accept any authority until it had borne the test of as thorough an investigation as they could give it. the methods of rationalism were not yet understood, but the rational spirit had been accepted with a clear apprehension of its significance. [sidenote: toleration.] toleration had two classes of advocates in the seventeenth century,--on the one hand, the minor and persecuted sects, and, on the other, such of the great leaders of religious opinion as milton and locke. the first clear assertion of the modern idea of toleration was made by the anabaptists of holland, who in put into their confession of faith this declaration of the freedom of religion from all state regulation: "the magistrate is not to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, nor compel men to this or that form of religion, because christ is king, and lawgiver of the church and conscience." when the baptists appeared in england, they advocated this principle as the one which ought to control in the relations of church and state. in there was published in london a little tract, written by one leonard busher, a poor laborer, and a member of the baptist church that had recently been organized there. the writer addressed the king and parliament with a statement of his conviction "that by fire and sword to constrain princes and peoples to receive that one true religion of the gospel is wholly against the mind and merciful law of christ."[ ] he went on to say that no king or bishop is able to command faith, that it is monstrous for christians to vex and destroy each other on account of religious differences. the leading protestant bodies, especially the established churches, still held to the corporate idea of the nature of religious institutions; and, although they had rejected the domination of the roman church, they accepted the control of the state as essential to the purity of the church. this half-way retention of the corporate spirit made it impossible for any of the leading churches to give recognition to the full meaning of the protestant idea of the worth of the individual soul, and its right to communicate directly with god. it remained for the persecuted baptists and independents, too feeble and despised to aspire to state influence, to work out the protestant principle to its full expression in the spirit of toleration, to declare for liberty of conscience, the voluntary maintenance of worship, and the separation of church and state. after the restoration, and again after the enthronement of william and mary, it became a serious practical problem to establish satisfactory relations between the various sects. all who were not sectarian fanatics saw that some kind of compromise was desirable, and the more liberal wished to include all but the most extreme phases of belief within the national church. when that national church was finally established on the lines which it has since retained, and numerous bodies of dissenters found themselves compelled to remain outside, toleration became more and more essential, in order that the nation might live at peace with itself. from generation to generation the dissenters were able to secure for themselves a larger recognition, disabilities were removed as men of all sects saw that restrictions were useless, and toleration became the established law in the relations of the various religious bodies to each other. [sidenote: arminianism.] the conditions which led to toleration also developed a liberal interpretation of the relations of the church to the people, a broader explanation of doctrines, and a rational insight into the problems of the religious life. one phase of this more comprehensive religious spirit was shown in arminianism, which was nothing more than an assertion of individualism in the sphere of man's relations to god. calvinism maintained that man cannot act freely for himself, that he is strictly under the sovereignty of the divine will. the democratic tendency in holland, where arminianism had its origin, expressed itself in the declaration that every man is free to accept or to reject religious truth, that the will is individual and self-assertive, and that the conscience is not bound. arminius and his coworkers accepted what the early protestant movement had regarded as essential, that religion should be always obedient to the rational spirit, that nature should be the test in regard to all which affects human conduct, and that the critical spirit ought to be applied to dogma and bible. arminius reasserted this freedom of the human spirit, and vindicated the right of the individual mind to seek god and his truth wherever they may be found. as protestantism became firmly established in england, and the nation accepted its mental and moral attitude without reserve, what is known as arminianism came to be more and more prevalent. this was not a body of doctrines, and it was in no sense a sectarian movement: it was rather a mental temper of openness and freedom. in a word, arminianism became a method of religious inquiry that appealed to reason, nature, and the needs of man. it put new emphasis on the intellectual side of religion, and it developed as a moral protest against the harsher features of calvinism. it gave to human feelings the right to express themselves as elements in the problem of man's relations to god, and vindicated for god the right to be deemed as sympathetic and loving as the men who worship him. while the arminians accepted the bible as an authoritative standard as fully as did the calvinists, they were more critical in its study: they applied literary and historical standards in its interpretation, and they submitted it to the vindication of reason. they sought to escape from the tyranny of the bible, and yet to make it a living force in the world of conduct and character. they not only declared anew the right of private judgment, but they wished to make the bible the source of inward spiritual illumination,--not a standard and a test, but an awakener of the divine life in the soul. they sought for what is really essential in religious truth, limited the number of dogmas that may be regarded as requisite to the christian life, and took the position that only what is of prime importance is to be required of the believer. the result was that arminianism became a positive aid to the growth of toleration in england; for it became what was called latitudinarian,--that is, broad in temper, inclusive in spirit, and desirous of bringing all the nation within the limits of one harmonizing and noble-minded church. [sidenote: english rationalists.] it was in such tendencies as these, as they were developed in holland and england, that american unitarianism had its origin. to show how true this is, it may be desirable to speak of a few of the men whose books were most frequently read in new england during the eighteenth century. the prose writings of milton exerted great influence in favor of toleration and in vindication of reason. without doubt he became in his later years a believer in free will and the subordinate nature of christ, and he was true to the protestant ideal of an open bible and a free spirit in man. known as a puritan, his pleas for toleration must have been read with confidence by his coreligionists of new england; while his rational temper could not have failed to have its effect. his vindication of the bible as the religion of protestants must have commended chillingworth to the liberal minds in new england; and there is evidence that he was read with acceptance, although he was of the established church. chillingworth was of the noblest type of the latitudinarians in the church of england during the first half of the seventeenth century; for he was generously tolerant, his mind was broad and liberal, and he knew the true value of a really comprehensive and inclusive church, which he earnestly desired should be established in england. he wished to have the creed reduced to the most limited proportions by giving emphasis to what is fundamental, and by the extrusion of all else. it was his desire to maintain what is essential that caused him to say: "i am fully assured that god does not, and therefore that man ought not, to require any more of any man than this--to believe the scripture to be god's word, to endeavor to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it."[ ] he would therefore leave every man free to interpret the bible for himself, and he would make no dogmatic test to deprive any man of this right. the chief fact in the bible being christ, he insisted that christianity is loyalty to his spirit. "to believe only in christ" is his definition of christianity, and he would add nothing to this standard. he would put no church or creed or council between the individual soul and god; and he would direct every believer to the bible as the free and open way of the soul's access to divine truth. he found that the religion of protestants consisted in the rational use of that book, and not in the teachings of the reformers or in the confessions they devised. it is the great merit of chillingworth that he vindicated the spirit of toleration in a broad and noble manner, that he was without sectarian prejudice or narrowness in his desire for an inclusive church, and that he spoke and wrote in a truly rational temper. he applied reason to all religious problems, and he regarded it as the final judge and arbiter. religious freedom received from him the fullest recognition, and no one has more clearly indicated the scope and purpose of toleration. another english religious leader, much read in new england, was archbishop tillotson. it has been said of him that "for the first time since the reformation the voice of reason was now clearly heard in the high places of the church."[ ] he was an arminian in his sympathies, and held that the way of salvation is open to all who choose to accept its opportunities. he expressed himself as being as certain that the doctrine of eternal decrees is not of god as he was sure that god is good and just. his ground for this opinion was that it is repugnant to the convictions of justice and goodness natural to men. he maintained that we shall be justified before god by means of the reformation that is wrought in our own lives. we have an intuition of what is right, and a natural capacity for living justly and righteously. experience and reason he made concomitant spiritual forces with the bible, and he held that revelation is but a republication of the truths of natural religion. tillotson was truly a broad churchman, who was desirous of making the national church as comprehensive as possible; and he was one who practised as well as preached toleration. not less liberal was jeremy taylor, who was numbered among the dissenters. in the introduction to his liberty of prophesying he said, "so long as men have such variety of principles, such several constitutions, educations, tempers, and distempers, hopes, interests, and weaknesses, degrees of light and degrees of understanding, it was impossible all should be of one mind." taylor justly said that in heaven there is room for all faiths. his liberty of prophesying, chillingworth's religion of protestants, and milton's liberty of unlicensed printing are the great expressions of the spirit of toleration in the seventeenth century. each was broad, comprehensive, and noble in its plea for religious freedom. it has been said of taylor that "he sets a higher value on a good life than on an orthodox creed. he estimates every doctrine by its capacity to do men good."[ ] another advocate of toleration was john locke, whose chief influence was as a rationalist in philosophy and religion. while accepting christianity with simple confidence, he subjected it to the careful scrutiny of reason. his philosophy awakened the rationalistic spirit in all who accepted it, so that many of his disciples went much farther than he did himself. while accepting revelation, he maintained that natural knowledge is more certain in its character. he taught that the conclusions of reason are more important than anything given men in the name of revelation. he did not himself widely depart from the orthodoxy of his day, though he did not accept the doctrine of the trinity in the most approved form. one of the rationalistic followers of locke was samuel clarke, who attempted to apply the scientific methods of newton to the interpretation of christianity. he tried to establish faith in god on a purely scientific basis. he declared that goodness does not exist because god commands it, but that he commands it because it is good. he interpreted the doctrine of the trinity in a rationalistic manner, holding to its form, but rejecting its substance. these men were widely read in new england during the eighteenth century. in england they were accounted orthodox, and they held high positions either in the national church or in the leading dissenting bodies. they were not sectarian or bigoted, they wished to give religion a basis in common sense and ethical integrity, and they approved of a christianity that is practical and leads to noble living. when we consider what were the relations of the colonies to england during the first half of the eighteenth century, and that the new england churches were constantly influenced by the religious attitude of the mother-country,[ ] it is plain enough that toleration and rationalism were in large measure received from england. in the same school was learned the lesson of a return to the simplicity of christ, of making him and his life the standard of christian fellowship. the great leaders in england taught positively that loyalty to christ is the only essential test of christian duty; and it is not in the least surprising the same idea should have found noble advocacy in new england. that a good life and character are the true indications of the possession of a saving faith was a thought too often uttered in england not to find advocacy in the colonies. in this way unitarianism had its origin, in the teachings of men who were counted orthodox in england, but who favored submitting all theological problems to the test of reason. it was not a sectarian movement in its origin or at any time during the eighteenth century; but it was an effort to make religion practical, to give it a basis in reality, and to establish it as acceptable to the sound judgment and common sense of all men. it was an application to the interpretation of theological problems of that individualistic spirit which was at the very source of protestantism. if the individual ought to interpret the bible for himself, so ought he to accept his own explanation of the dogmas of the church. in so doing, he necessarily becomes a rationalist, which may lead him far from the traditions of the past. if he thinks for himself, there is an end to uniformity of faith--a conclusion which such men as chillingworth and jeremy taylor were willing to accept; and, therefore, they desired an all-inclusive church, in order that freedom and unity of faith might be both maintained. in its beginning the liberal movement in new england was not concerned with the trinity. it was a demand for simplicity, rationality, and toleration. when it had proceeded far on its way, it was led to a consideration of the problem of the trinity, because it did not find that doctrine distinctly taught in the new testament. accepting implicitly the words of christ, it found him declaring positively his own subordination to the father, and preferred his teaching to that of the creeds. to the early liberals this was simply a question of the nature of christ, and did not lessen for them their implicit faith in his revelation or their recognition of the beauty and glory of his divine character. [ ] paul lafargue, the evolution of property from savagery to civilization, , . "if the savage is incapable of conceiving the idea of individual possession of objects not incorporated with his person, it is because he has no conception of his individuality as distinct from the consanguine group in which he lives.... savages, even though individually completer beings, seeing that they are self-sufficing, than are civilized persons, are so thoroughly identified with their hordes and clans that their individuality does not make itself felt either in the family or in property. the clan was all in all: the clan was the family; it was the clan that was the owner of property." also w.m. sloan, the french revolution and religious reform, . "in the greek and roman world the individual, body, mind, and soul, had no place in reference to the state. it was only as a member of family, gens, curia, phratry, or deme, and tribe, that the ancient city-state knew the men and women which composed it. the same was true of knowledge: every sensation, perception, and judgment fell into the category of some abstraction, and, instead of concrete things, men knew nothing but generalized ideals." [ ] francesco s. nitti, catholic socialism, , , . "if we consider the teachings of the gospel, the communistic origins of the church, the socialistic tendencies of the early fathers, the traditions of the canon law, we cannot wonder that at the present day socialism should count no small number of its adherents among catholic writers.... the reformation was the triumph of individualism. catholicism, instead, is communistic by its origin and traditions.... the catholic church, with her powerful organization, dating back over many centuries, has accustomed catholic peoples to passive obedience, to a passive renunciation of the greater part of individualistic tendencies." [ ] see david masson, life of john milton, iii. ; john tulloch, rational theology and christian philosophy in england, ii. ; john hunt, religious thought in england, i. . [ ] the word socialism is not used here with any understanding that the catholic church accepts the social theories implied by that name. it is used to indicate that the roman church maintains that revelation is to the church itself, and that it is now the visible representative of christ. the protestant maintains that revelation is made through an individual, and not to a church. see otto gierke, political theories of the middle age, translated by f.w. maitland, , . "in all centuries of the middle age christendom is set before us a single, universal community, founded and governed by god himself. mankind is one mystical body; it is one single and internally connected people or fold; it is an all-embracing corporation, which constitutes that universal realm, spiritual, and temporal, which may be called the universal church, or, with equal propriety, the commonwealth of the human race.... mediaeval thought proceeded from the idea of a single whole. therefore an organic construction of human society was as familiar to it as a mechanical and atomistic construction was originally alien. under the influence of biblical allegories and the models set by greek and roman writers, the comparison of mankind at large and every smaller group to an animate body was universally adopted and pressed. mankind in its totality was conceived as an organism." [ ] tulloch, rational theology in england, i. . [ ] david masson, life of milton, iii. . [ ] the religion of protestants, ii. . [ ] john hunt, religious thought in england, ii. . [ ] john hunt, religious thought in england, i. . [ ] john hunt, religious thought in england, i. . ii. the liberal side of puritanism. unitarianism was brought to america with the pilgrims and the puritans. its origins are not to be found in the religious indifference and torpidity of the eighteenth century, but in the individualism and the rational temper of the men who settled plymouth, salem, and boston. its development is coextensive with the origin and growth of congregationalism, even with that of protestantism itself. so long as new england has been in existence, so long, at least, unitarianism, in its motives and in its spirit, has been at work in the name of toleration, liberty, and free inquiry. the many and wide divergences of opinion which were an essential result of the spirit and methods of protestantism were shown from the first by the pilgrims and puritans. in massachusetts, stringent laws were adopted in order to secure uniformity of belief and practice; but it was never achieved, except in name. antinomianism early presented itself in boston, and it was quickly followed by the incursions of the baptists and friends. hooker did not find himself in sympathy with the massachusetts leaders, and led a considerable company to connecticut from cambridge, watertown, and dorchester. sir henry vane could not always agree with those who guided the religion and the politics of boston; roger williams had another ideal of church and state than that which had come to the puritans; and sir richard saltonstall would not submit himself to the aristocratic methods of the boston preachers. these are but a few of the many indications of the individualistic spirit that marked the first years of the puritan colonies. it was a part of the protestant inheritance, and was inherent in the very nature of protestantism itself. although the puritans had only in part, and with faltering steps, come to the acceptance of the individualistic and rational spirit in religion, yet they were on the way to it, however long they might be hindered by an autocratic temper. in fact, the puritans throughout the seventeenth century in new england were trying at one and the same time to use reason and yet to cling to authority, to accept the protestant ideal and yet to employ the catholic methods in state and church. in being protestants, they were committed to the central motive of individualism; but they never consistently turned away from that conception of the church which is autocratic and authoritative. [sidenote: the church of authority and the church of freedom.] looked at from the modern sociological point of view, there are two types of church, the one socialistic or institutional and the other individualistic, the one making the corporate power of the church the source of spiritual life, the other making the personal insight of the individual man the fountain of religious truth. such a church as that of rome may be properly called socialistic because of its corporate nature, because it maintains that revelation is to, and by means of, an institution, an organic religious body.[ ] catholicism, whether of rome, greece, or england, makes the church as a great religious corporation the organ of religious expression. such a corporation is the source of authority, the test of truth, the creator of spiritual ideals. on the other hand, such a church as the protestant may be called individualistic because it makes the individual the channel of revelation. it emphasizes personality as of supreme worth, and it makes religious institutions of little value in comparison. practically, the difference between the socialistic and the individualistic church is as wide as it is theoretically. in all catholic churches the child is born into the church, with the right to full acceptance into it by methods of tuition and ritual, whatever his individual qualities or capacities. in all distinctly protestant churches, membership must be sought by individual preference or supernatural process.[ ] the way to it is through individual profession of its creed or inward miraculous transformation of character by the profoundest of personal experiences. in all socialistic or catholic churches--whether heathen, ethnic, or christian--young people are admitted to membership after a definite period of training and an initiation by means of an impressive ritual. in all protestant churches, initiation takes place as the result of personal experiences and mature convictions, and is therefore usually deferred until adult life has been reached. when we bring out thus distinctly the ideals and methods of the two churches, we are able to understand that the puritans were theoretically protestants, but that they practically used the methods of the catholics. this will be seen more clearly when we take the individualistic tendencies of the puritans into distinct recognition, and place them in contrast with their socialistic practices. the puritan churches were thoroughly individualistic in their admission of members, none being accepted into full membership but those who had been converted by means of a personal experience. in theory every male church member was a priest and king, authorized to interpret spiritual truth and to exercise political authority. therefore, in the general court of massachusetts (being the legislative body) established the rule that only church members should exercise the right of suffrage. this law was continued on the statute books until , and was accepted in practice until . because the individual christian was accounted a priest, however humble in learning or social position, he had the right to join with others in ordaining and setting apart to the ministry of god the man who was to lead the church as its teacher or pastor, though this practice was abandoned as the state-church idea developed, as it did in new england by a process of reaction. every man could read the bible for himself, and give it such meaning as his own conscience and reason dictated. by virtue of his christian experience he had the personal right to find in it his own creed and the law of his own conduct. it was not only his right to do this, but it was also his duty. revivalism was therefore the distinct outgrowth of puritanism, the expression of its individualistic spirit. it was the human means of bringing the individual soul within reach of the supernatural power of god, and of facilitating that choice of the holy spirit by which one was selected for this change rather than another. the means were social, it is true; but the end reached was absolutely individual, as an experience and as a result attained. what confirmation was to the catholic, that was conversion to the puritan. the puritans in new england, however, inherited the older socialism to so large an extent that they proceeded to establish what was a state church in method, if not in theory. though they began with the idea that the churches were to be supported by voluntary contributions (and always continued that method in boston), yet in a few years they resorted to taxation for their maintenance, and enacted stringent laws compelling attendance upon them by every resident of a town, whatever his beliefs or his personal interests. they forbade the utterance of opinions not approved by the authorities, and made use of fines, imprisonment, and death in support of arbitrary laws enacted for this purpose. these methods were the same as those used by the older socialistic and state churches to compel acceptance of their teachings and practices. they were based on the idea of the corporate nature of the church, and its right to control the individual in the name of the social whole. the harshness of the puritan methods was the result of this attempt to maintain a new idea in harmony with an old practice. the baptists were consistently individualists in rejecting infant baptism, accepting conversion as essential to church membership, maintaining freedom of conscience, and practising toleration as a fundamental social law. the puritans inconsistently combined conversion and infant baptism,--the protestant right of private judgment with the catholic methods of the state church,--a democratic theory of popular suffrage with a most aristocratic limitation of that suffrage to church members. as late as only , men in all had been admitted to the exercise of the franchise in massachusetts. one-sixth or one-eighth of the men were voters, the rest were disfranchised. the church and the state were controlled by this small minority in a community that was theoretically democratic, both in religion and politics. it is not surprising that there began to be mutterings against such restrictions. it shows the strength of character in the puritan communities of massachusetts and new haven that a large majority of the men submitted as long as they did to conditions thoroughly undemocratic. as a political measure, when the grumblings became so loud as to be no longer ignored, what is called the half-way covenant was adopted, by means of which a semi-membership in the churches could be secured, that gave the right of suffrage, but permitted no action within the church itself.[ ] many writers on this period fail to understand the significance of the half-way covenant; for they attribute to that legislation the disintegrating results that followed. they forget that these half-members were not admitted to any part in church affairs; and they refuse to see that the methods employed by the puritans were, because of their exclusiveness, of necessity demoralizing. in fact, the half-way covenant was a result of the disintegration that had already taken place as the issue of an attempted compromise between the institutional and the individualistic theories of church government. [sidenote: seventeenth-century liberals.] by arbitrary methods the puritans succeeded in controlling church and state until , when the interference of the english authorities compelled them to practise toleration and to widen the suffrage. the words of sir richard saltonstall to john cotton and john wilson show clearly that these methods were not accepted by all, and even saltonstall returned to england to escape the restrictions he condemned. "it doth not a little grieve my spirit to hear what sad things are daily reported of your tyranny and persecutions in new england," he wrote, "as that you fine, whip, and imprison men for their consciences. first you compel such to come into your assemblies as you know will not join with you in your worship, and when they show their dislike thereof or witness against it, then you stir up your magistrates to punish them for such (as you conceive) their public affronts. truly, friends, this your practice of compelling any in matters of worship to do that whereof they are not persuaded is to make them sin, and many are made hypocrites thereby, conforming in their outward man for fear of punishment. we pray for you and wish you prosperity in every way, hoped that the lord would have given you so much light and love there, that you might have been eyes to god's people here, and not to practise those courses in wilderness which you went so far to prevent. these rigid ways have laid you very low in the hearts of the saints."[ ] another man who withdrew to england from the narrow spirit of the puritans was william pynchon, of springfield, one of the best trained and ablest of the early settlers of massachusetts. in he published a book on the meritorious price of our redemption, in which he denied that christ was subject to the wrath of god or suffered torments in hell for the redemption of men or paid the penalty for all human sins; but such teachings were too liberal and modern for the leaders in church and state.[ ] what is now orthodox, that christ's sacrifice was voluntary, was then heretical and forbidden. if during the first half-century of new england no liberalism found definite utterance, it was because of its repression. it was in the air, even then, and it would have found expression, had there been opportunity or invitation. there were other men than williams, saltonstall, pynchon, and henry vane, who believed in toleration, liberty of conscience, and a rational interpretation of religion. in a limited way such men were henry dunster and charles chauncy, the first two presidents of harvard college, who both rejected infant baptism because it was not consistent with a converted church membership. it was a small thing to protest against, and to suffer for as dunster suffered; but the principle was great for which he contended, the principle of individual conviction in religion. the better spirit of the puritans appears in such a saying as that of sir henry vane, the second governor of the massachusetts bay colony, that "all magistrates are to fear or forbear intermeddling with giving rule or imposing their own beliefs in religious matters."[ ] to a similar purport was the saying of thomas hooker, the founder of connecticut, that "the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people."[ ] in the writings of john robinson, the pilgrim leader, a like greatness of purpose and thought appears, as where he says that "the meanest man's reason, specially in matter of faith and obedience to god, is to be preferred before all authority of all men."[ ] robinson was a very strict calvinist in doctrine; but he was tolerant in large degree, and thoroughly convinced of the worth of liberty of conscience. his liberality comes out in such words as these: "the custom of the church is but the custom of men; the sentence of the fathers but the opinions of men; the determinations of councils but the judgments of men."[ ] how strong a believer in individual reason he was appears in this statement: "god, who hath made two great lights for the bodily eye, hath also made two lights for the eye of the mind; the one the scriptures for her supernatural light, and the other reason for her natural light. and, indeed, only these two are a man's own, and so is not the authority of other men. the scriptures are as well mine as any other man's, and so is reason as far as i can attain to it."[ ] when he says that "the credit commending a testimony to others cannot be greater than is the authority in itself of him that gives it nor his authority greater than his person,"[ ] he puts an end to all arbitrary authority of priest and church. it will be seen from these quotations that the spirit of liberality existed even in the very beginnings of new england, and in the convictions of the men who were its chief prophets and leaders. it was hidden away for a time, it may be, though it never ceased to find utterance in some form. the breadth of the underlying spirit finds expression in the compacts by which local churches united their members. the liberality was incipient, a promise of the future rather than a realization in the present. the earliest churches of new england were not organized with a creed, but with a covenant. occasionally there was a confession of faith or a creedal statement; but it was regarded as quite unnecessary because it was implied in the general acceptance of the calvinistic doctrines, and the use of the cambridge platform or other similar document. the covenant of a church could not be a statement of beliefs, because it was a vow between christ and his church, and a pledge of the individual members of the church with relation to each other. the creed was implied, but it was not expressed; and, although all the churches were calvinist at first, the nature of the covenant was such that, when men grew liberal, there was no written creedal test by which they could be held to the old beliefs. when calvinism was outgrown, it could be slowly and silently discarded, both by individual members of a church and by the church itself, because it was not explicitly contained in the covenant. the creed was rejected, but the covenant was retained. as soon as authority was withdrawn from the puritan leaders by the english crown, the spirit of liberty began to show itself in many directions. in a sermon preached in , samuel willard, the minister of the old south church in boston, and afterwards president of harvard college, gave utterance to what was stirring in many minds at that time. he said that god "hath nowhere by any general indulgence given away this liberty of his to any other authority in the world to have dominion over the consciences of men or to give rules of worship, but hath, on the other hand, strongly prohibited it and severely threatened any that shall presume to do it." he earnestly asserted that no authority is to be accepted but that of the bible, and that is to be free for each person's individual interpretation. "hath there not," willard questions, "been too much of a pinning our faith on the credit or practice of others, attended on with a woful neglect to know what is the mind of christ?" here was a spirit that not many years later was showing itself in the liberal movement that grew into unitarianism. the effort to free the consciences of men, and to bring all appeals to the bible and to christ, was what gave significance to the liberal movement of the next century. [sidenote: growth of liberty in church methods.] there also began a movement to bring church and state into harmonious relations with each other, and to overcome the inconsistency of being individualist and socialist at the same moment. the theory of conversion being retained, it was proposed to make the ordinances of religion free to all, in order that they might bring about the supernatural change that was desired. this is the real significance of the position taken by solomon stoddard, of northampton, who taught that the lord's supper is a converting ordinance, and who in practice did not ask for a supernatural regeneration as preparatory to a limited church membership, though he regarded this as essential to full admission. the half-way covenant had been adopted before mr. stoddard became the pastor of the church; but soon after his settlement this limited form of admission was more clearly defined, and he admitted persons into what he described as a "state of education."[ ] this "large congregationalism," as it was called, was in time accepted as meaning that those who have faith enough to justify the baptism of their children have enough to admit them to full communion in the church. mr. stoddard appealed to the english practice in his defence of the broader principle which he adopted. he also vindicated his position by reference to the practices of the leading protestant countries in europe. his methods, as outlined and interpreted in his appeal to the learned,[ ] were based more or less explicitly on the corporate idea of the church. although stoddard was a strict calvinist, there can be no doubt that his method of open communion slowly led to theological modifications. not only did it have a tendency to bring the state and church into closer relations with each other, by making the membership in the two more nearly the same, but it led the way to the acceptance of the doctrine of moral ability, and therefore to a modification of calvinism. if it was a practical rather than a theological reason that caused stoddard to adopt open communion, it almost inevitably led to arminianism, because it implied, as he presented its conditions, that man is able of his own free will to accept the terms of salvation which calvinism had confined to the operation of the sovereignty of god alone. another way in which the spirit of the time was showing itself may be seen in the fact that the parish, towards the end of the seventeenth century, on more than one occasion refused to the church the selection of the minister; and church and parish met together for that purpose. this was the case in the first church of salem in , and at dedham in . so long as church members only were given the right of suffrage, the selection of the minister was wholly in their hands. as soon as the suffrage was extended, there was a movement to include all tax-payers amongst those who could exercise this choice. in such a proposition was discussed in connecticut, and not long after it became the law. in the massachusetts laws gave the church the right to select the minister, but permitted the parish to concur in or to reject such choice. during the next century there was a growing tendency to enlarge the privileges of the parish, and to make that the controlling factor in calling the minister and in all that pertained to the outward life of the church and congregation. the result will be seen more and more in the influence of the parish in the selection of liberal men for the pulpit. a notable instance of the more liberal tendencies is seen in the formation of the brattle street church of boston in . although this church accepted the westminster confession of faith and adopted the practices common to the new england churches at this period, it insisted upon the reading of the bible without comment as a part of the church service. the relation of religious experiences as preparatory to admission to the church was discarded, all were admitted to communion who were approved by the pastor, and women were permitted to take part in voting on all church questions. these and other innovations occasioned much discussion; and a controversy ensued between the pastor benjamin colman and increase mather.[ ] the salem pastors, rev. john higginson and rev. nicholas noyes, addressed a letter to the brattle street congregation, in which they criticised the church because it did not consult with other churches in its formation, because it did not make a public profession of repentance on behalf of its members, because baptism was administered on less stringent terms than was customary and too lax admission was given to the sacraments, and because the admission of females to full church activity had a direct tendency "to subvert the order and liberty of the churches." though the brattle street church was for a time severely criticised, it soon came into intimate relations with the other churches of boston, and it ceased to appear as in any way peculiar. that it was organized on a broader basis of membership indicates very clearly that the old methods were not satisfactory to all the people.[ ] [sidenote: a puritan rationalist.] the influence of similar ideas is seen in the books of john wise, of ipswich, whose churches' quarrel espoused was published in , and his vindication of the government of the new england churches in . his first book was in answer to the proposition of a number of the ministers of boston to bring the churches under the control of associations. by this remonstrance the plan was defeated, and the independence of the local church fully established. in republishing his book, he added the vindication, in order to give his ideas a more systematic expression. the vindication is the most thoroughly modern book published in america during the eighteenth century. it has a literary directness and power remarkable for the time. wise gives no quotations indicating that he had read the great liberal writers of england, but he was familiar with plato and cicero. in his first book he speaks of "the natural freedom of human beings,"[ ] and says that "right reason is a ray of divine wisdom enstamped upon human nature."[ ] again, he says that "right reason, that great oracle in human affairs, is the soul of man so formed and endowed by creation with a certain sagacity or acumen whereby man's intellect is enabled to take up the true idea or perception of things agreeable with and according to their natures."[ ] in such utterances as these wise was putting himself into the company of the most liberal minds of england in his day, though he may not have read one of them. the considerations that were influencing milton, chillingworth, and jeremy taylor, in favor of toleration and a broad inclusiveness of spirit, evidently were having their effect upon this new england pastor. it is not to be assumed that john wise was a rationalist in the modern sense; but he gave to the use of reason a significance that is surprising and refreshing, coming from the time and circumstances of his writing. in his vindication we find him accepting reason and revelation as of equal validity. he appeals to the "dictates of right reason"[ ] and the "common reason of mankind"[ ] with quite as much confidence as to the bible. he says that all questions of government, religious as well as political, are to be brought to "the assizes of man's own intellectual powers, reason, and conscience."[ ] he assumes that god has created man capable of obeying his will and living in conformity with his law; for he says that, "if god did not highly estimate man as a creature exalted by his reason, liberty, and nobleness of nature, he would not caress him as he does in order to his submission."[ ] wise says that the characteristic of man which is of greatest importance is that he is "most properly the subject of the law of nature."[ ] he uses this expression frequently and in a thoroughly modern sense. the second great characteristic of man, according to wise, "is an original liberty enstamped upon his rational nature."[ ] he indicates that he is not inclined to discuss the merely theological problem of man's relations to god, but, considered physically, man is at the head of creation, "and as such is a creature of a very noble character." [ ] all the lower world is subject to his command, "and his liberty under the conduct of right reason is equal with his trust." [ ] "he that intrudes upon this liberty violates the law of nature." [ ] the effect of such liberty is not to lead man into license, but to make him the rational master of his own conduct. every man is therefore at liberty "to judge for himself what shall be most for his behoof, happiness, and well-being."[ ] the third great characteristic of man is found in "an equality amongst men," [ ] which is to be respected and vindicated by governments that are just and humane. "by a natural right," he says, "all men are born free; and, nature having set all men upon a level and made them equals, no servitude or subjection can be conceived without inequality."[ ] again he says that it is "a fundamental principle relating to government that, under god, all power is originally in the people."[ ] this is true of the church as well as of the state, and wise says the reformation was a cheat and a schism and a notorious rebellion if the people are not the source of power in the church. two other ideas presented by this leader show his modernness and his originality. he says that "the happiness of the people is the object of all government,"[ ] and that the state should seek to promote "the peculiar good and benefit of the whole, and every particular member, fairly and sincerely."[ ] "the end of all good government," he assures his readers, "is to cultivate humanity, and promote the happiness of all, and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, and honor, without injury or abuse done to any." [ ] that government will seek the good of all is likely to be the case, because man has it as a fundamental law of his nature that he "maintain a sociableness with others."[ ] "from the principles of sociableness it follows as a fundamental law of nature that man is not so wedded to his own interest but that he can make the common good the mark of his aim, and hence he becomes capacitated to enter into a civil state by the law of nature."[ ] this attraction of man to his kind enables him to yield so much of his freedom as is necessary to make the state an efficient social power, "in which covenant is included that submission and union of wills by which a state may be conceived to be but one person."[ ] this thoroughly modern idea of the social body, as being analogous in its nature to the individual man, is nobly expressed by wise, who says that "a civil state is a compound moral person, whose will is the will of all, to the end it may use and apply the strength and riches of private persons toward maintaining the common peace, security, and well-being of all, which may be conceived as though the whole state was now become but one man."[ ] it is not surprising that the writings of john wise had no immediate effect upon the theological thinking of the time, but they must have had their influence. just before the opening of the revolution they were republished because of their vindication of the spirit of human liberty and democracy. what wise wrote to promote was congregational independence, and this may have been the reason why his theological attitude was never called in question. it is true enough that he questioned none of the calvinistic doctrines in his books; but his political views were certain to disturb the old beliefs, and to give incentives to free discussion in religion. [sidenote: harvard college.] the centre of the liberalizing tendencies of the last years of the seventeenth century was harvard college. that institution was organized on a basis as broad as that of the early church covenants, with no creed or doctrinal requirements. the original seal bore the motto veritas; but, as the state-church idea grew, this motto was succeeded by in christi gloriam, and then by christo et ecclesiae, though neither of these later mottoes was authoritatively adopted. the early charters were thoroughly liberal in spirit and intent, so much so as to be fully in harmony with the present attitude of the university.[ ] under the puritanic development, however, this liberality was discarded, only to be restored in , when william and mary gave to massachusetts a new and broader charter. from that time a new life entered into the college, that put it uncompromisingly on the liberal side a century later. even under the rule of increase mather, seconded by the influence of his son cotton, a broader spirit declared itself in the culture imparted and in the method of free inquiry.[ ] samuel willard, the successor to increase mather in the presidency, was of the liberal party in his breadth of mind and in his sound judgment. he was followed in by john leverett, one of the founders of the brattle street church, a man in whom the liberal spirit became a controlling motive in his management of the college.[ ] it is not strange that the men who had been shut out from the suffrage and from active participation in the management of the churches, should now come forward to claim their rights, and to make their influence felt in college, church, and state. it was the distinct beginning of the liberal movement in new england, the time from which unitarianism really took its origin. [ ] kuno francke, social forces in german literature, . "no mediaeval man ever thought of himself as a perfectly independent being founded only on himself, or without a most direct and definite relation to some larger organism, be it empire, church, city, or guild. no mediaeval man ever doubted that the institutions within which he lived were divinely established ordinances, far superior and quite inaccessible to his own individual reason and judgment. no mediaeval man would ever have admitted that he conceived nature to be other than the creation of an extramundane god, destined to glorify its creator and to please the eye of man. it was reserved for the eighteenth century to draw the last consequences of individualism; to see in man, in each individual man, an independent and complete entity; to derive the origin of state, church, and society from the spontaneous action of these independent individuals; and to consider nature as a system of forces sufficient unto themselves. when we speak of individualism in the declining centuries of the middle ages, we mean by it that these centuries initiated the movement which the eighteenth century brought to a climax." [ ] williston walker, the creeds and platforms of congregationalism, . "from the first the fathers of new england insisted that the children of church members were themselves members, and as such were justly entitled to those church privileges which were adapted to their state of christian development, of which the chief were baptism and the watchful discipline of the church. they did not enter the church by baptism; they were entitled to baptism because they were already members of the church. here then was an inconsistency in the application of the congregational theory of the constitution of a church. while affirming that a proper church consisted only of those possessed of personal christian character, the fathers admitted to membership, in some degree at least, those who had no claim but christian parentage." that is, in theory they were protestants, but in practice they were catholics. [ ] the ecclesiastical historians say that the half-way covenant had no effect on suffrage. dexter, congregationalism as seen in its literature, , says: "i am aware of no proof that half-way covenant members of the church by that relation did acquire any further privileges in the state." williston walker, new englander, cclxiii., , february, , takes ground that "added political privilege was no consequence of the dispute." on the other hand, the secular historians as strongly assert that the suffrage was widened. john fiske, beginnings of new england, , says the half-way covenant "entitled to the exercise of political rights those who were unqualified for participation in the lord's supper." alexander johnston, connecticut, , says "it really gave every baptized person voice in church government." j.a. doyle, the puritan colonies, ii., , asserts that "it broke down the hard barrier which fenced in political privileges." the true explanation is given by george h. haynes, representation and suffrage in massachusetts, - , , published in johns hopkins university studies in historical and political science, vol. xii., nos. viii. and ix. haynes says that the half-way covenant, as first formulated in , "virtually recognized a partial church-membership in persons who had made no formal profession and subscribed to no creed. in the same opinion was reaffirmed by the clergy, and the general court ordered the result of the synod to be printed and 'commended the same unto the consideration of all the churches and people of this jurisdiction.' here ended legislative action on the matter. this was no statutory change of the basis of the franchise; but, as individual churches gradually adopted more liberal conditions of admission and were therein sanctioned by the general court, it resulted that the operation of the religious test became less odious and the suffrage was not a little broadened." [ ] henry bond, early settlers of watertown, ii. ; convers francis, historical sketch of watertown, . [ ] mason a. green, history of springfield, ; e.h. byington, the puritan in england and new england, . [ ] a healing question. [ ] alexander johnston, connecticut: a study of a commonwealth-democracy, , hooker's sermon preparatory to forming a government. [ ] the works of john robinson, american edition of , i., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] j.r. trumbull, history of northampton, i. . [ ] an appeal to the learned, being a vindication of the right of visible saints to the lord's supper, though they be destitute of a saving work of god's spirit in their hearts, boston, . see also his doctrine of instituted churches, boston, . [ ] dwight, life of edwards, . [ ] s.k. lothrop, history of brattle street church, - ; e. turrell, life of benjamin colman, d.d., , , , . [ ] the churches' quarrel espoused, edition of , . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., [ ] the churches' quarrel espoused, edition of , . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] the churches' quarrel espoused, edition of , . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] the churches' quarrel espoused, edition of , . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] josiah quincy, history of harvard university, i. - . [ ] ibid., , . [ ] josiah quincy, in the seventh chapter of his history, gives a detailed account of this movement. it is also dealt with by brooks adams in his chapter on the founding of the brattle street church, in his emancipation of massachusetts, though he gives it a somewhat exaggerated and biassed importance. most of the facts appear in lothrop's history of the brattle street church. iii. the growth of democracy in the churches. from the moment when the puritan control of the church and state in new england was so far weakened as to permit of free intellectual and religious activity the democratic spirit began to manifest itself. the old régime had so fixed itself upon the people that the progress was slow, but none the less it was steady and sure. so far as the new spirit influenced doctrines, it was called arminianism, the technical theological name for democracy in religion at this time. [sidenote: arminianism.] arminianism is a dead issue at the present day, for the calvinists have accepted all that it taught when the name first came into vogue. every kind of reaction from calvinism in the new england of the first half of the eighteenth century took this designation, however; and to the calvinists it was a word of disapproval and contempt. toleration, free inquiry, the use of reason, democratic methods in church and state, were all named by this condemning word. vices, social depravities, love of freedom and the world, assertion of personal independence, had the same designation. it is now difficult to understand how bitter was the feeling thus produced, how keen the hurt that was given the men who tried to defend themselves and their beliefs from this odium. what the word "arminian" legitimately meant, then, is what we now mean by liberalism. primarily theological and doctrinal, it meant much more than the rejection of the doctrine of decrees and the autocratic sovereignty of god or the acceptance of the freedom of the will and the spiritual capacity of man. first of all, it was faith in man; and then it was the assertion of human liberty and equality. in a theological sense it did not have so wide a purport, but in a practical and popular sense it grew into these meanings. in order fully to comprehend what arminianism was in the eighteenth century, the student must remember that it was the theological expression of the democratic spirit, as calvinism was of the autocratic. the doctrine of the sovereignty of god is but the intellectual reflection of kingship and the belief that the king can do no evil. the doctrine of decrees, as taught by the calvinist, was the spiritual side of the assertion of the divine right of kings. on the other hand, when the people claim the right to rule, they modify their theology into arminianism. from an age of the absolute rule of the king comes the doctrine of human depravity; and with the establishment of democracy appears the doctrine of man's moral capacity. [sidenote: the growth of arminianism.] as early as arminianism had come to have an influence sufficient to secure its condemnation and to awaken the fears of the stricter calvinists. jonathan edwards said of the year that "about this time began the great noise that was in this part of the country about arminianism."[ ] at northampton the leader of the opposition to jonathan edwards was an open arminian, a grandson of solomon stoddard, and a cousin of edwards. he was a young man of talent and education, and well read in theology. in a letter written in , edwards said, "there seems to be the utmost danger that the younger generation will be carried away with arminianism as with a flood." in another letter of the same year he said that "arminianism and pelagianism[ ] have made a strange progress within a few years."[ ] in his farewell sermon, edwards spoke of the prevalence of arminianism when he settled in northampton, and of its rapid increase in the succeeding years. he said that arminian views were creeping into almost all parts of the land, and that they were making a progress unknown before.[ ] in a letter of edwards said that the principles of john taylor, of norwich, one of the early english unitarians, were gaining many converts in the colonies. taylor's works were made use of by solomon williams in his reply to edwards on the qualifications necessary to communion.[ ] it was owing to the rapid growth of arminianism that edwards undertook his work on free will. in the preface to that work he said that "the term calvinistic is, in these days, among most, a term of greater reproach than the term arminian." that edwards exaggerated the extent of this defection from calvinism is probable, and yet it is very plain that it was this more liberal attitude of the northampton church which caused his dismissal. what stoddard had taught and practised was as yet powerful there, and edwards's opposition to his grandfather's teachings undoubtedly led to the failure of his local work. [sidenote: robert breck.] the council which dismissed edwards from northampton decided against him by a majority of one; and that one vote may have been cast by robert breck, of springfield. if this were the case, there was something of poetic justice in it; for only a few years earlier edwards had used his influence against the settlement of breck because the latter was an arminian. in a fierce church quarrel took place in springfield, that involved many of the ministers of massachusetts and connecticut, invoked the aid of the county court, and was finally settled by the legislature of massachusetts, when mr. breck was ordained.[ ] he was charged with denying the authenticity of parts of the bible, with discarding the necessity of christ's satisfaction to divine justice for sin, with maintaining that the heathen who live up to the light of nature would be saved, and that the contrary doctrine was harsh. breck refused to admit that he held these opinions, as thus stated; but he was regarded by many as an arminian and a heretic. it was said of him that he would read any book, orthodox or otherwise, that would clear up a subject. that he departed to any considerable extent from the generally accepted faith of the time there is no evidence, but he was probably what was often called "a moderate calvinist." he did not favor the methods of whitefield, and he thoroughly distrusted the revival introduced by him. soon after breck's settlement the springfield church followed the brattle street church of boston in discarding the relation of religious experiences as preliminary to admission to the church. it voted that it "did not look upon the making a relation to be a necessary term of communion."[ ] at the very time that edwards was preaching of the awful fate of sinners in the hands of an angry god, breck was teaching that god is good and loving, and that his salvation is freely open to all who may wish for it. it has been truly said of these two men that "one had the heart and the other the intellect of theology." with all his logic and power of thought and marvellous spiritual insight, edwards failed at northampton because of conditions beyond the control of his strenuous will. robert breck gained year by year in his personal influence in springfield, his cheerful and progressive teaching made a deep impression on the community, and before he died he saw a great change for the better in the people for whom he diligently labored. perhaps we could not have a plainer indication of the change that was going on than is found in the experiences of these two men.[ ] when whitefield visited harvard college in , he was received in a most friendly manner; yet he afterwards criticised the teaching there on the ground that it was not sufficiently devout and earnest, and that the pupils were not examined as to their religious experiences.[ ] these charges were denied by the president and tutors, and he was not again welcomed to the college. that there was a substantial basis for some of whitefield's criticisms of harvard there can be no doubt. in , when edward holyoke was proposed as a candidate for the presidency, he met with a strong opposition from the strict calvinists. after the opposition had spent itself, he was elected unanimously; and this act was received with marked approval by the general court, from which body his maintenance was obtained. president quincy says of president holyoke that his religious principles coincided with the mildness and catholicity which characterized the government of the college. this evidently refers to the growing liberality of the college, and its unwillingness to lend its aid to extreme theological opinions. that moderateness of temper and that attitude of toleration which characterized the leading men in england had shown themselves at cambridge, and with a strength that could not be overcome. "in boston and its vicinity and along the seaboard of massachusetts, clergymen of great talent and religious zeal," says president quincy, "openly avowed doctrines which were variously denounced by the calvinistic party as arminianism, arianism, pelagianism, socinianism, and deism. the most eminent of these clergymen were alumni of harvard, active friends and advocates of the institution, and in habits of intimacy and professional intercourse with its government. their religious views, indeed, received no public countenance from the college; but circumstances gave color for reports, which were assiduously circulated throughout new england, that the influences of the institution were not unfavorable to the extension of such doctrines."[ ] at the commencement of candidates for degrees proposed to prove that the doctrine of the trinity was not contained in the old testament, that creation did not exist from eternity, and that religion is not mysterious in its nature. much alarm was caused to the conservative party by the negative form given these questions, which, it was said, "had the plain face of arianism." this criticism the faculty tried to quiet, but their sympathies were evidently on the side of the graduates.[ ] in , when a professor of mathematics was chosen, it was proposed to examine him as to "his principles of religion"; but, after a long debate, this proposition was rejected. after these and other efforts to control the religious position of the college the strict calvinists for the time withdrew their efforts and concentrated them upon yale college, in which institution the faculty were now required for the first time to accept the assembly's catechism and confession of faith. when the legislature of connecticut, during the great awakening, passed a law prohibiting ministers from preaching as itinerants, several of the members of the senior class subscribed the money necessary for the publication of an edition of locke's essay on toleration. when this was known to the faculty, they forbade the publication; and all the students apologized but one, who learned a few days before commencement that his name was to be dropped from the roll of graduates. he went to the faculty with the statement that he was of age, that he possessed ample means, and that he would carry his case to a hearing before the crown in england. in a few days he was quietly informed that he would be permitted to graduate. this is but a straw, and yet it shows clearly enough the direction of the current at this time. a demand for toleration was made because it was felt that there was a need for it. [sidenote: books read by liberal men.] the names of no less than thirty-three ministers have been given who, during the period from to , did not teach the calvinistic doctrines in their fulness, and who had adopted more or less distinctly some form of arminianism or arianism. these men were among the best known, most successful, and most scholarly men in eastern massachusetts, though they were not wholly confined to that neighborhood. we find here and there some hint of the books these men read; and in that way we not only ascertain the cause of their departure from calvinism, but we also obtain some clew to the nature of their opinions. among the charges brought by whitefield against harvard in was that "tillotson and clarke are read instead of shepard and stoddard, and such like evangelical writers."[ ] dr. wigglesworth, the divinity professor at harvard, said that tillotson had not been taken out of the college library in nine years, and clarke not in two; and he gave a long list of evangelical writers who were frequently read. in spite of this disclaimer, however, it is evident that the methods of the rationalistic writers were coming into vogue at harvard, and that even dr. wigglesworth did not teach theology in the manner of the author of the day of doom. writing in , dr. joseph bellamy, one of the chief followers and expositors of the teachings of jonathan edwards, said that the teachings of the liberal men in england had crossed the atlantic; "and too many in our churches, and even among our ministers, have fallen in with them. books containing them have been imported; and the demand for them has been so great as to encourage new impressions of some of them. others have been written on the same principles in this country, and even the doctrine of the trinity has been publicly treated in such a manner as all who believe that doctrine must judge not only heretical, but highly blasphemous."[ ] it is said of charles chauncy, of the first church in boston, that his favorite authors were tillotson and baxter.[ ] far more suggestive is the account we have of the books read by jonathan mayhew of the west church in boston, the first open antagonist of calvinism in new england. soon after he was reading the works of the great protestant theologians of the seventeenth century, including milton, chillingworth, and tillotson; and the eighteenth-century works of locke, samuel clarke, taylor, wollaston, and whiston. he also probably read cudworth, butler, hutcheson, leland, and other authors of a like character, some of them deists. not one of these writers was a calvinist for they found the basis of religion either in idealism or in rationalism. the biographer of mayhew says it "is evident from some of his discourses that he was a great admirer of samuel clarke, whose voluminous works were in his day much read by the liberal clergy." clarke's boyle lectures, delivered in - , showed that natural and revealed religion were essentially one, that moral action in man is free, and that christianity is the religion of reason and nature. at a later period he defended the two propositions, that "no article of christian faith delivered in the holy scriptures is disagreeable to right reason," and that "without liberty of human actions there can be no real religion or morality." even if one such man as jonathan mayhew read clarke's work in the harvard library, it justified the alarm felt by whitefield lest the students should be led away from their calvinist faith.[ ] [sidenote: the great awakening.] it was "the great awakening" that showed how marked had been the growth of liberal opinions throughout new england in the forty years preceding. silently, a great change had gone on, with little open expression of dissent from calvinism, and without a knowledge on the part of most of the liberal men that they had in any way departed from the faith of the fathers. it was only with the coming of whitefield and the revival that this change came to have recognition, and that even the slightest separation into parties took place. the revival was an attempt to reintroduce the stricter calvinism of the earlier time, with its doctrines of justification by faith alone, supernatural regeneration, and predestination made known to the believer by the holy ghost. the liberal party objected to the revival because it was opposed to the good old customs of the congregational churches of new england. the itinerant methods of the revivalists, the shriekings, faintings, and appeals to fear and terror, were condemned as not in harmony with the established methods of the churches. in his book against the revivalists, dr. chauncy said that "now is the time when we are particularly called to stand for the good old way, and bear testimony against everything that may tend to cast a blemish on true primitive christianity."[ ] when the great awakening came to an end, the liberal party was far stronger than before, partly because the members of it had come to know each other and to feel their own power, partly because men had been led to declare themselves who had never before perceived their own position, and partly because the agitation had set men to thinking, and to making such scrutiny of their beliefs as they had never made before. the testimonies of harvard college and various associations of ministers against the methods of the revivalists were signed by sixty-three men, while those in favor of the revival were signed by one hundred and ten. these numbers represent the comparative strength of the two parties. it must be said, however, that the leading men in nearly every part of new england were among those opposing the revival methods, while in eastern massachusetts at least two-thirds of the ministers were of the liberal party.[ ] the strong feeling caused by the revival soon subsided, and no division between the calvinist and the arminian parties took place. the progressive tendencies went quietly on, step by step the old beliefs were discarded; but it was by individuals, and not in any form as a sectarian movement. the relations of the church to the state at this time would have made such a result impossible. [sidenote: cardinal beliefs of the liberals.] looking over the whole field of the theological advance from to , we find that three conclusions had been arrived at by the men of the liberal movement. the first of these was that what they stood for as a body was a recovery and restoration of primitive christianity in its simplicity and power. it was said of dr. mayhew by his biographer that he "was a great advocate of primitive christianity, and zealously contended for the faith once delivered to the saints." the second opinion, to which they gave frequent utterance, was that the bible is a divine revelation, the true source of all religious teaching, and the one sufficient creed for all men. in his sermon against the enthusiasm of the revivalists, chauncy said that a true test of all religious excitement, and of every kind of new teachings, was to be found in their "regard to the bible, and its acknowledgment that the things therein contained are the commandments of god." "keep close to the scripture," was his admonition to his congregation, "and admit of nothing for an impression of the spirit but what agrees with that unerring rule. fix it in your minds as a truth you will invariably abide by, that the bible is the grand test by which everything in religion is to be tried." the third position of the men of the liberal movement was that christ is the only means of salvation, and they yielded to him unquestioning loyalty and faith. turning away from the creeds of men, as they did in so far as they could see their way, they concentrated their convictions upon christ, and found in him the spiritual and vital centre of all faith that lives with true power to help men. mayhew held that god could not have forgiven men their sins without the atonement of christ, for his life and his gospel are the means of the great reconciliation by which man and god are brought into harmony with each other. [sidenote: publications defining the liberal beliefs.] in three publications may be seen what the arminians had to teach that was opposed to calvinism. in appeared in boston a book of two hundred and eight pages by rev. experience mayhew, one of a devoted family of missionaries to the indians of martha's vineyard. he called his book "grace defended, in a modest plea for an important truth: namely, that the offer of salvation made to sinners comprises in it an offer of the grace given in regeneration." mr. mayhew claimed that he was a calvinist, yet he rejected the teaching that every act of the unregenerate person is equal in the sight of god to the worst sin, and claimed that even the sinner can live so well and so justly as to favor his being accepted of god. mayhew maintained that christ died for all men, not for the elect only.[ ] he claimed that "god cannot be truly said to offer salvation to sinners without offering to them whatsoever is necessary on his part, in order to their salvation."[ ] mayhew was usually credited with being an arminian; for he positively rejected the doctrine of election, and he defended the principle of human freedom in the most affirmative manner. in lemuel briant (or bryant), the minister in that part of braintree which became the town of quincy, published a sermon which he entitled the absurdity and blasphemy of depreciating moral virtue. it condemned reliance on christ's merits without effort to live his life, and showed that it is the duty of the christian to live righteously. briant said that to hold any other view was hurtful and blasphemous. he claimed that "the great rule the scriptures lay down for men to go by in passing judgment on their spiritual state is the sincere, upright, steady, and universal practice of virtue." "to preach up chiefly what christ himself laid the stress upon (and whether this was not moral virtue let every one judge from his discourses) must certainly, in the opinion of all sober men, be called truly and properly, and in the best sense, preaching of christ." a pamphlet of thirty pages appeared in , written by samuel webster, the minister of salisbury, with the title "a winter evening's conversation upon the doctrine of original sin, wherein the notion of our having sinned in adam, and being on that account only liable to eternal damnation, is proved to be unscriptural." it is in the form of a dialogue between a minister and three of his parishioners, and gives, as few other writings of the eighteenth century do, a clear and explicit statement of the author's opinions in a readable and interesting form. that all have sinned in adam the minister pronounces "a very shocking doctrine." "what! make them first to open their eyes in torment, and all this for a sin which certainly they had no hand in,--a sin which, if it comes upon them at all, certainly is without any fault or blame on their parts, for they had no hand in receiving it!" that adam is our federal head, and that we sinned because he sinned, he calls "a mere castle in the air." "sin and guilt are personal things as much as knowledge. i can as easily conceive of one man's knowledge being imputed to another as of his sins being so. no imputation in either case can make the thing to be mine which is not mine any more than one person may be another person." he declares that this doctrine of imputation causes infidelity. "it naturally leads men into every dishonorable thought of god which gives a great and general blow to religion." it impeaches the holiness of god, "for it supposes him to make millions sinners by his decree of imputation, who would otherwise have been innocent." that it was his decree alone "that made all adam's posterity sinners is the very essence of this doctrine." "and so christians are guilty of holding what even heathen would blush at." that god "should pronounce a sentence by which myriads of infants, as blameless as helpless, were consigned over to blackness of darkness to be tormented with fire and brimstone forever, is not consistent with infinite goodness." "how dreadfully is god dishonored by such monstrous representations as these!" such a being cannot be loved by us, for every heart rebels against it. "all descriptions of the divine being which represent him in an unamiable light do the greatest hurt to religion that can be, as they strike at love, which is the fulfilling of the law. i am persuaded that many of those who think they believe this doctrine do not really believe it, or else they do not consider how it represents their heavenly father." the pamphlet concludes with the acceptance of this broader teaching by the parishioners, but it was the cause of controversy in pulpits and by means of pamphlets. bellamy denied the teachings of webster, and chauncy defended them. so bold a pamphlet as this showed how men had come to reason without compromise about the old doctrines, and gave evidence that the growing spirit of humanity would no longer accept what was harsh and cruel. [sidenote: phases of religious progress.] the new england churches were thus not standing still as regards doctrines, moral conduct, the methods of worship, or the relations they held to the state; but step by step they were moving away from the methods and the ideas of the fathers. the "lining out" of hymns was slowly abandoned, and singing by note took its place. the agitation that followed this attempt at reform was great and wide-spread. the introduction of an organized and trained choir was also in the nature of a genuine reform. when the liberal thomas brattle offered an organ to the new church in brattle street, it was voted "that they do not think it proper to use the same in the public worship of god." the instrument was, however, accepted by king's chapel; and an organist was secured from london. it was not until that the church in providence procured an organ, the first used in a congregational church in new england. when dr. jonathan mayhew died, in , dr. chauncy prayed at his funeral; and this was said to have been the first prayer ever made at a funeral in boston, so strong was the puritan dislike of the customs of the catholic church.[ ] in this way, as well as in others, the new liberalism broke down the old customs, and introduced those with which we are familiar. perhaps the most marked tendency of this kind was the introduction of the reading of the bible into the services of the churches as a part of the order of worship. this innovation was distinctly due to the liberal men and the high esteem in which they held the scriptures as a means of giving sobriety and reasonableness to their religion. the first church in boston, in may, , voted that the reading of the scriptures, instead of the old puritan way of expounding them, be thereafter discretionary with the ministers of that church, but "that the mind of the church is that larger portions should be publicly read than has been used."[ ] as we have seen, the brattle street church had already led in this reform, having adopted this practice in . this custom of reading the bible as a part of the service of worship came slowly into general acceptance, for there was a strong feeling against it. when a bible was presented to the parish in mendon, in , a serious commotion resulted because of the strong feeling against the church of england then prevalent; and the donor gave it to the minister until such time as the church might wish to use it. it was as late as that a copy of the bible was given to the first church in dedham, with the request that the reading of it should be made a part of the exercises of the lord's day; and the parish instructed the minister to read such portions of it as he thought "most desirable" and of "such length as the several seasons of the year and other circumstances" might render proper. in the west church of medway it was not until that this practice was established, and two of the salem churches began it the same year. the reading of the bible at ordination services did not become customary until an even later date.[ ] such are some of the practical innovations which accompanied the doctrinal development that was taking place. liberality in one direction brought toleration and progress in others. some of these changes were due to the fact that the prejudices against the catholic church and the church of england had, in a measure, disappeared, because there was nothing to keep them alive. others were due to the intellectual influences that came into the colonies from england. still others resulted from the shifting relations of church and state, and were the effect of attempts to adjust those relations more satisfactorily. [ ] narrative of surprising conversions, edition of , . [ ] denial of original sin, from pelagius, an ascetic preacher of the fifth century. [ ] dwight, life of edwards, , , , . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] green, history of springfield. [ ] ibid., . [ ] e.h. byington, the puritan in england and new england, devotes a chapter to the controversy over breck's settlement; but he does not treat of the theological problems involved. [ ] whitefield's seventh journal, . [ ] history of harvard university, . [ ] history of harvard university, , . [ ] whitefield's journal, seventh part, . [ ] historical magazine, new series, ix. , april, . [ ] w.b. sprague, annals of the unitarian pulpit, ii. [ ] levi l. paine, a critical history of the evolution of trinitarianism, . "samuel clarke and others took the ground that god is unipersonal, and hence that the son is a distinct personal being, distinguishing god the father as the absolute deity from the son whom they regarded as god in a relative or secondary sense, being derived from the father, and having his beginning from him." [ ] seasonable thoughts, . [ ] alden bradford, in his memoir of the life and writings of rev. jonathan mayhew, d.d., gives a list of "the clergymen who openly opposed or did not teach and advocate the calvinistic doctrines" at the time of mayhew's ordination, in . these were: dr. appleton, cambridge; dr. gay, hingham; dr. chauncy, boston; william rand, kingston; nathaniel eelles, scituate; edward barnard, haverhill; samuel cooke, west cambridge (now arlington); jeremiah fogg, kensington, n.h.; dr. a. eliot, boston; dr. samuel webster, salisbury; lemuel briant, braintree; dr. stevens, kittery, me.; dr. tucker, newbury; timothy harrington, lancaster; dr. gad hitchcock, pembroke; josiah smith, pembroke; william smith, weymouth; dr. daniel shute, hingham; dr. samuel cooper, boston; dr. mayhew, boston; abraham williams, sandwich; anthony wibird, braintree (now quincy); dr. cushing, waltham; professor wigglesworth, harvard college; dr. symmes, andover; dr. john willard, connecticut; amos adams, roxbury; dr. barnes, scituate; charles turner, duxbury; dr. dana wallingford, conn.; ebenezer thayer, hampton, n.h.; dr. fiske, brookfield; dr. samuel west, dartmouth (now new bedford); dr. hemenway, wells. among those who took part in the ordination of jonathan mayhew, and therefore presumably of the same theological opinions, were hancock, lexington; cotton, newton; cooke, sudbury; prescott, danvers (now salem). to these may be added, says bradford, though of a somewhat later date: dr. coffin, buxton; drs. howard, west, lathrop, and belknap, boston; dr. henry cummings, billerica; dr. deane, portland; thomas cary, newburyport; dr. fobes, raynham; timothy hilliard, cambridge; thomas haven, reading; dr. willard, beverly. dr. ezra ripley added the names of hedge, of warwick, and foster, of stafford. this makes fifty-two in all, but probably as many more could be added by careful search. [ ] grace defended, . [ ] ibid., . [ ] alice morse earle, customs and fashions in old new england, , . see h.m. dexter, congregationalism as seen in its literature, . [ ] a.b. ellis, history of the first church in boston, . [ ] new england magazine, february, . a.h. coolidge on scripture reading in the worship of the new england churches. iv. the silent advance of liberalism. the progressive tendencies went silently on; and step by step the old beliefs were discarded, but always by individuals and churches, and not by associations or general official action. even before the middle of the eighteenth century there was not only a questioning of the doctrine of divine decrees, the conception that god elects some to bliss and some to perdition in accordance with his own arbitrary will, but there was also developing a tendency to reject the tritheism[ ] which in new england took the place of a philosophical conception of the trinity, such as had been held by the great thinkers of the christian ages. in part this doubt about the trinity was the result of a more thoughtful study of the bible, where the doctrine taught by the leading theologians of the old school in new england does not appear; and in part it was the result of the reading of the works of the english divines of the more liberal school. something of this tendency was also due to the spirit of free inquiry, and the rational interpretation of religion, that were beginning to make themselves felt amongst those not wholly committed to the old ways of thinking. it was characteristic of those who questioned the doctrine of the trinity, as then taught, that they insisted on stating their beliefs in the language of the new testament, especially in that of jesus himself. they found him teaching his own dependence on his father, claiming for himself only an inferior and subordinate position. believing in his pre-existence, his supernatural character and mission, they held that he was the creator of the world or that creation took place by means of the spirit that was in him, and that every honor should be paid him except that of worshipping him as the supreme being. as in the ancient family the son was always subordinate to his father, so the son of god presented in the new testament is less exalted than his father. this conception of christ is technically called arianism, from the alexandrian presbyter of the fourth century who first brought it into prominence. [sidenote: subordinate nature of christ.] the arian heresy did not necessarily follow the arminian, but much the same causes led to its appearance. many of the leading men in england had become arians, including milton, locke, taylor, clarke, watts, and others; and the reading of their books in new england led to an inquiry into the truthfulness of the doctrine of the trinity. as early as the preachers of convention and election sermons were insisting upon a recognition of christ in the old way, showing that they were suspicious of heresy.[ ] most of the arians retained the other doctrines in which they had been educated, even putting a stronger emphasis upon them than before. rarely was the subordinate nature of christ made in any way prominent in preaching. it was held so strictly subsidiary to the cardinal doctrines of incarnation and atonement that only the most intelligent and watchful could detect any difference between those who were arians and those who were strict trinitarians. now and then a man of more pronounced convictions and utterance was shunned by his ministerial neighbors, but this rarely occurred and had little practical effect. so long as a preacher gave satisfaction to his own congregation, and had behind him the voters and the tax-list of his town, his heresies were passed by with only comment and gossip. we find here and there definite indications of the doctrinal changes that were taking place, as in the republication of emlyn's humble inquiry into the scripture account of jesus christ, which appeared in boston in . thomas emlyn, the first english preacher who called himself a unitarian, published his humble inquiry in ; and in he established a unitarian congregation in london. this distinctively unitarian book made an able defence of the doctrine of the subordinate nature of christ. more significant than the republication of the book itself was the preface written for it by a boston layman, addressed to the ministers of the town, in which he said that he found its teaching "to be the true, plain, unadulterated doctrine of the gospel." he also intimated that "many of his brethren of the laity in the town and country were in sympathy with him and sincerely desirous of knowing the truth." "in new hampshire province," wrote dr. joseph bellamy, in , "this party have actually, three years ago, got things so ripe that they have ventured to new model our shorter catechism, to alter or entirely leave out the doctrine of the trinity, of the decrees, of our first parents being created holy, of original sin, christ satisfying divine justice, effectual calling, justification, etc."[ ] [sidenote: some of the liberal leaders.] the farther advance in the liberal movement may be most easily traced in the lives and teachings of three or four men. rev ebenezer gay, who was settled in hingham in , was the first man in new england to arrive at a clear statement of opinions quite outside of and distinct from calvinism. writing of the years from to , john adams said that at that time lemuel briant, of braintree, jonathan mayhew, of the west church in boston, daniel shute, of hingham, john brown, of cohasset, and perhaps equal to all, if not above all, ebenezer gay, of hingham, were unitarians.[ ] the rapid sale of emlyn's book would prove the truthfulness of this statement. it was not by any sudden process that these men had come to what may be called unitarianism, though, more properly, arianism; and not as a mere result of a reaction from calvinism. a new time had come, and with it new hopes and thoughts. the burdening sense of the spiritual world that belonged to the men of the seventeenth century did not belong to those of the eighteenth. men had come to see that god must manifest himself in reason, common sense, nature, and the facts of life. in the life and teachings of such a man as ebenezer gay we catch a new insight into the spirit that was active in new england throughout the eighteenth century for the realization of a larger faith. he was a man of a strong, original, vigorous nature, a born leader of men, and one who impressed his own character upon those with whom he came into contact. he opposed the revival, and he made the men of his own association think with him in their opposition to it. years before the revival, however, he was a liberal in theology, and had found his way into arminianism. with the spirit of free inquiry he was in fullest sympathy. he was strongly opposed to creeds and to all written articles of faith. he condemned in the most forcible terms the young man who, on the occasion of his ordination, "engages to preach according to a rule of faith, creed, or confession which is merely of human prescription or imposition." in his convention sermon of he denounced those who "insist upon the offensive peculiarities of the party they espoused rather than upon the more mighty things in which we are all agreed." it has been said of him that, after the middle of the century, "his discourses will be searched in vain for any discussions of controversial theology, any advocacy of the peculiar doctrines regarded as orthodox, or the expression of any opinions at variance with those of his successor, dr. ware."[ ] the sermon on natural religion as distinguished from revealed, which dr. gay delivered as the dudleian lecture at harvard, in , showed the reasonable and progressive spirit of his preaching. he claimed that there is no antagonism between natural and revealed religion, and that, while revealed religion is an addition to the natural, it is not built on the ruins, but on the everlasting foundations of it. revelation can teach nothing contrary to natural religion or to the dictates of reason. "no doctrine or scheme of religion," he said, "should be advanced or received as scriptural and divine which is plainly and absolutely inconsistent with the perfections of god, and the possibility of things. absurdities and contradictions, are not to be obtruded upon our faith. no pretence of revelation can be sufficient for the admission of them. the manifest absurdity of any doctrine is a stronger argument that it is not of god than any other evidence can be that it is." jonathan mayhew, the son of experience mayhew, of martha's vineyard, was settled over the west church of boston in . he was even then known as a heretic, who had read the most liberal books of the english philosophers and theologians, and who had boldly accepted their opinions as his own. on the occasion of his ordination not one of the boston ministers was present, although a number of them were well known for their liberal opinions. the ordination was postponed, and later several men of remoter parishes joined in inducting this young independent into his pulpit. no boston minister would exchange pulpits with him, and he was not invited to join the ministerial association. he was shunned by the ministers, and he was dreaded by the orthodox; but he was gladly heard by a large congregation, which grew in numbers and intelligence as the years went on. he had among his hearers many of the leading men of the town, and to him gathered those who were most thoughtful and progressive. boston has never had in any of its pulpits a man of nobler, broader, more humane qualities, or one with a mind more completely committed to seeking and knowing the truth, or with a more unflinching purpose to speak his own mind without fear or favor. his influence was soon powerfully felt in the town, and his name came to stand for liberty in politics as well as in religion. his sermons were rapidly printed and distributed widely. they were read in every part of new england with great eagerness; they were reprinted in england, and brought him a large correspondence from those who admired and approved of his teaching. though he died in , at the age of forty-six, his work and his influence did not die with him. the cardinal thought of jonathan mayhew with reference to religion was that of free inquiry. diligent and free examination of all questions, he felt, was necessary to any acquisition of the truth. he believed in liberty and toleration everywhere, and this made him accept in the fullest sense the doctrine of the freedom of the will. in man he found a self-determining power, the source of his moral and intellectual freedom. he said that we are more certain of the fact that we are free than we are of the truth of christianity. this belief led him to the rejection of the calvinistic doctrine of inability, and to a strong faith in the moral and spiritual possibilities of human nature. he described christianity as "a practical science, the art of living piously and virtuously."[ ] he had quite freed his mind from bondage to creeds when he said that, "how much soever any man may be mistaken in opinion concerning the terms of salvation, yet if he is practically in the right there is no doubt but he will be accepted of god."[ ] he held that no speculative error, however great, is sufficient to exclude a good and upright man from the kingdom of heaven, who lives according to the genuine spirit of the gospel. to him the principle of grace was always a principle of goodness and holiness; and he held that grace can never be operative as a saving power without obedience to that righteousness and love which christ taught as essential.[ ] he declared that "the doctrine that men may obtain salvation without ceasing to do evil and learning to do well, without yielding a sincere obedience to the laws of christianity, is not so properly called a doctrine of grace as it is a doctrine of devils."[ ] he said, again, that we cannot be justified by a faith that is without obedience; for it is obedience and good works that give to faith all its life, efficacy, and perfection.[ ] [sidenote: the first unitarian.] dr. mayhew accepted without equivocation the right of private judgment in religion, and he practised it judicially and with wise insight. he unhesitatingly applied the rational method to all theological problems, and to him reason was the final court of appeal for everything connected with religion. his love of freedom was enthusiastic and persistent, and he was zealously committed to the principle of individuality. he believed in the essential goodness of human nature, and in the doctrine of the divine unity. he was the first outspoken unitarian in new england, not merely because he rejected the doctrine of the trinity, but because he accepted all the cardinal principles developed by that movement since his day. he was a rationalist, an individualist, a defender of personal freedom, and tested religious practices by the standard of common sense. his sermons were plain, direct, vigorous, and modern. a truly religious man, mayhew taught a practical and humanitarian religion, genuinely ethical, and faithful in inculcating the motive of civic duty. dr. mayhew's words may be quoted in regard to some of the religious beliefs commonly accepted in his day. "the doctrine of a total ignorance and incapacity to judge of moral and religious truths brought upon mankind by the disobedience of our first parents," he wrote, "is without foundation."[ ] "i hope it appears," he says, "that the love of god and of our neighbor, that sincere piety of heart, and a righteous, holy and charitable life, are the weightier matters of the gospel, as well as of the law."[ ] "although christianity cannot," he asserts, "with any propriety or justice be said to be the same with natural religion, or merely a republication of the laws of nature, yet the principal, the most important and fundamental duties required by christianity are, nevertheless, the same which were enjoined under the legal dispensation of moses, and the same which are dictated by the light of nature."[ ] his great love of intellectual and spiritual freedom finds utterance in such a statement as this: "nor has any order or body of men authority to enjoin any particular article of faith, nor the use of any modes of worship not expressly pointed out in the scriptures; nor has the enjoining of such articles a tendency to preserve the peace and harmony of the church, but directly the contrary."[ ] such sentences as the following are frequent on mayhew's pages, and they show clearly the trend of his mind: "free examination, weighing arguments for and against with care and impartiality, is the way to find truth." "true religion flourishes the more, the more people exercise their right of private judgment."[ ] "there is nothing more foolish and superstitious than a veneration for ancient creeds and doctrines as such, and nothing is more unworthy a reasonable creature than to value principles by their age, as some men do their wines."[ ] mayhew insisted upon the strict unity of god, "who is without rival or competitor." "the dominion and sovereignty of the universe is necessarily one and in one, the only living and true god, who delegates such measures of power and authority to other beings as seemeth good in his sight." he declared that the not preserving of such unity and supremacy of god on the part of christians "has long been just matter of reproach to them"; and he said the authority of christ is always "exercised in subordination to god's will."[ ] his position was that "the faith of christians does not terminate in christ as the ultimate object of it, but it is extended through him to the one god."[ ] the very idea of a mediator implies subordination as essential to it.[ ] his biographer says he did not accept the notion of vicarious suffering, and, that he was an arian in his views of the nature of christ. "he was the first clergyman in new england who expressly and openly opposed the scholastic doctrine of the trinity. several others declined pressing the athanasian creed, and believed strictly in the unity of god. they also probably found it difficult to explain their views on the subject, and the great danger of losing their good name served to prevent their speaking out. but dr. mayhew did not conceal or disguise his sentiments on this point any more than on others, such as the peculiar tenets of calvinism. he explicitly and boldly declared the doctrine irrational, unscriptural, and directly contradictory."[ ] he taught the strict unity of god as early as , "in the most unequivocal and plain manner, in his sermons of that year."[ ] what most excited comment and objection was that, in a foot-note to the volume of his sermons published in , mayhew said that a catholic council had elevated the virgin mary to the position of a fourth person in the godhead, and added, by way of comment: "neither papists nor protestants should imagine that they will be understood by others if they do not understand themselves. nor should they think that nonsense and contradictions can ever be too sacred to be ridiculous." the ridicule here was not directed against the doctrine of the trinity, as has been maintained, but the foolish defences of it made by men who accepted its "mysteries" as too wonderful for reason to deal with in a serious manner. this boldness of comment on the part of mayhew was in harmony with his strong disapproval of creed-making in all its forms. he condemned creeds because they set up "human tests of orthodoxy instead of the infallible word of god, and make other terms of christian communion than those explicitly pointed out by the gospel."[ ] dr. mayhew was succeeded in the west church by rev. simeon howard in , who, though he was received in a more friendly spirit by the ministers of the town, was not less radical in his theology than his predecessor. dr. howard was both an arminian and an arian, and he was "a believer neither in the trinity, nor in the divine predestination of total depravity, and necessary ruin to any human soul."[ ] he was of a gentle and conciliatory temper, but his preaching was quite as thorough-going in its intellectual earnestness as was dr. mayhew's. [sidenote: a pronounced universalist.] another preacher on the liberal side was dr. charles chauncy of the first church in boston, whose ministry lasted from to . he was the most vigorous of the opponents of the great awakening, both in his pulpit and through the press. he wrote a book on certain french fanatics, with the purpose of showing what would be the natural results of the excesses of the revival; he preached a powerful sermon on enthusiasm, to indicate the dangers of religious excitement, when not controlled by common sense and reason; and he travelled throughout new england to gain all the information possible about the revival, its methods and results, and published his seasonable thoughts on the state of religion in new england in . he had been influenced by the reading of taylor, tillotson, clarke, and the other latitudinarian and rationalistic writers of england; and he found the revival in its excesses repugnant to his every thought of what was true and devout in religion. dr. chauncy was not an eloquent preacher; but he was clear, earnest, and honest. many of his sermons were published, and his books numbered nearly a dozen. as early as he preached a sermon in favor of religious toleration. at a later period he said, "it is with me past all doubt that the religion of jesus will never be restored to its primitive purity, simplicity, and glory, until religious establishments are so brought down as to be no more."[ ] it was this conviction which made him oppose in his pulpit and in two or three books the effort that was made just before the revolution to establish the english church as the state form of religion in the colonies. he said, in , that the american people would hazard everything dear to them--their estates, their lives--rather than suffer their necks to be put under the yoke of bondage to any foreign power in state or church.[ ] in his early life dr. chauncy was an arminian, but slowly he grew to the acceptance of distinctly unitarian and universalist doctrines. near the end of his life he published four or five books in which he advanced very liberal opinions. one of these, published in boston in , was on the benevolence of the deity fairly and impartially considered. this book followed the same method and purpose as butler's analogy, and aimed to show that god has manifested his goodness in creation and in the life of man. he said that our moral self-determination, or free will, is our one great gift from god. he discussed the moral problems of life in order to prove the benevolence of god, maintaining that the goodness we see in him is of the same nature with goodness in ourselves. the year following he published a book on the scriptural account of the fall and its consequences, in which he rejected the doctrine of total depravity, and interpreted the new birth as a result of education rather than of supernatural change. thus he brought to full statement the logical result of the half-way covenant and the teachings of solomon stoddard, as well as of the connection of church and state in new england. he saw that the method of education is the only one that can justly be followed in the preparation of the young for admission to a church that is sustained in any direct way by the state. dr. chauncy's great work as a preacher and author[ ] was brought to its close by his books in favor of universal salvation. in - he published in boston two anonymous pamphlets advocating the salvation of all men, and these pamphlets made no little stir. in he published in london a work which he called the mystery hid from ages and generations, made manifest by the gospel revelation; or, the salvation of all men the grand thing aimed at in the scheme of god: by one who wishes well to the whole human race. in this book dr. chauncy made an elaborate study of the new testament, in order to prove that salvation is to be universal. christ died for all, therefore all will be saved; because all have sinned in adam, therefore all will be made alive in christ. he looked to a future probation, to a long period after death, when the opportunity of salvation will be open to all. he maintained that the misery threatened against the wicked in scripture is that of this intermediate state between the earthly life and the time when god shall be all in all. he held that sin will be punished hereafter in proportion to depravity, and that none will be saved until they come into willing harmony with christ, who will finally be able to win all men to himself, otherwise the power of god will be set at naught and his good will towards men frustrated of its purpose. in the future state of discipline, punishment will be inflicted with salutary effect, and thus the moral recovery of mankind will be accomplished. [sidenote: other men of mark.] another leader was dr. samuel west, of dartmouth, now new bedford, where he was settled in , and where he preached for more than forty years.[ ] he rejected the doctrines of fore-ordination, election, total depravity, and the trinity. in preaching the election sermon of , he took the ground of an undisguised rationalism. "a revelation," he said, "pretending to be from god, that contradicts any part of natural laws ought immediately to be rejected as imposture; for the deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of divine power." the cardinal idea of west's; position, as of that of most of the liberal men of his time, was stated by him in one sentence, when he said, "to preach christ is to preach the whole system of divinity, as it consists of both natural and revealed religion."[ ] in rev. thomas barnard, of newbury, was dismissed from his parish because he was regarded as unconverted by the revivalistic portion of his congregation; and in he was settled over the first church in salem. he was an arminian, and at the same time an arian of the school of samuel clarke. his son thomas was settled over the north church of salem in , which church was organized especially for him by his admirers in the first church. he followed in the theological opinions of his father, but probably became somewhat more pronounced in his arian views, so that, after his death, dr. channing called him a unitarian. it is not surprising that the younger barnard should have been liberal in his opinions and spirit, when we find his theological instructor, rev. samuel williams, at his ordination, saying to him in the sermon preached on that occasion, "be of no sect or party but that of good men, and to all such (whatever their differences among themselves) let your heart be opened." on another similar occasion mr. williams said that it had always been his advice to examine with caution and modesty, "but with the greatest freedom all religious matters."[ ] it was said of the younger barnard that he believed "the final salvation of no man depended upon the belief or disbelief of those speculative opinions about which men, equally learned and pious, differ." when it was said to him by one of his parishioners, "dr. barnard, i never heard you preach a sermon upon the trinity," the reply was, "and you never will."[ ] in rev. john prince was settled over the first church in salem, as the colleague of the elder barnard. he was an arian, but in no combative or dogmatic manner. he was a student, a lover of science, and an advanced thinker and investigator for his time. in he invited the universalist, rev. john murray, into his pulpit, then an act of the greatest liberality.[ ] another lover of science, rev. william bentley, was settled over the east church of salem, as colleague to rev. james diman, in . the senior pastor was a strict calvinist, but the parish called as his colleague this young man of pronounced liberal views in theology. as early as mr. bentley was interested in the teachings of the english unitarian, william hazlitt,[ ] who at that time visited new england. and in he was reading joseph priestley's book against the trinity with approval. he soon after commended dr. priestley's short tracts as giving a good statement of the simple doctrines of christianity.[ ] he insisted upon free inquiry in religion from the beginning of his ministry, and not long after he began preaching he became substantially a unitarian.[ ] in he maintained that "the full conviction of a future moral retribution" is "the great point of christian faith."[ ] it has been claimed that mr. bentley was the first minister in new england to take distinctly the unitarian position, and there are good reasons for this understanding of his doctrinal attitude.[ ] dr. bentley corresponded with scholars in europe, as he also did with arab chiefs in their own tongue. he knew of the religions of india, and he seems to have given them appreciative recognition. the shipmasters and foreign merchants of salem, as they came in contact with the oriental races and religions, discarded their dogmatic christianity; and these men, almost without exception, were connected with the churches that became unitarian. it may be accepted as a very interesting fact that "the two potent influences shaping the ancient puritanism of salem into unitarianism were foreign commerce and contact with the oriental religions."[ ] the formation of a second parish in worcester, in , was a significant step in the progress of liberal opinion. this was the first time when a town, outside of boston, was divided into two parishes of the congregational order on doctrinal grounds. on the death of the minister of the first parish several candidates were heard, and among them rev. aaron bancroft, who was a pronounced arminian and arian. the majority preferred a calvinist; but the more intelligent minority insisted upon the settlement of mr. bancroft,--a result they finally accomplished by the organization of a new parish. it was a severe struggle by which this result was brought about, every effort being made to defeat it; and for many years mr. bancroft was almost completely isolated in his religious opinions.[ ] [sidenote: the second period of revivals.] it must not be understood that there was any marked separation in the churches as yet on doctrinal grounds. calvinism was mildly taught, and ministers of all shades of opinion exchanged pulpits freely with each other. they met in ministerial associations, and in various duties of ordinations, councils, and other ecclesiastical gatherings. the preaching was practical, not doctrinal; and controverted subjects were for the most part not touched upon in the pulpits. about , however, began a revival of calvinism on the part of drs. bellamy, emmons, hopkins, and others; and especially did it take a strenuous form in the works of samuel hopkins. the new divinity, as it was sometimes called, taught that unconditional submission to god is the duty of every human being, that we should be willing to be damned for the glory of god, and that the attitude of god towards men is one of unbounded benevolence. this newer calvinism was full of incentives to missionary enterprise, and was zealous for the making of converts. under the impulse of its greater enthusiasm there began, about , a series of revivals which continued to the middle of the nineteenth century. this was the second great period of revivalism in new england. it was far better organized than the first one, while its methods were more systematic and under better guidance; and the results were great in the building of churches, in establishing missionary outposts, and in awakening an active religious life amongst the people. it aroused much opposition to the liberals, and it made the orthodox party more aggressive. just as the great awakening developed opposition to the liberals of that day, and served to bring into view the two tendencies in the congregational churches, so this new revival period accentuated the divergencies between those who believed in the deity of christ and those who believed in his subordinate nature, and led to the first assuming of positions on both sides. there can be little doubt that it put a check upon the friendly spirit that had existed in the churches, and that it began a division which ultimately resulted in their separation into two denominations.[ ] such details of individual and local opinion as have here been given are all the more necessary because there was at this time no consensus of belief on the part of the more liberal men. each man thought for himself, but he was very reluctant to depart from the old ways in ritual and doctrine; and if the ministers consulted with each other, and gave each other confidential assistance, there was certainly nothing in the way of public conference or of party assimilation and encouragement. a visitor to boston in wrote of the ministers there that "they are so diverse in their sentiments that they cannot agree on any point in theology. some are calvinists, some universalists, some arminians, and one, at least, is a socinian."[ ] another visitor, this time in , found the range of opinions much wider. in all the ministers of boston he found only one rigid trinitarian; one was a follower of edwards, several were arminians, two were socinians, one a universalist, and one a unitarian.[ ] this writer says it was not difficult to find out what men did not believe, but there was as yet no public line of demarcation among the clergy. there being no outward pressure to bring men into uniformity, no institution or body of men with authority to require assent to a standard of orthodoxy, little attention was given to merely doctrinal interests. the position taken was that presented by rev. john tucker of newbury, in the convention sermon of , when he said that no one has any right whatever to legislate in behalf of christ, who alone has authority to fix the terms of the gospel. he said that, as all believers and teachers of christianity are "perfectly upon a level with one another, none of them can have any authority even to interpret the laws of this kingdom for others, so as to require their assent to such interpretation." he also declared that as "every christian has and must have a right to judge for himself of the true sense and meaning of all gospel truths, no doctrines, therefore, no laws, no religious rites, no terms of acceptance with god or of admission to christian privileges not found in the gospel, are to be looked upon by him as any part of this divine system, nor to be received and submitted to as the doctrines and laws of christ."[ ] of rev. john prince, the minister of the first church in salem during the last years of the century, it was said that he never "preached distinctly upon any of the points of controversy which, in his day, agitated the new england churches."[ ] the minister of roxbury, rev. eliphalet porter, said of the calvinistic beliefs, that there was not one of them he considered "essential to the christian faith or character."[ ] [sidenote: king's chapel becomes unitarian.] these quotations will indicate the liberty of spirit that existed in the new england churches of the later years of the eighteenth century, especially in the neighborhood of boston, and along the seacoast; and also the diversity of opinion on doctrinal subjects among the ministers. it is impossible here to follow minutely the stages of doctrinal evolution, but a few dates and incidents will serve to indicate the several steps that were taken. the first of these was the settlement of rev. james freeman over king's chapel in , and his ordination by the congregation in , the liturgy having been revised two years earlier to conform to the liberal opinions of the minister and people. these changes were brought about largely through the influence of rev. william hazlitt, the father of the essayist and critic of the same name, who had been settled over several of the smaller unitarian churches in great britain. in the spring of he visited the united states, and spent several months in philadelphia. he gave a course of lectures on the evidences of christianity in the college there, which were largely attended. he preached for several weeks in a country parish in maryland, he had invitations to settle in charleston and pittsburg, and he had an opportunity to become the president of a college by subscribing to the doctrinal tests required, which he would not do; for "he would sooner die in a ditch than submit to human authority in matters of faith."[ ] in june, , he preached in the brattle street church of boston, and he anticipated becoming its minister; but his pronounced doctrinal position seems to have made that impossible. he also preached in hingham, and some of the people there desired his settlement; but the aged dr. gay would not resign. it would appear that he preached for dr. chauncy, for mr. barnes in salem, and also in several pulpits on cape cod. he gave in boston his course of lectures on the evidences of christianity, and it was received with much favor by large audiences. the winter of - was spent by mr. hazlitt in hallowell, me., in which place was a small group of wealthy english unitarians, led by samuel vaughan, by whom mr. hazlitt had been entertained in philadelphia. mr. hazlitt returned to boston in the spring of , and had some hope of settling in roxbury. in the autumn, however, finding no definite promise of employment, he returned to england. he afterward corresponded with dr. howard, of the west church in boston, and with dr. lathrop, of west springfield. the volumes of sermons he published in and were sold in this country, and one or two of them republished. it would appear that mr. hazlitt's positive unitarianism made it impossible for him to settle over any church in boston or its neighborhood. in he assisted dr. freeman in revising the prayer book, the form of prayer used by dr. lindsey[ ] in the essex street chapel in london being adapted to the new conditions at king's chapel. he also republished in philadelphia and boston many of dr. priestley's unitarian tracts, while writing much himself for publication.[ ] in his correspondence with theophilus lindsey, dr. freeman wrote of mr. hazlitt as a pious, zealous, and intelligent minister, to whose instructions and conversation he was particularly indebted.[ ] "before mr. hazlitt came to boston", dr. freeman wrote, "the trinitarian doxology was almost universally used. that honest, good man prevailed upon several respectable ministers to omit it. since his departure the number of those who repeat only scriptural doxologies has greatly increased, so that there are now many churches in which the worship is strictly unitarian."[ ] beginning with the year , several of the liberal men in boston were in correspondence with the leading unitarian ministers in london, and their letters were afterward published by thomas belsham in his life of theophilus lindsey. from this work we learn that dr. lindsey presented his own theological works and those of dr. priestley to harvard college, and that they were read with great avidity by the students.[ ] one of the boston correspondents, writing in , names james bowdoin, governor of massachusetts in and , general benjamin lincoln, and general henry knox as among the liberal men. he said: "there are many others besides, in our legislature, of similar sentiments. while so many of our great men are thus on the side of truth and free inquiry, they will necessarily influence many of the common people."[ ] he also said that people were less frightened at the socinian name than formerly, and that this form of christianity was beginning to have some public advocates. the only minister who preached in favor of it was mr. bentley, of salem, who was described as "a young man of a bold, independent mind, of strong, natural powers, and of more skill in the learned languages than any person of his years in the state." mr. bentley's congregation was spoken of as uncommonly liberal, not alarmed at any improvements, and pleased with his introduction into the pulpit of various modern translations of the scriptures, especially of the prophecies.[ ] [sidenote: other unitarian movements.] in march, , a unitarian congregation was formed in portland under the leadership of thomas oxnard, who had been an episcopalian. having been supplied with the works of priestley and lindsey through the generosity of dr. freeman, he became a unitarian; and his personal intercourse with dr. freeman gave strength to his changed convictions. a number of persons of property and respectability of character joined him in accepting his new faith. in writing to his friend in november, , mr. oxnard said: "i cannot express to you the avidity with which these unitarian publications are sought after. our friends here are clearly convinced that the unitarian doctrine will soon become the prevailing opinion in this country. three years ago i did not know a single unitarian in this part of the country besides myself; and now, entirely from the various publications you have furnished, a decent society might be collected in this and the neighboring towns."[ ] in an attempt was made to introduce a revised liturgy into the episcopal church of portland; and, when this was resisted, a majority of the congregation seceded and formed a unitarian society, with mr. oxnard as the minister. this society was continued for a few years, and then ceased to exist. the members joined the first congregational church, which in , became unitarian.[ ] also in was organized a unitarian congregation in saco, under the auspices of hon. samuel thatcher, a member of congress and a massachusetts judge.[ ] mr. thatcher had been an unbeliever, but through the reading of priestley's works he became a sincere and rational christian. he met with much opposition from his neighbors, and an effort was made to prevent his re-election to congress; but it did not succeed. the saco congregation was at first connected with that at portland, and it seems to have ceased its existence at the same time.[ ] in dr. freeman wrote that unitarianism was making considerable progress in the southern counties of massachusetts. in barnstable he reported "a very large body of unitarians."[ ] writing in may, , he states that unitarianism is on the increase in maine, that it is making a considerable increase in the southern part of massachusetts, and that a few seeds have been sown in vermont. he thinks it may be losing ground in some places, but that it is growing in others. "i consider it," he writes, "as one of the most happy effects which have resulted from my feeble exertions in the unitarian cause, that they have introduced me to the knowledge and friendship of some of the most valuable characters of the present age, men of enlightened heads and benevolent hearts. though it is a standing article of most of our social libraries, that nothing of a controversial character should be purchased, yet any book which is presented is freely accepted. i have found means, therefore, of introducing into them some of the unitarian tracts with which you have kindly furnished me. there are few persons who have not read them with avidity; and when read they cannot fail to make an impression upon the minds of many. from these and other causes the unitarian doctrine appears to be still upon the increase. i am acquainted with a number of ministers, particularly in the southern part of this state, who avow and publicly preach this sentiment. there are others more cautious, who content themselves with leading their hearers by a course of rational but prudent sermons gradually and insensibly to embrace it. though this latter mode is not what i entirely approve, yet it produces good effects. for the people are thus kept out of the reach of false opinions, and are prepared for the impressions which will be made on them by more bold and ardent successors, who will probably be raised up when these timid characters are removed off the stage. the clergy are generally the first who begin to speculate; but the people soon follow, where they are so much accustomed to read and enquire."[ ] in was published jeremy belknap's biography of samuel watts, who was an arian, or, at least, held to the subordinate nature of christ. this book had a very considerable influence in directing attention to the doctrine of the trinity, and in inducing inquiring men to study the subject critically for themselves. in dr. belknap became the minister of the federal street church in boston, and his preaching was from that time distinctly unitarian. dr. joseph priestley removed to philadelphia in , and he was at first listened to by large congregations. his humanitarian theology--that is, his denial of divinity as well as deity to christ--probably had the effect of limiting the interest in his teachings. however, a small congregation was established in philadelphia in , formed mostly of english unitarians. a congregation was gathered at northumberland in , to which place priestley removed in that year. in the year a division took place in the church at plymouth, owing to the growth there of liberal sentiments. these began to manifest themselves as early as , as a reaction from the intense revivalism of that period.[ ] rev. chandler bobbins, who was strictly calvinistic in his theology, was the minister from until his death in . in a considerable number of persons in the parish discussed the desirability of organizing another church, in order to secure more liberal preaching. it was recognized that mr. robbins was an old man, that he was very much beloved, and that in a few years the opportunity desired would be presented without needless agitation; and the effort was therefore deferred. in november, , at a meeting held for the election of a new pastor, twenty-three members of the church were in favor of rev. james kendall, the only candidate, while fifteen were in opposition. when the parish voted, two hundred and fifty-three favored mr. kendall, and fifteen were opposed. in september, , the conservative minority, numbering eighteen males and thirty-five females, withdrew; and two years later they organized the society now called the church of the pilgrimage. the settlement of mr. kendall, a pronounced arminian,[ ] was an instance of the almost complete abandonment of calvinism on the part of a congregation, in opposition to the preaching from the pulpit. in spite of the strict confession of faith which dr. robbins had persuaded the church to adopt, the parish outgrew the old teachings. mr. kendall, with the approval of his church, soon grew into a unitarian; and it was fitting that the church of the mayflower, the church of robinson and brewster, should lead the way in this advance. as yet there was no controversy, except in a quiet way. occasionally sharp criticism was uttered, especially in convention and election sermons; but there was no thought of separation or exclusion. the liberal men showed a tendency to magnify the work of charity; and they were, in a limited degree, zealous in every kind of philanthropic effort. more distinctly, however, they showed their position in their enthusiasm for the bible and in their summing up of christianity in loyalty to christ. towards all creeds and dogmas they were indifferent and silent, except as they occasionally spoke plainly out to condemn them. they believed in and preached toleration, and their whole movement stood more distinctly for comprehensiveness and latitudinarianism than for aught else. they were not greatly concerned about theological problems; but they thoroughly believed in a broad, generous, sympathetic, and practical christianity, that would exemplify the teachings of christ, and that would lead men to a pure and noble moral life. [sidenote: growth of toleration.] that toleration was not as yet fully accepted in massachusetts is seen in the fact that the proposed constitution of was defeated because it provided for freedom of worship on the part of all protestant denominations. the dominant religious body was not yet ready to put itself on a level with the other sects. in the constitutional convention of the more liberal men worked with the baptists to secure a separation of state and church. such men as drs. chauncy, mayhew, west, and shute were desirous of the broadest toleration; and they did what they could to secure it. as early as , dr. chauncy spoke in plainest terms in opposition to the state support of religion. "we are in principle," he wrote, "against all civil establishments in religion. it does not appear to us that god has entrusted, the state with a right to make religious establishments. but let it be heedfully minded we claim no right to desire the interposition of the state to establish the mode of worship, government or discipline, we apprehend is most agreeable to the mind of christ. we desire no other liberty than to be left unrestrained in the exercise of our principles, in so far as we are good members of society.... the plain truth is, by the gospel charter, all professed christians are vested with precisely the same rights; nor has our denomination any more a right to the interposition of the civil magistrate in their favor than any other; and whenever this difference takes place, it is beside the rule of scripture, and the genuine dictates, of uncorrupted reason."[ ] all persons throughout the state, of whatever religious connection, who had become emancipated from the puritan spirit, supported him in this opinion. they were in the minority as yet, and they were not organized. therefore, their efforts were unsuccessful. another testing of public sentiment on this subject was had in the massachusetts convention which, in , ratified the constitution of the united states. the sixth article, which provides that "no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office," was the occasion of a prolonged debate and much opposition. hon. theophilus parsons took the liberal side, and declared that "the only evidence we can have of the sincerity and excellency of a man's religion is a good life," precisely the position of the liberal men. by several members it was urged, however, that this article was a departure from the principles of our forefathers, who came here for the preservation of their religion, and that it would admit deists and atheists into the general government. in these efforts to secure religious toleration as a fundamental law of the state and nation the baptist denomination took an active and a leading part. not less faithful to this cause were the liberal men among the congregationalists, while the opposition came almost wholly from the calvinistic and orthodox churches. such leaders on the liberal side as dr. david shute of the south parish in hingham, rev. thomas thatcher of the west parish in dedham, and dr. samuel west of new bedford, were loyally devoted in the convention to the support of the toleration act of the constitution. in the membership of the convention there were seventeen ministers, and fourteen of them voted for the constitution. the opinions of the fourteen were expressed by rev. phillips payson, the minister of chelsea, who held that a religious test would be a great blemish on the constitution. he also said that god is the god of the conscience, and for human tribunals to encroach upon the consciences of men is impious.[ ] as the constitution was ratified by only a small majority of the convention, and as at the opening of its sessions the opposition seemed almost overwhelming, the position taken by the more liberal ministers was a sure indication of growing liberality. the great majority of the people, however, were still strongly in favor of the old religious tests and restrictions, as was fully indicated by subsequent events. the revolution operated as a liberalizing influence, because of the breaking of old customs and the discussion of the principles of liberty attendant upon the adoption of the state and national constitutions. the growth of democratic sentiment made a strong opposition to the churches and their privileges, and it caused a diminution of reverence for the authority of the clergy. the twenty years following the revolution showed a notable growth in liberal opinions. universalism presented itself as a new form of calvinism, its advocates claiming that god decreed that all should be saved, and that his will would be triumphant. in many parts of the country the doctrine of universal salvation began to be heard during the last two decades of the eighteenth century, and the growth of interest in it was rapid from the beginning of the nineteenth. this movement began in the baptist churches, but it soon appeared in others. at first it was undefined, a protest against the harsh teaching of future punishment. it was a part of the humanitarian awakening of the time, the new faith in man, the recognition that love is diviner than wrath. many persons found escape from creeds that were hateful to them into this new and more hopeful interpretation of religion. persons of every shade of protest, and "infidelity," and free thinking, found their way into this new body; and great was the condemnation and hatred with which it was received on the part of the other sects. in time this movement clarified itself, and it has had a positive influence for piety and for nobler views of god and the future. of much the same nature was the movement within the fellowship of the friends led by thomas hicks. it was unitarian and reformatory, influenced by the growing democracy and zeal for humanity the age was everywhere manifesting. in the border states between north and south began, during the last decade of the eighteenth century, a movement in favor of discarding all creeds and confessions. it favored a return to the bible itself as the great protestant book, and as the one revealed word of god. without learning or culture, these persons sought to make their faith in christ more real by an evangelical obedience to his teachings. some of them called themselves disciples, holding that to follow christ is quite enough. others said that no other name than christian is required. they were biblical in their theology, and unsectarian in their attitude towards the forms and rituals of the church. in time these scattered groups of earnest seekers for a better christian way, from maine to georgia, came to know each other and to organize for the common good. with the rapid growth of methodism the arminian view of man was widely adopted. the baptists received into their fellowship in all parts of new england, at least, many who were not deeply in sympathy with their strict rules, but who found with them a means of protesting against the harsher methods of the "standing order" of congregationalists. their demand for toleration and liberty of conscience began to receive recognition after the revolution, and their influence was a powerful one in bringing about the separation of state and church. those who were dissatisfied with a church that taxed all the people, and that was upheld by state authority, found with the baptists a means of making their protest heard and felt. in all directions the democratic spirit was being manifested, and conditions which had been upheld by the restrictive authority of england had to give way. the people were now speaking, and not the ministers only. it was an age of individualism, and of the reassertion of the tendency that had characterized new england from the first, but that had been held in check by autocratic power. there was no outbreak, no rapid change, no iconoclastic overturning of old institutions and customs, but the people were coming to their own, thinking for themselves. in reality, the people were conservative, especially in new england; and they moved slowly, there was little infidelity, and steadily were the old ideals maintained. yet the individualism would assert itself. men held the old creeds in distinctly personal ways, and the churches grew into more and more of independency. the theological development of the eighteenth century took two directions: that of rationalism and a demand for free inquiry, as represented by jonathan mayhew and william bentley; and that of a philanthropic protest against the harsh features of calvinism, as represented by charles chauncy and the universalists. the demand that all theological problems should be submitted to reason for vindication or readjustment was not widely urged; but a few men recognized the worth of this claim, and applied this method without hesitation. a larger number followed them with hesitating steps, but with a growing confidence in reason as god's method for man's finding and maintaining the truth. the other tendency grew out of a benevolent desire to justify the ways of god to man, and was the expression of a deepening faith that the divine being deals with his children in a fatherly manner. that god is generous and loving was the faith of dr. chauncy, as it was of the universalists and of the more liberal party among the calvinists. their philanthropic feelings toward their fellow-men seemed to them representative of god's ways of dealing with his creatures. [ ] levi l. paine, a critical history of the evolution of trinitarianism, . "nathaniel emmons held tenaciously to three real persons. he said, 'it is as easy to conceive of god existing in three persons as in one person.' this language shows that emmons employed the term 'person' in the strict literal sense. the three are absolutely equal, this involving the metaphysical assumption that in the trinity being and person are not coincident. emmons is the first theologian who asserts that, though we cannot conceive that three persons should be one person, we may conceive that three persons may be one being, 'if we only suppose that being may signify something different from person in respect to deity.'" [ ] e.h. gillett, history and literature of the unitarian controversy. historical magazine, april ; second series, ix. . [ ] letter to scripturista by paulinus, . [ ] william s. pattee, a history of old braintree and quincy, . when a copy of dr. jedediah morse's little book on american unitarianism was sent to john adams, he acknowledged its receipt in the following letter:-- quincy, may , . _dear doctor_,--i thank you for your favor of the th, and the pamphlet enclosed, entitled american unitarianism. i have turned over its leaves, and found nothing that was not familiarly known to me. in the preface unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in new england. i can testify as a witness to its old age. sixty-five years ago my own minister, the rev. lemuel briant; dr. jonathan mayhew, of the west church in boston; the rev. mr. shute, of hingham; the rev. john brown, of cohasset; and perhaps equal to all, if not above all, the, rev. mr. gay, of hingham, were unitarians. among the laity how many could i name, lawyers, physicians, tradesmen, farmers! but at present i will name only one, richard cranch, a man who had studied divinity, and jewish and christian antiquities, more than any clergyman now existing in new england. john adams. also see c.f. adams, three episodes of massachusetts history, ; and j.h. allen, an historical sketch of the unitarian movement since the reformation, . [ ] history of hingham, i., part ii., , memoir of ebenezer gay, by solomon lincoln. [ ] sermons, , . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] sermons, , . [ ] ibid., . [ ] sermons, , . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid, , . [ ] sermons, , , . [ ] a. bradford, memoir of the life and writings of rev. jonathan mayhew, d.d., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] letter from his daughter, quoted by bartol, the west church and its ministers, . [ ] sermons, [ ] c.a. bartol, the west church and its ministers. [ ] reply to dr. chandler, quoted in sprague's annals of the unitarian pulpit, . [ ] remarks upon a sermon of the bishop of landaff, quoted by sprague. [ ] chauncy's many published sermons and volumes are carefully enumerated by paul leicester ford in his bibliotheca chaunciana, a list of the writings of charles chauncy. he gives the titles of sixty-one books and pamphlets published by chauncy, and of eighty-eight about him or in reply to him. [ ] sprague's annals, ; w.j. potter, history of the first congregational society, new bedford. [ ] sprague's annals. . [ ] george batchelor, social equilibrium, , . [ ] ibid., . [ ] sprague's annals, . [ ] father of the essayist of the same name. [ ] joseph priestley, - , was one of the ablest of english unitarians. educated in non-conformist schools, in he became a presbyterian minister. in he became a tutor in a non-conformist academy, and in he was settled over a congregation in leeds. he was the librarian of lord shelburne from until he was settled in birmingham as minister, in . in a mob destroyed his house, his manuscripts, and his scientific apparatus, because of his liberal political views. after three years as a preacher in hackney, he removed to the united states in , and settled at northumberland in pennsylvania, where the remainder of his life was spent. he published one hundred and thirty distinct works, of which those best remembered are his institutes of natural and revealed religion, a history of the corruptions of christianity, and a general history of the christian church to the fall of the western empire. he was the discoverer of oxygen, and holds a high place in the history of science. he was a materialist, but believed in immortality; and he believed that christ was a man in his nature. [ ] c.s. osgood and h.m. batchelder, historical sketch of salem, . "he took strong arminian grounds; and under his lead the church became practically unitarian in , and was one of the first churches in america to adopt that faith." [ ] george batchelor, social equilibrium, . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] e. smalley, the worcester pulpit, , . [ ] see the unitarian advocate and religious miscellany, january, , new series, iii. , for aaron bancroft's recollections of this period. in the same volume was published ezra ripley's reminiscences, contained in the march, april, and may numbers. they are both of much importance for the history of this period. also the third volume of first series, june, , gives an important letter from francis parkman concerning unitarianism in boston in . [ ] life of ashbel green, president of princeton college, . [ ] life of archibald alexander, . [ ] convention sermon, , . [ ] sprague, annals of unitarian pulpit, . [ ] ibid., . [ ] this is the statement of his daughter. [ ] theophilus lindsey, - , was a curate in london, then the tutor of the duke of northumberland, and afterward a rector in yorkshire and dorsetshire. in he was settled at catterick, in yorkshire, where his study of the bible led him to doubt the truth of the doctrine of the trinity. in he joined with others in a petition to parliament asking that clergymen might not be required to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles. when it was rejected a second time he resigned, went to london, and opened in a room in essex street, april , the first permanent unitarian meeting in england. a chapel was built for him in , and he preached there until . he published, in , an historical view of the state of the unitarian doctrine and worship from the reformation to our own times, two volumes of sermons, and other works. in he published a revised prayer book according to the plan suggested by dr. samuel clarke, which was used in the essex street chapel. [ ] four generations of a literary family: the hazlitts in england, ireland, and america, , , , , , ; lamb and hazlitt: further letters and records, - . [ ] monthly repository, iii., . mr. hazlitt "arrived at boston may , ; and, having a letter to mr. eliot, who received him with great kindness, he was introduced on that very day to the boston association of ministers. the venerable chauncy, at whose house it happened to be held, entered into a familiar conversation with him, and showed him every possible respect as he learned that he had been acquainted with dr. price. without knowing at the time anything of the occasion which led to it, ordination happened to be the general subject of discussion. after the different gentlemen had severally delivered their opinions, the stranger was requested to declare his sentiments, who unhesitatingly replied that the people or the congregation who chose any man to be their minister were his proper ordainers. mr. freeman, upon hearing this, jumped from his seat in a kind of transport, saying, 'i wish you could prove that, sir,' the gentleman answered that 'few things could admit of an easier proof.' and from that moment a thorough intimacy commenced between him and mr. freeman. soon after, the boston prints being under no _imprimatur_, he published several letters in supporting the cause of mr. freeman. at the solicitation of mr. freeman he also published a scriptural confutation of the thirty-nine articles. notice being circulated that this publication would appear on a particular day, the printer, apprised of this circumstance, threw off a hundred papers beyond his usual number, and had not one paper remaining upon his hands at noon. this publication in its consequences converted mr. freeman's congregation into a unitarian church, which, as mr. freeman acknowledged, could never have been done without the labors of this gentleman." [ ] american unitarianism, from belsham's life of lindsey, , _note_. [ ] american unitarianism, . [ ] american unitarianism, note. [ ] ibid., . [ ] american unitarianism, . [ ] "oxnard was a merchant, born in boston in , but settled in portland, where he married the daughter of general preble, in . he was a loyalist, and fled from the country at the outbreak of the war. he returned to portland in . a few years later, , the episcopal church being destitute of a minister, he was engaged as lay reader, with the intention of taking orders. his unitarianism put a sudden end to his episcopacy, but not to his preaching. he gathered a small congregation in the school-house, and preached sometimes sermons of his own, but more often of other men. he died in ." john c. perkins, how the first parish became unitarian,--historical sermon preached in portland. [ ] american unitarianism, . [ ] ibid., , . [ ] american unitarianism, . [ ] american unitarianism, . [ ] church records, in ms., ii. . [ ] rev. thomas robbins, diary for october , , i. , heard mr. kendall, and said: "he appears to be an arminian in full. i fear he will lead many souls astray." see john cuckson, a brief history of the first church in plymouth, eighth chapter. [ ] chauncy against chandler, . [ ] these particulars are taken from the debates and proceedings in the convention of the commonwealth of massachusetts held in the year , and which finally ratified the constitution of the united states, boston, . v. the period of controversy. in the spring of rev. henry ware, who had been for nearly twenty years pastor of the first church in the town of hingham, was inaugurated as the hollis professor of divinity at harvard college. the place had been made vacant by the death of professor david tappan, who was a moderate calvinist; that is, one who recognized the sovereignty of god, but allowed to man a limited opportunity for personal effort in the process of salvation. it was assumed by the conservative party that a calvinist would be appointed, because the founder of this important professorship, it was claimed, was of that way of thinking, and so conditioned his gift as to require that no one but a calvinist should hold the position. this was strenuously denied by the liberals, who maintained that hollis was not only liberal and catholic in his own theology, but that he made no such restrictions as were claimed.[ ] when the nomination of mr. ware was presented to the overseers, it was strongly opposed; but he was elected by a considerable majority. a pamphlet soon appeared in opposition to him, and this was the beginning of a controversy that lasted for a quarter of a century.[ ] this war of pamphlets was made more furious by rev. john sherman's one god in one person only, and rev. hosea ballou's treatise on the atonement, both of which appeared in . mr. sherman's book was described in the monthly anthology as "one of the first acts of direct hostility against the orthodox committed on these western shores."[ ] the little book by hosea ballou had small influence on the current of religious thinking outside the universalist body, to which he belonged, and probably did not at all enter into the controversy between the orthodox and the liberal congregationalists. it was, however, the first positive statement of the doctrine of the atonement in a rational form, not as expiatory, but as reconciling man to the loving authority of god. within a decade it brought the leading universalists to the unitarian position.[ ] these works were followed, in , by rev. noah worcester's bible news of the father, son, and holy ghost, which presented clearly and forcibly an arian view of the trinity, or the subordination of christ to god. these definitions of their position on the part of the liberals were met by the publication of the panoplist, which was begun by dr. jedidiah morse, of charlestown, mass., in . this magazine interpreted the orthodox positions, and devoted itself zealously to the defence of the old ideas, as understood by its editors. it was not vehemently aggressive, but was largely devoted to general religious interests, and to the promotion of a higher spirit of devotion. it was followed by the spirit of the pilgrims, which was more combative, and in some degree intolerant. in the year the andover theological school was founded, the result of a reconciliation between the hopkinsians and the calvinists of the old type, affording an opportunity for theological training on the part of those who could not accept the liberal attitude of harvard. most of the liberal men of this time refused to bring their beliefs to the test of exact definition. it was their opinion that no theological statement can have high value in relation to christian attainments. under these conditions were trained the men who became the leaders in the early unitarian movement. william ellery channing, who was settled over the federal street church in june, , was distinctly evangelical, and of a profound and earnest piety. slowly he grew to accept the liberal attitude, as the result of his love of freedom, his lofty spirituality of nature, and his tolerant and generous cast of mind. he gave spiritual and intellectual direction to the new movement, guided its philanthropic efforts, and brought to noble issue its spiritual philosophy. early in the year , joseph stevens buckminster was settled over the brattle street church; and, though he preached but a little over six years before a blighting disease took him away, yet he left behind a tradition of great pulpit gifts and a wonderfully attractive personality. another to die in early manhood was samuel cooper thacher, who was settled at the new south in , and who was long remembered for his scholarship and his zeal in the work which he had undertaken. charles lowell went to the west church in , and he nobly sustained the traditions for liberality and spiritual freedom that had gathered about that place of worship. in appeared edward everett, at the age of twenty (which had been that of buckminster when he entered the pulpit), as the minister of the brattle street church, to charm with his eloquence, learning, grace, and power. francis parkman began his career at the new north in ,--"a man of various information, a kind spirit, singular benevolence, polished yet simple manners, fine literary taste."[ ] a few years later john gorham palfrey became the minister of the brattle street church, and james walker was settled over the harvard church in charlestown. among the laymen in the churches to which these men preached were many persons of distinction. the liberal fellowship, therefore, was of the highest social and intellectual standing. the piety of the churches was serious, if not profound; and the religion presented was simple, sincere, intellectual, and earnestly spiritual. [sidenote: the monthly anthology.] the practical and tolerant aims of the liberals were shown by the manner in which they began to give expression publicly to their position. in the monthly anthology they first found voice, although that publication was started without the slightest controversial purpose. begun by a young man as a monthly literary journal in , when he found it would not support him, he abandoned it;[ ] and the publishers asked rev. william emerson, the minister of the first church in boston, to take charge of it. he consented to do so, and gathered about him a company of friends to aid him in its management. their meetings finally grew into the anthology club, which continued the publication through ten volumes. among the members were william emerson, samuel cooper thacher, joseph s. buckminster, and joseph tuckerman, pastors of churches in boston and vicinity of the liberal school. there was also john s.j. gardiner, the rector of trinity church, who was the president of the club throughout the whole period of its existence, and one of the most frequent contributors to the periodical. the members were not drawn together by any sectarian spirit, but by a common aim of doing something for literature, and for the advancement of culture. the monthly anthology was the first distinctly literary journal published in this country. it had an important influence in developing the intellectual tastes of new england, and of giving initiative to its literary capacities. the spirit of the monthly anthology was broad and catholic. naturally, therefore, in its pages the liberals made their first protest against party aims and methods. in a few instances theological problems were discussed, the extreme trinitarian doctrines were criticised, and the liberal attitude was defended. [sidenote: society for promoting christian knowledge, piety, and charity.] in the year rev. william emerson began the publication of the christian monitor, in his capacity as the secretary of the society for promoting christian knowledge, piety, and charity, a society then newly founded by residents of boston and its vicinity for the purpose of publishing enlightened and practical tracts and books. this series of small books, each containing one hundred and fifty or two hundred pages, and issued quarterly, was begun for the purpose of publishing devotional works of a practical and liberal type. the first number contained prayers and devotional exercises for personal or family use, and there followed bishop newcombe's life and character of christ, a condensed reproduction of law's serious call, bishop hall's contemplations, erskine's letters to the bereaved, and two or three volumes of sermons on religious duties and the education of children. besides the christian monitor this society issued a series of religious tracts which had a considerable circulation. then it undertook the publication of books for children, and for family reading. in aiming to publish works of pure morality and practical piety, its methods were thoroughly catholic and liberal; for it was unsectarian, and yet earnestly christian. the spirit and methods of this society were thoroughly characteristic of the time when it was organized, and of the men who gave it life and purpose. not dogma, but piety, was what they desired. in the truest sense they were unsectarian christians, zealous for good works and a devout life.[ ] [sidenote: general repository.] the monthly anthology and the christian monitor represented the mild and undogmatic attitude of the liberals, their shrinking from all controversy, and their desire to devote their labors wholly to the promotion of a tolerant and catholic christianity. the beginning of the controversial spirit on the liberal side found expression in the general repository and review, which was begun in cambridge by rev. andrews norton, in april, . in the first number of this quarterly review the editor said that the discussion of the doctrine of the trinity "in our own country has hitherto been chiefly confined to private circles," and cited the books of john sherman and noah worcester as the only exceptions. the review opened, however, with a defence of liberal christianity which was aggressive and outspoken. in later issues an energetic statement was made of the liberal position, the controversial articles were able and explicit, and in a manner hitherto quite unknown on the part of what the editor called "catholic christians." one of the numbers contained a long and interesting survey of the religious interests of the country, and summed up in an admirable manner the prospects for the liberal churches. after the publication of the sixth number, mr. norton withdrew from the work to become the librarian of harvard college; and it was continued through two more issues by "a society of gentlemen." to this journal mr. norton was by far the largest contributor; but other writers were edward everett, and his brother, alexander h. everett, joseph s. buckminster, john t. kirkland, sidney willard, george ticknor, washington allston, john lowell, noah worcester, and james freeman, most of them connected with harvard college or with the liberal churches in boston. it is evident, however, that the liberal public was not yet ready for so aggressive and out-spoken a journal. [sidenote: the christian disciple.] what was desired was something milder, less aggressive, of a distinctly religious and conciliatory character. to this end drs. channing, charles lowell, and tuckerman, and rev. s.c. thatcher, with whom was afterwards associated rev. francis parkman, planned a monthly magazine that should be liberal in its character, but not sectarian or dogmatic. they invited rev. noah worcester, whose bible news had cost him his pulpit, to remove from new hampshire to boston to become its editor. although mr. worcester's beliefs affiliated him with the hopkinsians in everything except his attitude in regard to the inferiority of christ to god, yet he was compelled to withdraw from his old connections, and to find new fields of activity. he began the christian disciple as a religious and family magazine, the first number being issued in may, . it was not designed for theological discussion or distinctly for the defence of the liberal position. its tone was conciliatory and moderate, while it zealously defended religious liberty and charity. its aim was practical and humanitarian, to help men live the christian life, as individuals, and in their social relations. when it touched upon controverted questions, it was in an expository manner, with the purpose of instructing its readers, and of leading them to a higher appreciation of true religion. as his biographer well said of noah worcester, he made this work "distinguished for its unqualified devotedness to the individual rights of opinion, and the sacred duty of a liberal regard to them in other men."[ ] dr. worcester was not so much a theologian as a philanthropist; and, if he was drawn into controversy, it was accidentally, and much to his surprise and disappointment. it was not for the sake of defending his own positions that he replied to his critics, but in the name of truth, and from an exacting sense of duty. his gentle, loving, and sympathetic nature unfitted him for intellectual contentions; and he much preferred to devote himself to philanthropies and reforms. in the briefest way the christian disciple reported the doings of the liberal churches and men, but it gave much space to all kinds of organizations of a humanitarian character. it advocated the temperance reform with earnestness, and this at a time when there were few other voices speaking in its behalf. it devoted many pages to the condemnation of slavery, and to the approval of all efforts to secure its mitigation or its abolition. it gave large attention to the evils of war, a subject which more and more absorbed the interest of the editor. it condemned duelling in the most emphatic terms, as it did all forms of aggressiveness and inhumanity. in spirit dr. worcester was as much a non-resistant as tolstoï, and for much the same reasons. more extended reports of bible societies were given than of any other kind of organization, and these societies especially enlisted the interest of dr. worcester and his associates. with the end of dr. worcester withdrew from the editorship of the christian disciple, to devote himself to the cause of peace, the interests of christian amity and goodwill, and the exposition of his own theological convictions. the management of the magazine came into the hands of its original proprietors, who continued its publication. under the new management the circulation of the magazine increased. at first the younger henry ware became the editor, and he carried the work through the six volumes published before it took a new name. it became more distinctly theological in its purpose, and it undertook the task of presenting and defending the views of the liberals. in the christian disciple passed into the hands of rev. john gorham palfrey, and he changed its name to the christian examiner without changing its general character. at the end of two years mr. francis jenks became the editor, but in it came under the control of rev. james walker and rev. francis w.p. greenwood. gradually it became the organ of the higher intellectual life of the unitarians, and gave expression to their interest in literature, general culture, and the philanthropies, as well as theological knowledge. the sub-title of theological review, which it bore during the first five volumes, indicated its preference for subjects of speculative religious interest; but during the half-century of its best influence it was the general review or the religious miscellany, showing that it was theological only in the broadest spirit. [sidenote: dr. morse and american unitarianism.] reluctant as the liberal men were, to take a denominational position, and to commit themselves to the interests of a party in religion, or even to withdraw themselves in any way from the churches with which they had been connected, they were compelled to do so by the force of conditions they could not control. one of the first distinct lines of separation was caused by the refusal of the more conservative men to exchange pulpits with their liberal neighbors. this tendency first began to show itself about the year ; and it received a decided impetus from the attitude taken by rev. john codman, who in became the minister of the second church in dorchester. he refused to exchange with several of the liberal ministers of the boston association, although he was an intimate friend of dr. channing, who had directed his theological training, and also preached his ordination sermon. the more liberal members of his parish attempted to compel him to exchange with the boston ministers without regard to theological beliefs; and a long contention followed, with the result that the more liberal part of his congregation withdrew in , and formed the third religious society in dorchester.[ ] the withdrawal of ministerial courtesies of this kind gradually increased, especially after the controversies that began in , though it was not until many years later that exchanges between the two parties ceased. in dr. jedidiah morse, the editor of the panoplist, and the author of various school books in geography and history, published in a little book of about one hundred pages, which bore the title of american unitarianism, a chapter from thomas belsham's[ ] biography of theophilus lindsey, in which dr. lindsey's american correspondents, including prominent ministers in boston and other parts of new england, had declared their unitarianism. morse also published an article in the panoplist, setting forth that these ministers had not the courage of their convictions, that, while they were unitarians, they had withheld their opinions from open utterance. his object was to force them to declare themselves, and either to retract their heresies or else to state them and to withdraw from the churches with which they had been connected. in a letter addressed to rev. samuel c. thacher, dr. channing gave to the public a reply to these charges of insincerity and want of open-mindedness. he said that, while many of the ministers and members of their congregations were unitarians, they did not accept dr. belsham's type of unitarianism, which made christ a man. he declared that no open declaration of unitarianism had been made, because they were not in love with the sectarian spirit, and because they were quite unwilling to indulge in any form of proselyting. "accustomed as we are," he wrote, "to see genuine piety in all classes of christians, in trinitarians and unitarians, in calvinists and arminians, in episcopalians, methodists, baptists, and congregationalists, and delighting in this character wherever it appears, we are little anxious to bring men over to our peculiar opinions."[ ] the publication of dr. morse's book, however, gave new emphasis to the spirit of separation which was soon to compel the formation of a new denomination. it was followed four years later by dr. channing's baltimore sermon and by other positive declarations of theological opinion.[ ] from that time the controversy raged fiercely, and any possibility of reconciliation was removed. before this time those who were not orthodox had called themselves catholic, christians or liberal christians to designate their attitude of toleration and liberality. the orthodox had called them unitarians; and especially was this attempted by dr. morse in the introduction to his american unitarianism, in order to fasten upon them the objectionable name given to the english liberals. it was assumed that the american liberals must agree with the english in their materialism and in their conception of christ as a man. dr. channing repudiated this assumption, and declared it unjust and untrue; but he accepted the word unitarian and gave it a meaning of his own. channing defined the word to mean only anti-trinitarianism; and he accepted it because it seemed to him presumptuous to use the word liberal as applied to a party, whereas it may be applicable to men of all opinions. [sidenote: evangelical missionary society.] of more interest than these contentions in behalf of theological opinions is the way in which the liberal party brought itself to the task of manifesting its own purposes. its first organizations were tentative and inclusive, without theological purpose or bias. no distinct lines were drawn, and to them belonged orthodox and liberal alike. their sole distinguishing attitude was a catholicity of temper that permitted the free activity of the liberals. one of the first organizations of this kind was the evangelical missionary society, which was formed by several of the ministers resident in worcester and middlesex counties. the first meeting was held in lancaster, november , , when a constitution was adopted and the society elected officers. "the great object of this society," said the constitution, "is to furnish the means of christian knowledge and moral improvement to those inhabitants of our own country who are destitute or poorly provided." the growth of the country, even in new england (for the operations of the society were confined to that region), developed many communities in which the population was scattered, and without adequate means of education and religion. to aid these communities in securing good teachers and ministers was the purpose of the society. it refused to send forth itinerants, but carefully selected such towns as gave promise of permanent growth, and sent to them ministers instructed to organize churches and to promote the building of meeting-houses. in this way it was the means of establishing a number of churches in maine, new hampshire, and massachusetts. it also sent a number of teachers into new settlements in maine, who were successful in training many of their pupils for teaching in the public schools. in several instances minister and teacher were combined in one person, but the work was none the less effective. in this society was incorporated, its membership was broadened to include the state, and active aid and financial support were given it by the churches in boston and salem. it was not sectarian, though, after its incorporation, its membership was more largely recruited from liberals. in time it became distinctly unitarian in its character, and such it has remained to the present day. very slowly, however, did it permit itself to lose any of its marks of catholicity and inclusiveness. in the end its membership was confined to unitarians because no one else wished to share in its unsectarian purposes. at the present time this society does a quiet and helpful work in the way of aiding churches that have ceased to be self-supporting because of the shifting conditions of population, and in affording friendly assistance to ministers in times of distress or when old age has come upon them. [sidenote: the berry street conference.] the first meeting of the liberal ministers for organization was held in the vestry of the federal street church[ ] on the evening of may , , which immediately preceded election day, the time when anniversary meetings were usually held. the ministers of the state then gathered in boston to hear the election sermon, and for such counselling of each other as their congregational methods made desirable. at this meeting dr. channing gave an address stating the objects that had brought those present together, and the desirability of their drawing near each other as liberal men for mutual aid and support. "it was thought by some of us," he said, "that the ministers of this commonwealth who are known to agree in what are called liberal and catholic views of christianity needed a bond of union, a means of intercourse, and an opportunity of conference not as yet enjoyed. it was thought that by meeting to join their prayers and counsels, to report the state and prospects of religion in different parts of the commonwealth, to communicate the methods of advancing it which have been found most successful, to give warning of dangers not generally apprehended, to seek advice in difficulties, and to take a broad survey of our ecclesiastical affairs and of the wants of our churches, much light, strength, comfort, animation, zeal, would be spread through our body. the individuals who originated this plan were agreed that, whilst the meeting should be confined to those who harmonize generally in opinion, it should be considered as having for its object, not simply the advancement of their peculiar views, but the general diffusion of practical religion and of the spirit of christianity." as this address indicates in every word of it the liberal men were sensitively anxious to put no fetters on each other; and their reluctance to circumscribe their own personal freedom was extreme. this was the cause that had thus far prevented any effectual organization, and it now withheld the members from any but the most tentative methods. having escaped from the bondage of sect, they were suspicious of everything that in any manner gave indication of denominational restrictions. [sidenote: the publishing fund society.] in may, , a year later than the foundation of the berry street conference, several gentlemen in boston, "desirous of promoting the circulation of works adapted to improve the public mind in religion and morality," met and established a publishing fund. the publishing committee then appointed consisted of dr. joseph tuckerman, dr. john gorham palfrey, and mr. george ticknor. the publishing fund society refused to print doctrinal tracts or those devoted in any way to sectarian interests. the members of the society made declaration that their publications had nothing to do with any of the isms in religion. their great object was the increase of practical goodness, the improvement of men in all that truly exalts and ennobles them or that qualifies them for usefulness and happiness. most of their tracts were in the form of stories of a didactic character, in which the writers assumed the broad principles of christian theology and ethics which are common to all the followers of christ, without meddling with sectarian prejudice or party views. in such statements as these the promoters of this work indicated their methods, their aim being to furnish good reading to youth, and to those in scattered communities who could not have access to books that were instructive. besides the tracts of this kind the society also published a series for adults, which were of a more strictly devotional character, and yet did not omit to provide entertainment and instruction.[ ] this society continued its work for many years, and it issued a considerable number of tracts and books that well served the purpose for which they were designed. [sidenote: harvard divinity school.] one important result of the theological discussions of the time was the organization of the divinity school in connection with harvard college. the eighteenth-century method of preparation for the ministerial office was to study with some settled pastor, who directed the reading of the student, gave him practical acquaintance with the labors of a pastor, and initiated him into the profession by securing for him the "approbation" of the ministerial association with which he was connected. another method was for the student to continue his residence in cambridge, and follow his theological studies under the guidance of the president and the hollis professor, making use of the library of the college. when rev. henry ware was inducted into the hollis professorship, it was seen that some more systematic method of theological study was desirable. he gradually enlarged the scope of his activities, and in he began a systematic courser of instruction for the resident students in theology. ware "was one of those genuine lovers of reform and progress," as john gorham palfrey said, "who are always ready for any innovation for the better; who, in the pursuit of what is truly good and useful, are not only content to move on with the age, but desirous to move on before it."[ ] this effort of his to improve the methods of theological study proved to be the germ of the existing divinity school. the hollis professorship of divinity was founded by thomas hollis, of london, in . samuel dexter, of boston, established a lectureship of biblical criticism in . both the professorship and the lectureship were designed for the undergraduates, and not primarily for students in theology. in , however, it became apparent to some of the liberals that a school wholly devoted to the preparation of young men for the ministry was needed. those who subscribed to the $ , secured for this purpose were in formed into the society for the promotion of theological education in harvard university. this society rendered efficient aid to the school for several years. at a meeting held at the boston athenaeum, july , , rev. john t. kirkland became its president, rev. francis parkman, recording secretary, rev. charles lowell, corresponding secretary, and jonathan phillips, treasurer. the society was supported by annual subscriptions, life subscriptions, and donations. the school began its work in , with rev. andrews norton as the dexter lecturer on biblical criticism, rev. j.t. kirkland as instructor in systematic theology, rev. edward everett in the criticism of the septaugint, professor sidney willard in hebrew, and professor levi frisbie in ethics. in mr. norton was advanced to a professorship, and thereafter devoted his whole time to the school; and during that year the school was divided into three classes. in the society for the promotion of theological education took the general direction of the school, arranging the course of study and otherwise assuming a supervision, which continued until , when the school received a place as one of the departments of the university. in a building was erected for the school by the society, which has borne the name of divinity hall. in a professorship of pulpit eloquence and pastoral care was established by the society, and in the younger henry ware entered upon its duties.[ ] he was succeeded in by rev. convers francis. in rev. john gorham palfrey became the professor of biblical literature, and soon after the instructor in hebrew. rev. george rapall noyes, in , took the hancock professorship of hebrew and the dexter lectureship in biblical criticism. though organized and conducted by the unitarians, the divinity school was from the first unsectarian in its purpose and methods; for the society for the promotion of theological education, on its organization, put into its constitution this fundamental law: "it being understood that every encouragement be given to the serious, impartial and unbiassed investigation of christian truth, and that no assent to the peculiarities of any denomination, be required either of the students or professors or instructors." [sidenote: the unitarian miscellany.] the first outspoken periodical on the liberal side that aimed at being distinctly denominational was published in baltimore. dr. freeman preached in that city in , with the result that during the following year a church was organized there. it was there in , on the occasion of the ordination of rev. jared sparks as the first minister of this church, that dr. channing gave utterance to the first great declaration of the unitarian position, in a sermon that has never been surpassed in this country as an intellectual interpretation of the highest spiritual problems. in january, , rev. jared sparks began the publication in baltimore of the unitarian miscellany and christian monitor; and for three years he was its editor. for another three years it was conducted by his successor in the baltimore pulpit, rev. francis w.p. greenwood, who continued it until he became the minister of king's chapel, when it ceased to exist. during the six years of its publication this magazine was ably edited. it was controversial in a liberal spirit, it was positively denominational, and it had a large and widely extended circulation. it reported all prominent unitarian events, and those of a liberal tendency in all religious bodies. attacks on unitarianism were repelled, and the unitarian position was explained and vindicated. mr. sparks was as aggressive as andrews norton had been, and was by no means willing to keep to the quiet and reticent manner of the unitarians of boston. when he was attacked, he replied with energy and skill; and he carried the war into the enemies' camp. his magazine was far more positive than anything the liberals had hitherto put forth, and its methods were viewed with something of suspicion in the conservative circles of massachusetts. he published a series of letters on the episcopal church in the unitarian miscellany, which he enlarged and put into a book.[ ] another series of letters was on the comparative moral tendencies of trinitarian and unitarian doctrines, and these grew into a volume.[ ] both were in reply to attacks made upon him, and both were regarded with suspicion and doubt by the men about cambridge; but, in time, they came to see that his method was sincere, learned, and honest. in the unitarian miscellany, as in all their utterances of this time, the unitarians manifested much anxiety to maintain their position as the true expounders of primitive christianity. they did not covet a place outside the larger fellowship of the christian faith. a favorite method of vindicating their right to christian recognition was by the publication of the works of liberal orthodox writers of previous generations. such an attempt was made by jared sparks in his collection of essays and tracts in theology, with biographical and critical notices, issued in boston from to . in the general preface to these six volumes, mr. sparks said that "the only undeviating rule of selection will be that every article chosen shall be marked with rational and liberal views of christianity, and suited to inform the mind or improve the temper and practice," and that the series was "designed to promote the cause of sacred learning, of truth and charity, of religious freedom and rational piety." in the first volume were included turretin's essay on the fundamentals of religious truth, a number of short essays by firmin abauzit, francis blackburne's discussion of the value of confessions of faith, and several essays by bishop hoadley. that these writings have now no significance, even to intelligent readers, does not detract from the value of their publication; for they had a living meaning and power. other writers, drawn upon in the succeeding volumes were isaac newton, jeremy taylor, john locke, isaac watts, william penn, and mrs. barbauld. the catholicity of the editor was shown in the wide range of his authors, whose doctrinal connections covered the whole field of christian theology. in the publication of the unitarian miscellany, mr. sparks had the business aid of the baltimore unitarian book society, formed november , , which was organized to carry on this work, and to disseminate other liberal books and tracts. this society distributed bibles, "and such other books as contain rational and consistent views of christian doctrines, and are calculated to promote a correct faith, sincere piety, and a holy practice." in the year was formed the unitarian library and tract society of new york; and similar societies were started in philadelphia and charleston soon after, as well as in other cities. some of these societies published books, tracts, and periodicals, all of them distributed unitarian publications, and libraries were formed of liberal works. the most successful of these societies, which soon numbered a score or two, was that in baltimore. this society extended its missionary operations with the printed page widely, sending tracts into every part of the country, the demand for them having become very large. its periodical had an extended circulation, its cheapness, its popular character, and its outspoken attitude on doctrinal questions serving to make it the most successful of the liberal publications of the time.[ ] [sidenote: the christian register.] on april , , was issued the first number of the christian register, the regular weekly publication of which began with august of that year. its four pages contained four columns each, but the third of these pages was given to secular news and advertisements. the first page was devoted to general religious subjects, the second discussed those topics which were of special interest to unitarians, while the fourth was given to literary miscellanies. almost nothing of church news was reported, and only in a limited way was the paper denominational. it was a general religious newspaper of a kind that was acceptable to the liberals, and it defended and interpreted their cause when occasion demanded. the paper was started wholly as an individual enterprise by its publisher, rev. david reed, who acted for about five years as its editor. he had the encouragement of the leading unitarians of boston and its vicinity; and, when such men as channing, ware, and norton wished to speak for the unitarians, its columns were open to them. among the other early contributors were kirkland, story, edward everett, walker, dewey, furness, palfrey, gannett, noah worcester, greenwood, bancroft, sparks, alexander young, freeman, burnap, pierpont, noyes, lowell, frothingham, and pierce. in his prospectus the publisher spoke of the growth of the spirit of free religious inquiry in the country; and he said that in all classes of the community there was an eagerness to understand theological questions, and to arrive at and practice the genuine principles of christianity. his ideal was a periodical that should present the same doctrines and temper as the christian disciple, but that would be of a more popular character. "the great object of the christian register," he said to his readers, "will be to inculcate the principles of a rational faith, and to promote the practice of genuine piety. to accomplish this purpose it will aim to excite a spirit of free and independent religious inquiry, and to assist in ascertaining and bringing into use the true principles of interpreting the scriptures." for a number of years the christian register conformed to "the mild and amiable spirit" in which it began its career, rarely being aroused to an aggressive attitude, and seldom undertaking to speak for unitarianism as a distinct form of christianity. when the liberals were fiercely attacked, it spoke out, as, for instance, at the time when the unitarians were charged with stealing churches from the orthodox.[ ] otherwise it was mild and placid enough, given to expressing its friendly interest in every kind of reform, from the education of women to the emancipation of slaves, thoroughly humanitarian in its attitude, not doctrinal or controversial, but faithfully catholic and tolerant. it was a well-conducted periodical, represented a wide range of interests, and was admirably suited to interpret the temper and spirit of a rational religion. it is now the oldest weekly religious newspaper published in this country. as the leading unitarian periodical, it is still conducted with notable enterprise and ability. another periodical also deserves mention in this connection, and that is the north american review, which was begun by william tudor, one of the members of the anthology club, in may, . while it was not religious in its character, it was from the first, and for more than sixty years, edited by unitarians; and its contributors were very largely from that religious body. the same tendencies and conditions that led the liberals to establish the monthly anthology, the christian disciple, and the christian examiner, gave demand amongst them for a distinctly literary and critical journal. they had gained that form of liberated and catholic culture which made such works possible, and to a large extent they afforded the public necessary to their support. mr. tudor was succeeded as the editor of the review by professor edward t. channing, and then followed in succession edward everett, jared sparks, alexander h. everett, john gorham palfrey, francis bowen, and andrew p. peabody, all unitarians. among the early unitarian contributors were nathan hale, joseph story, nathaniel bowditch, w.h. prescott, william cullen bryant, and theophilus parsons. for many years few of the regular contributors were from any other religious body, not because the editors put restrictions upon others, but because those who were interested in general literary, historical, and scientific subjects belonged almost exclusively to the churches of this faith. [sidenote: results of the division in congregationalism.] the controversy which began in continued for about twenty years. the pamphlets and books it brought forth are almost forgotten, and they would have little interest at the present time. they gradually widened the breach between the orthodox and the liberal congregationalists. it would be difficult to name a decisive date for their actual separation. the organization of the societies, and the establishment of the periodicals already mentioned, were successive steps to that result. the most important event was undoubtedly the formation of the american unitarian association, in ; but even that important movement on the part of the unitarians did not bring about a final separation. individual churches and ministers continued to treat each other with the same courtesy and hospitality as before. that the breach was inevitable seems to be the verdict of history; and yet it is not difficult to see to-day how it might have been avoided. the unitarians were dealt with in such a manner that they could not continue the old connection without great discomfort and loss of self-respect. they were forced to organize for self-protection, and yet they did so reluctantly and with much misgiving. they would have preferred to remain as members of the united congregational body, but the theological temper of the time made this impossible. it would not be just to say that there was actual persecution, but there could not be unity where there was not community of thought and faith. when the division in the congregational churches came, one hundred and twenty-five churches allied themselves with the unitarians,--one hundred in massachusetts, a score in other parts of new england, and a half-dozen west of the hudson river. these churches numbered among them, however, many of the oldest and the strongest, including about twenty of the first twenty-five organized in massachusetts, and among them plymouth (organized in scrooby), salem, dorchester, boston, watertown, roxbury, hingham, concord, and quincy. the ten congregational churches in boston, with the exception of the old south, allied themselves with the unitarians. other first churches to take this action were those of portsmouth, kennebunk, and portland. outside new england a beginning was made almost as soon as the unitarian name came into recognition. at charleston, s.c., the congregational church, which had been very liberal, was divided in as the result of the preaching of rev. anthony forster. he was led to read the works of dr. priestley, and became a unitarian in consequence. owing to ill-health, he was soon obliged to resign; and rev. samuel gilman was installed in . rev. robert little, an english unitarian, took up his residence in washington in , and began to preach there; and a church was organized in . while chaplain of the house of representatives, in - , jared sparks preached to this society fortnightly, and in the house chamber on the alternate sunday. when he went to charleston, in , to assist in the installation of mr. gilman, he preached to a very large congregation in the state-house in raleigh; and the next year he spoke to large congregations in virginia.[ ] more than a decade earlier there were individual unitarians in kentucky.[ ] on his journey to the ordination of jared sparks, dr. channing preached in a new york parlor; and on his return he occupied the lecture-hall of the medical school. the result was the first congregational church (all souls'), organized in , which was followed by the church of the messiah in . in fact, many of the more intelligent and thoughtful persons everywhere were inclined to accept a liberal interpretation of christianity. although the congregational body was divided into two distinct denominations, there were three organizations, formed prior to that event, which have remained intact to this day. in these societies orthodox and unitarian continue to unite as congregationalists, and the sectarian lines are not recognized. the first of these organizations is the massachusetts congregational charitable society, which was formed early in the eighteenth century for the purpose of securing "support to the widows and children of deceased congregational ministers." the second is the massachusetts convention of congregational ministers, also formed early in the eighteenth century, although its records begin only with the year . it was formed for consultation, advice, and counsel, to aid orphans and widows of ministers, and to secure the general promotion of the interests of religion. the convention sermon has been one of the recognized institutions of massachusetts, and since the beginning of the unitarian controversy it has been preached alternately by ministers of the two denominations. the society for propagating the gospel among the indians and others in north america was formed in . the members, officers, and missionaries of this society have been of both denominations; and the work accomplished has been carried on in a spirit of amity and good-will. these societies indicate that co-operation may be secured without theological unity, and it is possible that they may become the basis in the future of a closer sympathy and fellowship between the severed congregational churches. [sidenote: final separation of state and church.] from the beginning the liberal movement had been more or less intimately associated with that for the promotion of religious freedom and the separation of state and church. many of the states withdrew religion from state control on the adoption of the federal constitution. in new england this was done in the first years of the century. connecticut came to this result after an exciting agitation in . massachusetts was more tenacious of the old ways; but in its legislative body passed a "religious freedom act," that secured individuals from taxation for the support of churches with which they were not connected. the constitutional convention of proposed a bill of rights that aimed to secure religious freedom, but it was defeated by large majorities. it was only when church property was given by the courts to the parish in preference to the church, and when the "standing order" churches had been repeatedly foiled in their efforts to retain the old prerogatives, that a majority could be secured for religious freedom. in november, , the legislature submitted to the people a revision of the bill of rights, which provided for the separation of state and church, and the voluntary support of churches. a majority was secured for this amendment, and it became the law in . massachusetts was the last of all the states to arrive at this result, and a far greater effort was required to bring it about than elsewhere. the support of the churches was now purely voluntary, the state no longer lending its aid to tax person and property for their maintenance. thus it came about that massachusetts adopted the principle and method of roger williams after two centuries. for the first time she came to the full recognition of her own democratic ideals, and to the practical acceptance of the individualism for which she had contended from the beginning. she had fought stubbornly and zealously for the faith she prized above all other things, but by the logic of events and the greatness of the principle of liberty she was conquered. the minister and the meeting-house were by her so dearly loved that she could not endure the thought of having them shorn of any of their power and influence; but for the sake of their true life she at last found it wise and just to leave all the people free to worship god in their own way, without coercion and without restraint. although the liberal ministers and churches led the way in securing religious freedom, yet they were socially and intellectually conservative. radical changes they would not accept, and they moved away from the old beliefs with great caution. the charge that they were timid was undoubtedly true, though there is no evidence that they attempted to conceal their real beliefs. evangelical enthusiasm was not congenial to them, and they rejected fanaticism in every form. they had a deep, serious, and spiritual faith, that was intellectual without being rationalistic, marked by strong common sense, and vigorous with moral integrity. they permitted a wide latitude of opinion, and yet they were thoroughly christian in their convictions. most of them saw in the miracles of the new testament the only positive evidence of the truth of christianity, which was to them an external and supernatural revelation. they were quite willing to follow andrews norton, however, who was the chief defender of the miraculous, in his free criticism of the old testament and the birth-stories in the gospels. the liberal ministers fostered an intellectual and literary expression of religion, and yet their chief characteristic was their spirituality. they aimed at ethical insight and moral integrity in their influence upon men and women, and at cultivating purity of life and an inward probity. in large degree they developed the spirit of philanthropy and a fine regard for the rights and the welfare of others. they were not sectarian or zealous for bringing others to the acceptance of their own beliefs; but they were generous in behalf of all public interests, faithful to all civic duties, and known for their private generosity and faithful christian living. under the leadership of dr. channing the catholic christians, as they preferred to call themselves, cultivated a spirituality that was devout without being ritualistic, sincere without being fanatical. the churches around them, to a large degree, kept zealously to the externals of religion, and accepted physical evidences of the truthfulness of christianity; but channing sought for what is deeper and more permanent. his preference of rationality to the testimony of miracles, spiritual insight to external evidences, devoutness of life to the rites of the church, characterized him as a great religious leader, and developed for the catholic christians a new type of christianity. whatever channing's limitations as a thinker and a reformer, he was a man of prophetic insight and lofty spiritual vision. in other ages he would have been canonized as a saint or called the beatific doctor; but in boston he was a heretic and a reformer, who sought to lead men into a faith that is ethical, sincere, and humanitarian. he prized christianity for what it is in itself, for its inwardness, its fidelity to human nature, and its ethical integrity. his mind was always open to truth, he was always young for liberty, and his soul dwelt in the serene atmosphere of a pure and lofty faith. [ ] josiah quincy, history of harvard university, i. , chapter xii; christian examiner, vii. ; xxx. . [ ] jedidiah morse, true reasons on which the election of a hollis professor of divinity in harvard college were opposed at the board of overseers. [ ] iii. , march, . [ ] richard eddy, universalism in america, ii. ; oscar f. safford, hosea ballou: a marvellous life story, . [ ] o.b. frothingham, boston unitarianism, . [ ] josiah quincy, history of the boston athenaeum, . "in the year phineas adams, a graduate of harvard college, of the class of , commenced in boston, under the name of _sylvanus per-se_, a periodical work entitled the monthly anthology or magazine of polite literature. he conducted it for six months, but not finding its proceeds sufficient for his support, he abandoned the undertaking. mr. adams, the son of a farmer in lexington, manifested in early boyhood a passion for elegant learning. he adopted literature as a profession; but, after the failure of his attempt as editor of the anthology, he taught school in different places, till, in , he entered the navy as chaplain and teacher of mathematics. here he became distinguished for mathematical science in its relation to nautical affairs. in he accompanied commodore porter in his eventful cruise in the pacific, of which the published journal bears honorable testimony to mr. adams's zeal for promoting geographical and mathematical knowledge. he again joined porter in the expedition for the suppression of piracy in the west indies, and he died on that station in , much respected in the service." [ ] in october, , this society gave up its organization, and the sum of $ , . was given to the american unitarian association for the establishment of a publishing fund. [ ] unitarian biography, i. , memoir by henry ware, jr. [ ] william allen, memoir of john codman, . [ ] thomas belsham, - , was a dissenting english preacher and teacher. in he became a unitarian, and was settled in birmingham. from to his death he preached to the essex street congregation in london. he wrote a popular work on the evidences of christianity, and he translated the epistles of st. paul. he was a vigorous and able writer. [ ] memoir of w.e. channing, by w.h. channing, i. . [ ] among the controversial works printed in boston at this time was yates's vindication of unitarianism, an english book, which was republished in . [ ] the entrance to the vestry of federal street church was on berry street, hence the name given the conference. [ ] christian examiner, i. . [ ] american unitarian biography, life of henry ware, i. . [ ] james walker, christian examiner, x. ; john g. palfrey, christian examiner, xi. ; the divinity school of harvard university: its history, courses of study, aims and advantages. [ ] letters on the ministry, ritual, and doctrines of the protestant episcopal church, addressed to rev. william e. wyatt, d.d., in reply to a sermon, baltimore, . [ ] comparative moral tendency of trinitarian and unitarian doctrines, addressed to rev. samuel miller, boston, . [ ] h.b. adams, life and writings of jared sparks, i. . [ ] dr. george e. ellis, in unitarianism: its origin and history, . the most prominent instance was that of the first church in dedham, and this was decided by legal proceedings. "the question recognized by the court was simply this: whether the claimants had been lawfully appointed deacons of the first church; that is, whether the body which had appointed them was by law the first church. the decision of the court was as follows: 'when the majority of the members of a congregational church separate from the majority of the parish, the members who remain, although a minority, constitute the church in such parish, and retain the rights and property belonging thereto.' this legal decision would have been regarded as a momentous one had it applied only to the single case then in hearing. but it was the establishment of a precedent which would dispose of all cases then to be expected to present themselves in the troubles of the time between parishes and the churches gathered within them. the full purport of this decision was that the law did not recognize a church independently of its connection with the parish in which it was gathered, from which it might sever itself and carry property with it." it was in accordance with the practice in new england for at least a century preceding the decision in the dedham case, and the decision was rendered as the result of this practice. [ ] h.b. adams, life and writings of jared sparks, gives a most interesting account in his earlier chapters of the origin of unitarianism, especially of its beginnings in baltimore and other places outside new england. [ ] james garrard, governor of kentucky from to , was a unitarian. harry toulmin, president of transylvania seminary and secretary of the state of kentucky, was also a unitarian. vi. the american unitarian association. the time had come for the liberals to organize in a more distinctive form, in order that they might secure permanently the results they had already attained. the demand for organization, however, came almost wholly from the younger men, those who had grown up under the influence of the freer life of the liberal churches or who had been trained in the independent spirit of the divinity school at harvard. the older men, for the most part, were bound by the traditions of "the standing order":[ ] they could not bring themselves to desire new conditions and new methods. the spirit of the older and leading laymen and ministers is admirably illustrated in rev. o.b. frothingham's account of his father in his book entitled boston unitarianism. they were interested in many, public-spirited enterprises, and the social circle in which they moved was cultivated and refined; but they were provincial, and little inclined to look beyond the limits of their own immediate interests. dr. nathaniel l. frothingham, minister of the first church in boston, one of the earliest american students of german literature and philosophy, and a man of rational insight and progressive thinking, may be regarded as a representative of the best type of boston minister in the first half of the nineteenth century. in a sermon preached in , on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of his settlement, dr. frothingham said that he had never before used the word "unitarian", in his pulpit, though his church had been for thirty years counted as unitarian. "we have," he said, "made more account of the religious sentiment than of theological opinions." in this attitude he was in harmony with the leading men of his day.[ ] channing, for instance, was opposed to every phase of religious organization that put bonds upon men; and he would accept nothing in the form of a creed. he severely condemned "the guilt of a sectarian spirit," and said that "to bestow our affections on those who are ranged under the same human leader, or who belong to the same church with ourselves, and to withhold it from others who possess equal if not superior virtue, because they bear a different name, is to prefer a party to the church of christ."[ ] in he described unitarianism as being "characterized by nothing more than by the spirit of freedom and individuality. it has no established creed or symbol," he wrote. "its friends think each for himself, and differ much from each other."[ ] later he wrote to a friend: "i distrust sectarian influence more and more. i am more detached from a denomination, and strive to feel more my connection with the universal church, with all good and holy men. i am little of a unitarian, and stand aloof from all but those who strive and pray for clearer light, who look for a purer and more effectual manifestation of christian truth."[ ] many of the unitarians were in fullest sympathy with channing as to the fundamental law of spiritual freedom and as to the evils of sectarianism. a considerable number of them were in agreement with him as to the course pursued by the unitarian movement. having escaped from one sect, they were not ready to commit themselves to the control of another. therefore they withheld themselves from all definitely organized phases of unitarianism, and would give no active support to those who sought to bring the liberals together for purposes of protection and forward movement. under these circumstances it was difficult to secure concert of action or to make successful any definite missionary enterprise, however little of sectarianism it might manifest. even to the present time unitarianism has shown this independence on the part of local churches and this freedom on the part of individuals. because of this attitude, unity of action has been difficult, and denominational loyalty never strong or assured. however, a different spirit animated the younger men, who persisted in their effort to secure an organization that would represent distinctively the unitarian thought and sentiment. the movement towards organization had its origin and impulse in a group of young ministers who had been trained at the harvard divinity school under professor andrews norton. while norton was conservative in theology and opposed to sectarian measures, his teaching was radical, progressive, and stimulating. his students accepted his spirit of intellectual progress, and often advanced beyond his more conservative teachings. in the years between and james walker, john g. palfrey, jared sparks, alexander young, john pierpont, ezra s. gannett, samuel barrett, thomas r. sullivan, samuel j. may, calvin lincoln, and edward b. hall were students in the divinity school; and all of these men were leaders in the movement to organize a unitarian association. pierpont gave the name to the new organization, distinctly defining it as unitarian. gannett, palfrey, and hall served it as presidents; gannett, lincoln, and young, as secretaries. walker, palfrey, and barrett gave it faithful service as directors, and lincoln as its active missionary agent. a number of young laymen in boston and elsewhere, mostly graduates of harvard college, were also interested in the formation of the new organization. among them were charles g. loring, robert rantoul, samuel a. eliot, leverett salstonstall, george b. emerson, and alden bradford. all these young men were afterwards prominent in the affairs of the city or state, and they were faithful to the interests of the unitarian churches with which they were connected. [sidenote: initial meetings.] the first proposition to form a unitarian organization for missionary purposes was made in a meeting of the anonymous association, a club to which belonged thirty or forty of the leading men of boston. they were all connected with unitarian churches, and were actively interested in promoting the growth of a liberal form of christianity. it appears from the journal of david reed, for many years the editor and publisher of the christian register, that the members of this association were in the habit of meeting at each other's houses during the year for the purpose of discussing important subjects connected with religion, morals, and politics. at a meeting held at the house of hon. josiah quincy in the autumn of that year, attention was called to certain articles that had been published in the christian register, and the importance was suggested of promoting the growth of liberal christianity through the distribution of the printed word. a resolution was submitted, inquiring if measures could not be taken for uniting the efforts of liberal-minded persons to give greater efficiency to the attempt to extend a knowledge of unitarian principles by means of the public press; and a committee was appointed to consider and report on the expediency of forming an organization for this purpose. this committee consisted of rev. henry ware, the younger, alden bradford, and richard sullivan. henry ware was the beloved and devoted minister of the second church in boston. his colleagues were older men, both graduates of harvard college and prominent in the social and business life of boston. the purpose which these men had in mind was well defined by dr. gannett, writing twenty years after the event: "we found ourselves," he said, "under the painful necessity of contributing our assistance to the propagation of tenets which we accounted false or of forming an association through which we might address the great truths of religion to our fellow-men without the adulteration of erroneous dogmas. to take one of these courses, or to do nothing in the way of christian beneficence, was the only alternative permitted to us. the name which we adopted has a sectarian sound; but it was chosen to avoid equivocation on the one hand and misapprehension on the other."[ ] the committee, under date of december , , sent out a circular inviting a meeting of all interested, "in order to confer together on the expediency of appointing an annual meeting for the purpose of union, sympathy, and co-operation in the cause of christian truth and christian charity." in this circular will be found the origin of the clause in the present constitution of the unitarian association defining its purposes. in response to this call a meeting was held in the vestry of the federal street church on january , . dr. channing opened the meeting with prayer. richard sullivan was chosen moderator, and james walker secretary. there were present all those who have been hitherto named in connection with this movement, together with many others of the leading laymen and ministers of the liberal churches in new england.[ ] the record of the meeting made by rev. james walker is preserved in the first volume of the correspondence of the unitarian association; and it enables us, in connection with the more confidential reminiscences of david reed, to give a fairly complete record of, what was said and done. henry ware, the younger, in behalf of the committee, presented a statement of the objects proposed by those desirous of organizing a national unitarian society; and he offered a resolution declaring it "desirable and expedient that provision should be made for future meetings of unitarians and liberal christians generally." the adoption of this resolution was moved by stephen higginson; and the discussion was opened by dr. aaron bancroft, the learned and honored minister of the second church in worcester. he was fearful that sufficient care might not be taken as to the manner of instituting the proposed organization, and he doubted its expediency. he was of the opinion that unitarianism was to be propagated slowly and silently, for it had succeeded in his own parish because it had not been openly advocated. he did not wish to oppose the design generally, but he was convinced that it would do more harm than good. dr. bancroft was followed by professor andrews norton, the greatly respected teacher of most of the younger ministers, who defended the proposed organization, and said that its purpose was not to make proselytes. then dr. charming arose, and gave to the proposition of the committee a guarded approval. he thought the object of the convention, as he wished to call it, should be to "spread our views of religion, not our mere opinions, for our religion is essentially practical." the friendly attitude of channing gave added emphasis to the disapproval of the prominent laymen who spoke after him. judge charles jackson, an eminent justice of the supreme court of massachusetts, thought there was danger in the proposed plan, that it was not becoming to liberal christians, that it, was inconsistent with their principles, and that it would not be beneficial to the community. he was ready to give his aid, to any specific work, but he thought that everything could be accomplished that was necessary, without a general-association of any kind. the same opinion was expressed by george bond, a leading merchant of boston, who was afraid that unitarianism would become popular, and that, when it had gamed a majority of the people of the country to its side, it would become as intolerant as the other sects. for this reason he believed the measure inexpedient, and moved an adjournment of the meeting. three of the most widely known and respected of the older ministers also spoke in opposition to the proposition to form an association of liberal christians. these men were typical pastors and preachers, whose parishes were limited only by the town in which they lived, and who preached the gospel without sectarian prejudice or doctrinal qualifications. dr. john pierce, of brookline, thought the measure of the committee "very dangerous," and likely to do much harm in many of the parishes by arousing the sectarian spirit. he spoke three times in the course of the meeting, opposing with his accustomed vehemence all attempt at organization. dr. abiel abbot, of beverly, thought that presenting a distinct object for opposition would arrest the progress of unitarianism, for in his neighborhood liberal christianity owed everything to slow and silent progress. dr. john allyn, of duxbury, one of the most original and learned ministers of his time in new england, was opposed to the use of any sectarian name, especially that of unitarian or liberal. he was willing to join in a general convention, and he desired to have a meeting of delegates from all sects. he expressed the opinion of several leading men who were present at this meeting, who favored an unsectarian organization, that should include all men of liberal opinions, of whatever name or denominational connection. those who were in favor of a unitarian association did not remain silent, and they spoke with clearness and vigor in approval of the proposition of the committee. alden bradford, who became the secretary of state in massachusetts, and wrote several valuable biographical and historical works, thought that unitarians were too timid and did not wisely defend their position. he was followed by andrews norton in a vigorous declaration of the importance of the association, in the course of which he pointed out how inadequately unitarians had protected and fostered the institutions under their care, and declared that closer union was necessary. jared sparks also earnestly favored the project, and said that what was proposed was not a plan of proselyting. it was his opinion that unitarians ought to come forward in support of their views of truth, and that an association was necessary in order to promote sympathy among them throughout the country. colonel joseph may, who had been for thirty years a warden of king's chapel, and a man held in high esteem in boston, referred to the work already accomplished by the zeal and effort of the few unitarians who had worked together to promote liberal interests. the most incisive word spoken, however, came from john pierpont, who was just coming into his fame as an orator and a leader in reforms. "we have," he declared, "and we must have, the name unitarian. it is not for us to shrink from it. organization is necessary in order to maintain it, and organization there must be. the general interests of unitarians will be promoted by using the name, and organizing in harmony with it." in the long discussion at this meeting it appears that, of the ministers, channing, norton, bancroft, ware, pierpont, sparks, edes, nichols, parker, thayer, willard, and harding were in favor of organization; pierce, allyn, abbot, freeman, and bigelow, against it. of the laymen, charles jackson and george bond were vigorously in opposition; and judge story, judge white, judge howe, of northampton, alden bradford, leverett salstonstall, stephen higginson, and joseph may spoke in favor. the result of the meeting was the appointment of a committee, consisting of sullivan, bradford, ware, channing, palfrey, walker, pierpont, and higginson, which was empowered to call together a larger meeting at some time during the session of the general court. but this committee seems never to have acted. at the end of his report of this preliminary meeting james walker wrote: "the meeting proposed was never called. as there appeared to be so much difference of opinion as to the expediency and nature of the measure proposed, it was thought best to let it subside in silence." the zeal of those favorable to organization, however, did not abate; and the discussion went on throughout the winter. on may , , at the meeting of the berry street conference of ministers, henry ware, the younger, who had been chairman of the first committee, renewed the effort, and presented the following statement as a declaration of the purposes of the proposed organization:-- it is proposed to form a new association, to be called the american unitarian society. the chief and ultimate object will be the promotion of pure and undefiled religion by disseminating the knowledge of it where adequate means of religious instruction are not enjoyed. a secondary good which will follow from it is the union of all unitarian christians in this country, so that they would become mutually acquainted, and the concentration of their efforts would increase their efficiency. the society will embrace all unitarian christians in the united states. its operations would extend themselves through the whole country. these operations would chiefly consist in the publication and distribution of tracts, and the support of missionaries. it was announced that in the afternoon a meeting would be held for the further consideration of the subject. this meeting was held at four o'clock, and dr. henry ware acted as moderator. the opponents of organization probably absented themselves, for action was promptly taken, and it was "_voted_, that it is expedient to form a new society to be called the american unitarian association." all who were present expressed themselves as in favor of this action. rev. james walker, mr. lewis tappan, and rev. ezra s. gannett were appointed a committee to draft a form of organization. on the next morning, thursday, may , , this committee reported to a meeting, of which dr. nathaniel thayer, of lancaster, was moderator; and, with one or two amendments, the constitution prepared by the committee was adopted. this constitution, with slight modifications, is still in force. the object of the association was declared to be "to diffuse the knowledge and promote the interests of pure christianity." a committee to nominate officers selected dr. channing for president; joseph story, of salem, joseph lyman, of northampton, stephen longfellow, of portland, charles h. atherton, of amherst, n.h., henry wheaton, of new york, james taylor, of philadelphia, henry payson, of baltimore, william cranch, of alexandria, martin l. hurlbut, of charleston, as vice-presidents; ezra s. gannett, of boston, for secretary; lewis tappan, of boston, for treasurer; and andrews norton, jared sparks, and james walker, for executive committee. when mr. gannett wrote to his colleague, dr. channing, to notify him of his election as president, there came a letter declining the proffered office. "i was a little disappointed," channing wrote, "at learning that the unitarian association is to commence operations immediately. i conversed with mr. norton on the subject before leaving boston, and found him so indisposed to engage in it that i imagined that it would be let alone for the present. the office which in your kindness you have assigned to me i must beg to decline. as you have made a beginning, i truly rejoice in your success." norton and sparks also declined to serve as directors, ill-health and previous engagements being assigned by them for their inability to act with the other officers elected. the executive committee proceeded to fill these vacancies by the election of dr. aaron bancroft, of worcester, as president, and of the younger henry ware and samuel barrett to the executive committee; and the board of directors thus constituted administered the association during its first year. in the selection of dr. bancroft as the head of the new association a wise choice was made, for he had the executive and organizing ability that was eminently desirable at this juncture. he was an able preacher, and one of the strongest thinkers in the unitarian body. his biography of washington had made him widely known; and his volume of controversial sermons, published in , had received the enthusiastic praise of john adams and thomas jefferson. when he was settled, he was almost an outcast in worcester county because of his liberalism; but such were the strength of his character and the power of his thought that gradually he secured a wide hearing, and became the most popular preacher in central massachusetts. after fifty years of his ministry he could count twenty-one vigorous unitarian societies about him, all of which had profited by his influence.[ ] although he was seventy years of age at the time he accepted the presidency of the unitarian association, he was in the full enjoyment of his powers; and he filled the office for ten years, giving it and the cause which the association represented the impetus and weight of his sound judgment and deserved reputation. the executive work of the association fell to the charge of the secretary, ezra s. gannett, who had been one of the most enthusiastic advocates of the new organization. gannett was but twenty-four years old, and had been but one year in the active ministry, as the colleague of dr. channing. he had youth, zeal, and executive force. writing of him after his death, dr. bellows said: "he had rare administrative qualities and a statesmanlike mind. he would have been a leader anywhere. he had the ambition, the faculties, and the impulsive temperament of an actor in affairs. he had the fervor, the concentration of will, the passionate enthusiasm of conviction, the love of martyrdom, which make men great in action."[ ] throughout his life gannett labored assiduously for the association, serving it in every capacity refusing no drudgery, travelling over the country in its interests, and giving himself, heart and soul, to the cause it represented. the unitarian cause never had a more devoted friend or one who made greater sacrifices in its behalf. to him more than to any other man it owes its organized life and its missionary serviceableness. lewis tappan, the treasurer, was a successful young business man. his term of service was brief; for two years after the organization of the association he removed to new york, where he had an honorable career as one of the founders of the journal of commerce, and as the head of the first mercantile agency established in the country. he was later one of the anti-slavery leaders in new york, and an active and earnest member of plymouth church in brooklyn.[ ] the executive committee was composed of the three devoted young ministers who had been foremost in organizing the association. barrett was thirty, ware and walker were thirty-one years of age; and all three had been in harvard college and the divinity school together. samuel barrett had just been chosen minister of the newly formed twelfth congregational church of boston, which he served throughout his life. he was identified with all good causes in eastern massachusetts, a founder of the benevolent fraternity, and an overseer of harvard college. henry ware, the younger, was, at the time of his election, the minister of the second church in boston. five years later he became professor in the harvard divinity school, and his memory is still cherished as the teacher and exemplar of a generation of unitarian ministers. james walker was, in , the minister of the harvard church in charlestown, and already gave evidence of the sanity and catholicity of mind, the practical organizing power, the wide philosophic culture, and the dignity of character which afterward distinguished him as professor in harvard college, and as its president. thus the organization started on its way, as the result of the determined purpose of a small company of the younger ministers and laymen. it took a name that separated it from all other religious organizations in this country, so far as its members then knew. the unitarian name had been first definitely used in this country in , to describe the liberal or catholic christians. they at first scornfully rejected it, but many of them had finally come to rejoice in its declaration of the simple unity of god. as a matter of history, it may be said that the word "unitarian" was used in this doctrinal sense only; and it had none of the implications since given it by philosophy and science. those who used it meant thereby to say that they accepted the doctrine of the absolute unity of god, and that the position of christ was a subordinate though a very exalted one. no one can read their statements with historic apprehension, and arrive at any other conclusion. yet these persons had no wish to cut themselves off from historic christianity; rather was it their intent to restore it to its primitive purity. [sidenote: work of the first year.] if others were disinclined to action, the executive committee of the unitarian association was determined that something should be done. at their first, meeting, held in the secretary's study four days after their election, there were present norton, walker, tappan, and gannett. they commissioned rev. warren burton to act as their agent in visiting neighboring towns to solicit funds, and a week later they voted to employ him as a general agent. the committee held six meetings during june; and at one of these an address was adopted, defining the purposes and methods of the association. "they wish it to be understood," was their statement, "that its efforts will be directed to the promotion of true religion throughout our country; intending by this, not exclusively those views which distinguish the friends of this association from other disciples of christ; but those views in connection with the great doctrines and principles in which all christians coincide, and which constitute the substance of our religion. we wish to diffuse the knowledge and influence of the gospel of our lord and saviour. great good is anticipated from the co-operation of persons entertaining similar views, who are now strangers to each other's religious sentiments. interest will be awakened, confidence inspired, efficiency produced by the concentration of labors. the spirit of inquiry will be fostered, and individuals at a distance will know where to apply for information and encouragement. respectability and strength will be given to the class among us whom our fellow christians have excluded from the control of their religious charities, and whom, by their exclusive treatment, they have compelled in some measure to act as a party." the objects of the association were stated to be the collection of information about unitarianism in various parts of the country; the securing of union, sympathy, and co-operation among liberal christians; the publishing and distribution of books inculcating correct views of religion; the employment of missionaries, and the adoption of other measures that might promote the general purposes held in view. at the end of the year the association held its first anniversary meeting in pantheon hall, on the evening of june , , when addresses were made by hon. joseph story, hon. leverett salstonstall, rev. ichabod nichols, and rev. henry coleman. the executive committee presented its report, which gave a detailed account of the operations during the year. they gave special attention to their discovery of "a body of christians in the western states who have for years been unitarians, have encountered persecution on account of their faith, and have lived in ignorance of others east of the mountains who maintained many similar views of christian doctrine." with this group of churches, which would consent to no other name than that of christian, a correspondence had been opened; and, to secure a larger acquaintance with them, rev. moses g. thomas[ ] had visited several of the western states. his tour carried him through pennsylvania, ohio, kentucky, indiana, illinois, and as far as st. louis. his account of his journey was published in connection with the second report of the association, and is full of interest. he did not preach, but he carefully investigated the religious prospects of the states he journeyed through; and he sought the acquaintance of the christian churches and ministers. he gave an enthusiastic account of his travels, and reported that the west was a promising field for the planting of unitarian churches. he recommended northumberland, harrisburg, pittsburg, steubenville, marietta, paris, lexington, louisville, st. louis, st. charles, indianapolis, and cincinnati as promising places for the labors of unitarian missionaries,--places "which will properly appreciate their talents and render them doubly useful in their day and generation." during the first year of its existence the unitarian association endeavored to unite with itself, or to secure the co-operation of, the society for the promotion of christian knowledge, piety, and charity, the evangelical missionary society, and the publishing fund society; but these organizations were unwilling to come into close affiliation with it. the evangelical missionary society has continued its separate existence to the present time, but the others were absorbed by the unitarian association after many years. this is one indication of how difficult it was to secure an active co-operation among unitarians, and to bring them all into one vigorous working body. in concluding their first report, the officers of the association alluded to the difficulties with which they had met the reluctance of the liberal churches to come into close affiliation with each other. "they have strenuously opposed the opinion," they said of the leaders of the association, "that the object of the founders was to build up a party, to organize an opposition, to perpetuate pride and bigotry. had they believed that such was its purpose or such would be its effect, they would have withdrawn themselves from any connection with so hateful a thing. they thought otherwise, and experience has proved they did not judge wrongly." [sidenote: work of the first quarter of a century.] having thus organized itself and begun its work, the association went quietly on its way. at no time during the first quarter of a century of its existence did it secure annual contributions from one-half the churches calling themselves unitarian, and it did well when even one-third of them contributed to its treasury during any one year. the churches of boston, for the most part, held aloof from it, and gave it only a feeble support, if any at all. they had so long accepted the spirit of congregational exclusiveness, had so great a dread of interference on the part of ecclesiastical organizations, and so keenly suspected every attempt at co-operation on the part of the churches as likely to lead to restrictions upon congregational independence, that it was nearly impossible to secure their aid for any kind of common work. very slowly the contributions increased to the sum of $ , a year, and only once in the first quarter of a century did the total receipts of a year reach $ , . with so small a treasury no great work could be undertaken; but the money given was husbanded to the utmost, and the salaries paid to clerks and the general secretary were kept to the lowest possible limit. dr. bancroft was succeeded in the presidency of the association, in , by dr. channing, who nominally held the position for one year; but at the next annual meeting he declined to have his name presented as a candidate.[ ] the office was then filled by dr. ichabod nichols, of portland, who served from to . he was the minister of the first church in portland from to , and then retired to cambridge, where he wrote his natural theology and his hours with the evangelists. joseph story, the great jurist, who had been vice-president of the association from to , was elected president in , and served for one year. he was followed by dr. orville dewey, who was president from to . he had been settled in new bedford, and over the church of the messiah in new york; and subsequently he had short pastorates in albany, in washington, and over the new south church in boston. his lectures and his sermons have made him widely known. in intellectual and emotional power he was one of the greatest preachers the country has produced. dr. gannett served as the president from to , being succeeded by dr. samuel k. lothop, who continued to hold the office until . dr. lothrop was first settled in dover, n.h., but became the minister of the brattle street church, boston, in , retaining that position until . the office of secretary was held by rev. ezra s, gannett until . he was succeeded in that year by rev. alexander young, who held the position for two years. dr. young was the minister of the new south church from until his death, in . his chronicles of the pilgrim fathers, and other works, have given him a reputation as a historian. in the office of foreign secretary was created; and it was held by the younger henry ware from to , when it ceased to exist. rev. samuel barnett was secretary in and , and recording secretary until . in the office of general secretary was established, in order to secure the services of an active missionary. rev. jason whitman, who held this position for one year, had been the minister in saco; and he was afterward settled in portland and lexington. rev. charles briggs became the general secretary in , and continued in office until the end of . he had been settled in lexington, but did not hold a pastorate subsequent to his connection with the association. in the mean time rev. samuel k. lothrop was the assistant or recording secretary from to . in rev. william g. eliot was elected the general secretary; but he did not serve, owing to the claims of his parish in st. louis. rev. frederick west holland, who had been settled in rochester, was made the general secretary in january, ; and he held the position until the annual meeting of . subsequently he was settled in east cambridge, neponset, north cambridge, rochester, and newburg. it was charles briggs who first gave definite purpose to the missionary work of the association. the annual report of said of him that he "had led the institution forward to high ground as a missionary body, by unfailing patience prevailed over every discouragement, by inexhaustible hope surmounted serious obstacles, by the most persuasive gentleness conciliated opposition, and done perhaps as much as could be asked of sound judgment, knowledge of mankind, and devotion to the cause, with the drawback of a slender and failing frame." in rev. george g. channing entered upon a service as the travelling agent of the association, which he continued for two years. his duties required him to take an active interest in missionary enterprises, revive drooping churches, secure information as to the founding of new churches, and to add to the income of the association. he was a brother of dr. channing, held one or two pastorates, and was the founder and editor of the christian world, which he published in boston as a weekly unitarian paper from january, , to the end of . at a meeting of the unitarian association held on june , , the final steps were taken that secured its incorporation under the laws of massachusetts. in the revised constitution the fifteen vice-presidents were reduced to two, and the president and vice-presidents were made members of the executive committee, and so brought into intimate connection with the work of the association. the directors and other officers were made an executive committee, by which all affairs of moment must be considered; and it was required to hold stated monthly meetings. these changes were conducive to an enlarged interest in the work of the association, and also to the more thorough consideration of its activities on the part of a considerable body of judicious and experienced officers. they were made in recognition of the increasing missionary labors of the association, and enabled it thenceforth to hold and to manage legally the moneys that came under its control. [sidenote: publication of tracts and books.] one of the first subjects to which the association gave attention was the publication of tracts, six of which were issued during the first year. in connection with their publication a series of depositaries was established for their sale. david reed of the christian register became the general agent, while there were ten county depositaries in massachusetts, four in new hampshire, three in maine, and one each in connecticut, new york city, philadelphia, charleston, and washington.[ ] for a number of years the tracts were devoted to doctrinal subjects. several of channing's ablest sermons and addresses were first printed in this form. among the other contributors to the first series were the three wares, orville dewey, joseph tuckerman, james walker, george ripley, samuel j. may, john g. palfrey, ezra s. gannett, samuel gilman, george r. noyes, william g. eliot, andrew p. peabody, f.a. farley, james freeman clarke, s.g. bulfinch, george putnam, joseph allen, frederic h. hedge, edward b. hall, george e. ellis, thomas b. fox, charles t. brooks, j.h. morison, henry w. bellows, william h. furness, john cordner, chandler robbins, augustus woodbury, and william r. alger. ten or twelve tracts were issued yearly, those of the year having a consecutive page numbering, so that, in fact, they appeared in the form of a monthly periodical, each tract bearing the date of its publication, and being sent regularly to all subscribers to the association. in all, three hundred tracts appeared in this form in the first series, making twenty-six volumes. for nearly half a century none of the tracts of the association were published for free distribution. they were issued at prices ranging from two to ten cents each, according to the size, some of them having not more than ten or twelve pages, while others had more than a hundred. so long as there was an eagerness for theological reading, and an earnest intellectual interest in the questions which divided the several religious bodies of the country from each other, it was not difficult to sell editions of from , to , copies of all the tracts published by the association. from the first, however, there were many calls for tracts for free distribution. to meet this demand, there was formed in boston, by a number of young men during the year , the unitarian book and pamphlet society, for "the gratuitous distribution of unitarian publications of an approved character." it undertook especially to distribute "such publications as shall be issued by the american unitarian association or recommended by it." this society also circulated tracts printed by the christian register and the christian world, the call for such publications having led the publishers of these periodicals to give their aid in meeting the demand for pamphlets on theological problems and on practical religious duties. the society also distributed bibles to the poor of the city and in more distant country places, furnishing them to missionaries and others who would undertake work of this kind. in the same manner they gave away large numbers of books, their list for including scougal's life of god in the soul of man, ware's formation of the christian character, and works by worcester, channing whitman, and greenwood. the call for aid was considerable from the western and southern states; and books were sent to havana, new brunswick, and the sandwich islands. in the winter of - this society was reorganized, an urgent appeal was made to the churches for an increase of funds, and during the next few years its work was large and important. in the year was begun a special effort for the circulation of unitarian books, on the part of the book and pamphlet society, the society for promoting christian knowledge, piety, and charity, as well as by the unitarian association. in that year the second of these organizations sent out circulars to colleges and theological schools, offering to give unitarian books, to those desiring to receive them; and to of these institutions assortments of books worth from two dollars to one hundred dollars were forwarded. the first request came from the catholic college at worcester, and the last from the wisconsin university at madison. at the same time the association was pressing the sale and free distribution of the works and the memoir of dr. charming, as well as various books by peabody, livermore, bartol, and others. the association began to make use of colporters about the year . the next year it had two young ministers engaged in this work, and by this kind of missionary labor had increased to considerable proportions. especially in the west was much use made of the colporter, and in this way in many of the states the works of channing were sold in large numbers. by these agents, tracts were given away with a free hand, and books were given to ministers and those who especially needed them. the western ministers, almost without exception, served as colporters, selling books and distributing them as important helps to their missionary labors. in many communities zealous laymen took part in this kind of service, and the several depositaries of books and tracts were used as centres from which colporters and others could draw their supplies. as early as a general depositary had been established in cincinnati, and in one was opened in chicago. the association could not have undertaken any work that would have brought in a larger or more immediate return in the way of religious education and spiritual growth than this of the publication of tracts and books. previous to a doctrinal sermon was rarely preached in a unitarian church, and the tracts were the most important means of giving to the members of established churches a knowledge of unitarian theology. by the same means many other persons were made acquainted with the unitarian beliefs, and the result was to be seen in the formation of churches where tracts and books had been largely distributed.[ ] [sidenote: domestic missions.] the work of domestic missions from the first largely claimed the attention of the association, and it was one the chief objects in its formation. during the summer of the members of the harvard divinity school were sent throughout new england to gather information, and to preach where opportunity offered. the special object was to make ministers and congregations acquainted with the purposes of the association. it was found that there was much opposition to it, and that in many parishes there existed no desire to have its mission extended. persons of all shades of belief were connected with many of the liberal parishes, some of the churches not having as yet ceased their relations with the towns in which they were located; and the ministers were not willing to have theological questions brought to the attention of their congregations. "the great objection everywhere seems to be," reported one of the young men, who had travelled through many of the towns of central massachusetts, "that the clergymen do not like to awaken party spirit. people will go on quietly performing all external duties of religion without asking themselves if they are listening to the doctrine of the trinity or not; but the moment you wish to act, they call up all their old prejudices, and take a very firm stand. this necessarily creates division and dissension, and renders the situation of the minister very uncomfortable."[ ] the ministers did not preach on theological subjects; and, while they were liberal themselves, they had not instructed their parishioners in such a manner that they followed in the same path of thinking which their leaders had travelled. it was evident, therefore, that there was work enough in new england for the association to accomplish, and such as would fully tax its resources.[ ] it had turned its eyes toward the west and south, however; and it was not willing to leave these fields unoccupied. in the general secretary, charles briggs, spent eight months in these regions; and he found everywhere large opportunities for the spread of unitarianism. promising openings were found at erie, cleveland, toledo, detroit, marietta, tremont, jacksonville, memphis, and nashville, in which villages or cities churches were soon after formed. it was reported at this time that there was hardly a town in the west where there were not unitarians, or in which it was not possible by the right kind of effort to establish a unitarian church. as a result of the interest awakened by the tour of the general secretary, fourteen missionaries were put into the field in . in twenty-three missionaries visited eleven states, including new york, pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, illinois, missouri, kentucky alabama, and georgia.[ ] they were men of experience in parish labors, but they did not go out to the new country to remain there permanently. they attracted large congregations, however, formed several societies which promised to be permanent, administered the ordinances, established sunday-schools, and did much to strengthen the churches. in seven preachers were sent into the west, and at the next anniversary there was an urgent call made by the association for funds with which to establish a permanent missionary agent in the field. something more was needed than a few massachusetts ministers preaching from town to town with no purpose of locating with any of the churches they helped to organize. ministers for the new churches were urgently demanded, but few men from new england were willing to remove to the west; and, though recruits came from the orthodox churches, this source of supply was not sufficient. the repeated calls made for larger resources with which to carry on the work of domestic missions resulted in meetings held in boston during the year , at which pledges were made to a fund of $ , yearly for five years, to be used for missionary purposes. this sum was secured in and the next four years, so that larger aid was given to missionary activities and to the building of churches. at the annual meeting of special attention was given to the subject of domestic missions, and plans were devised for largely extending all the activities in this direction. much interest was taken in the western work during the following years, and slowly new churches came into existence. in rev. edward p. bond was sent to san francisco, where a number of new england people had held lay services and formed a church, and in a few years a strong society had grown up in that city. mr. bond also went to the sandwich islands; but he was not able to open a mission there, owing to ill-health. in the south the work languished, largely owing to the growth of anti-slavery sentiment in the north, with which unitarians were generally in sympathy. from to the unitarians were confronted by the greatest opportunity which has ever opened to them for missionary activities. the vast region of the middle west was in a formative state, the people were everywhere receptive to liberal influences, other churches had not been firmly established, and there was urgent demand for leadership of a progressive and rational kind. here has come to be the controlling centre of american life,--in politics, education, and social power. a few of the leaders saw the opportunity, but the churches were not ready to respond to their appeals. the work accomplished by the association during the first twenty-five or thirty years of its existence, the period reviewed in this chapter, was small, compared with the opportunity and with the wishes of those who most had at heart the interests for the promotion of which it was established. yet there was wanting in no year encouragement for its friends or something accomplished that cheered them to larger efforts. in , at the twenty-fifth anniversary, historical addresses were delivered by samuel osgood, john g. palfrey, henry w. bellows, edward e. hale, and lant carpenter; and a hopeful review of the labors of the association was presented by the executive committee. first of all its efforts had been directed to securing religious liberty. then came its philanthropic enterprises, and finally its missionary labors. during the quarter of a century one hundred churches that were weak and struggling, owing to their situation in towns of decreasing population or in cities not congenial to their teachings, had been aided. more than fifty vigorous churches had been planted in the west and south, nearly all of them helped in some way by the association. there was a renewed call for strong men to enter the missionary field, and it was uttered more urgently at this time than ever before. special pride was expressed in the high quality of the religious writings produced by unitarians, and in the nobleness the men and women who had been connected with denominational activities.[ ] [ ] an eighteenth-century term for the congregational churches, which were the legally established churches throughout new england, an supported by the towns. [ ] boston unitarianism, . [ ] memoir of dr. channing, one-volume edition, . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] memoir of ezra stiles gannett, by w.c. gannett, . [ ] the records give the following names: drs. freeman, channing, lowell, tuckerman, bancroft, pierce, and allyn; rev. messrs. henry ware, francis parkman, j.g. palfrey, jared sparks, samuel ripley, a. bigelow, a. abbot, c. francis, l. capen, j. pierpont, james walker, mr. harding, and mr. edes; and the following laymen,--richard sullivan, stephen higginson, b. gould, h.j. oliver, s. dorr, colonel joseph may, c.g. loring, george bond, samuel a. eliot, g.b. emerson, c.p. phelps, lewis tappan, david reed, mr. storer, j. rucker, n. mitchell, robert rantoul, alden bradford, mr. dwight, mr. mackintosh, general walker, mr. strong, dr. john ware, and professor andrews norton. [ ] john brazer, the christian examiner, xx. ; alonzo hill, american unitarian biography, i. . [ ] the liberal christian, march , . [ ] although lewis tappan took a zealous interest in the formation of the unitarian association, as he did in all unitarian activities of the time, in the autumn of he withdrew from the unitarian fellowship, and joined the orthodox congregationalist. in a letter addressed to a unitarian minister he explained his reasons for so doing. this letter circulated for some time in manuscript, and in was printed in a pamphlet with the title, letter from a gentleman in boston to a unitarian clergyman of that city. want of piety among unitarians, failure to sustain missionary enterprises, and the absence of a rigid business integrity he assigned as reasons for his withdrawal. this pamphlet excited much discussion, pro and con; and it was answered in a caustic review by j.p. blanchard. [ ] moses george thomas was a graduate of brown and of the harvard divinity school, was settled in dover, n.h., from to , broadway church in south boston from to , new bedford to , and was subsequently minister at large in the same city. [ ] in writing to charles briggs from newport, under date of july , dr. channing wrote, "in the pressure of subjects, when i saw you, i forgot to say to you, that i cannot accept the office with which the unitarian association honored me." that is the whole of what he wrote on the subject. no one else was elected to the office for year. it is evident, therefore, that his name should occupy the place of president. [ ] the depositaries in massachusetts were at salem, concord, hingham, plymouth, yarmouth, cambridge, worcester, northampton, springfield, and greenfield; in new hampshire, at concord, portsmouth, keene, and amherst; in maine, at hallowell, brunswick, and eastport; and, in connecticut, at brooklyn. in the number had increased to twenty-five in massachusetts, six in maine, seven in new hampshire, one in rhode island, four in new york, two in pennsylvania, and two in maryland. at the first annual meeting of the unitarian association a system of auxiliaries was recommended, which was inaugurated the next year. it was proposed to organize an auxiliary to the association in every parish, and also in each county. these societies came rapidly into existence, were of much help to the association in raising money and in distributing its tracts, and energetic efforts were made on the part of the officers of the association to extend their number and influence. they continued in existence for about twenty years, and gradually disappeared. they numbered about one hundred and fifty when most prosperous. [ ] during the first twenty-five years of the association, tracts of the first series were issued, and also miscellaneous tracts and reports. the number of copies published was estimated as , , , making an average of , each year. of these tracts, were practical, and doctrinal; and, of the doctrinal, one-half were on the divine unity, one-sixth on the atonement, ten on regeneration, five on the ordinances, four on human nature, three on retribution, and two on the holy spirit. in the monthly journal, may, , vol. i. pp. - , were given the titles and authors. [ ] from a letter of samuel k. lothrop, afterward minister of the brattle street church. [ ] the following letter is of interest, not only because of the name of the writer, but because it gives a very good idea of the work done by the first missionaries of the association. it is dated at northampton, mass., october , . "my dear sir,--i designed when i left you to send some earlier notice of my doings than this; but as it has not been in my power to say much, i have said nothing. mr. hall is preparing an account of his own missions, but thinks it not worth while to send it to you till it is completed. the first sabbath after my arrival i preached here. the second, for the convenience of the greenfield people, an exchange was made, and i went to deerfield, and dr. willard went to colrain. there were some unfavorable circumstances which operated to diminish the audience, but they were glad to see and hear him. the fourth sabbath (which followed the meeting of the franklin association) i preached at greenfield, and mr. bailey went to colrain. i enclose his journal. the fifth sabbath at deerfield, and dr. willard at adams in berkshire. i have not seen him since his return. i have told the franklin association i would remain here till november, and in consequence have been thus put to and fro, but expect to preach the three coming sundays in northampton. i have offered my services to preach lectures in the week, but circumstances have made it inexpedient in towns where it was proposed. the clergymen are very glad to see me, having feared that the mission was indefinitely postponed. they find the better sort of people in most of the towns inquisitive and favorably disposed to views of liberal christianity. it is a singular fact, of which i hear frequent mention made, that in elections unitarians are almost universally preferred when the suffrage is by ballot, and rejected when given by hand ballot. in franklin county it is thought there is a majority of unitarians. i have been much disappointed in being obliged to lead a vagrant life, as you know i came hither with different expectations, and hoped for leisure and retirement for study, which i needed much. but it would not do for a missionary to be stiff necked, and so i have been a shuttle. i have promised to go to new bedford the first three sundays of november. with great regard, your servant, r. waldo emerson." from this letter it will be seen that emerson supplied the pulpits at northampton and greenfield in order that the ministers in those towns might preach elsewhere. [ ] fourteenth annual report, . "they were the following: rev. george ripley, boston; rev. a.b. muzzey, cambridgeport; rev. samuel barrett, boston; rev. mr. green, east cambridge; rev. calvin lincoln, fitchburg; rev. e.b. willson, westford; dr. james kendall, plymouth; rev. george w. hosmer, buffalo; rev. warren burton, dr. thompson, salem; rev. j.p.b. storer, syracuse; rev. charles babbidge, pepperell; rev. john m. myrick, walpole; rev. j.d. swett, boston; rev. a.d. jones, brighton; rev. henry emmons, meadville; rev. j.f. clarke, louisville; rev. f.d. huntington, rev. b.f. barrett, rev. g.f. simmons, rev. c. nightingale, mr. wilson, of the divinity school; and mr. c.p. cranch. among the places where they preached are houlton me.; syracuse, lockport, lewiston, pekin, and vernon, n.y.; philadelphia and erie, pa.; marietta, zanesville, cleveland, and toledo, ohio; detroit, mich.; owensburg, ky.; chicago, peoria, tremont, jacksonville, hillsboro, and several other places in illinois." [ ] for a most interesting account of the growth of the denomination, see the christian examiner for may, , lvi. , article by john parkman. vii. the period of radicalism. before the controversy with the orthodox had come to its end, a somewhat similar conflict of opinions arose within the unitarian ranks. the same influences that had led the unitarians away from the orthodox were now causing the more radical unitarians to advance beyond their more conservative neighbors. english philosophy had given direction to the unitarian movement in america; and now german philosophy was helping to develop what has been designated as transcendentalism, which largely found expression within the unitarian body. beginning with , the more liberal unitarians were increasingly active. hedge's[ ] club held its meetings, the dial was published, brook farm lived its brief day of a reformed humanity, parker began his preaching in boston, emerson was lecturing and publishing, and the more radical younger unitarian preachers were bravely speaking for a religion natural to man and authenticated by the inner witness of the truth. the agitation thus started went on its way with many varying manifestations, and with a growing incisiveness of statement and earnestness of feeling. the new teachings gained the interest and the faith of the young in increasing numbers. in pulpits and on the platform, in newspapers and magazines, in essays and addresses, this new teaching was uttered for the world's hearing. the breeze thus created seems to have grown into a gale, but the christian register and the christian examiner gave almost no indication that it had blown their way. in the official actions and in the publications of the unitarian association there was no word indicating that the discussion had come to its knowledge. all at once, however, in , it came into the greatest prominence, as the result of action taken by the unitarian association; and, thenceforth, for a quarter of a century it was never absent as a disturbing element in the intellectual and religious life of the unitarian body. the early unitarians were believers in the supernatural and in the miracles of the new testament. they accepted without question the ideas on this subject that had been entertained by all protestants from the days of luther and calvin. when theodore parker and the transcendentalists began to question the miraculous foundations of christianity, many unitarians were quite unprepared to accept their theories. they believed that the miracles of the new testament afford the only evidence for the truthfulness of christianity. this issue was distinctly stated in the twenty-eighth annual report of the unitarian association for , wherein an attempt was made to defend the unitarian body against the charge of infidelity and rationalism made by the orthodox. the teachings of the transcendentalists and radicals had been attributed to all unitarians, and the leaders of the association felt that it was time to define explicitly the position they occupied. therefore they said, in the report of that year:--"we desire, in a denominational capacity, to assert our profound belief in the divine origin, the divine authority, the divine sanctions, of the religion of jesus christ. this is the basis of our associated action. we desire openly to declare our belief as a denomination, so far as it can be officially represented by the american unitarian association, that god, moved by his own love, did raise up jesus to aid in our redemption from sin, did by him pour a fresh flood of purifying life through the withered veins of humanity and along the corrupted channels of the world, and is, by his religion, forever sweeping the nations with regenerating gales from heaven, and visiting the hearts of men with celestial solicitations. we receive the teachings of christ, separated from all foreign admixtures and later accretions, as infallible truth from god."[ ] at the same meeting a resolution was adopted, "without a dissenting voice," which declared that "the divine authority of the gospel, as founded on a special and miraculous interposition of god, is the basis of the action of the association."[ ] as these statements indicate, the majority of unitarians were very conservative at this time in their theological position and methods. they were nearly as hesitating and reticent in their beliefs as unitarians as they had been while connected with the older congregational body. the reason for this was the same in the later as in the earlier period, that a predominant social conservatism held them aloof from all that was intellectually aggressive and theologically rationalistic. they had outgrown tritheism, as it had been taught for generations in new england; they had refused to accept the fatalism that had been taught in the name of calvin, and they had rejected the ecclesiastical tyrannies that had been imposed on men by the new england theology. but they had advanced only a little way in accepting modern thought as a basis of faith, and in seeking a rational interpretation of the relations of god and man. their belief in a superhuman christ was theoretically weaker, but practically stronger, than that of the churches from which they had withdrawn; while the grounds of that belief were in the one instance the same as in the other. [sidenote: depression in denominational activities.] the activities of the unitarian association were largely interfered with by these differences of opinion. the more conservative churches were unwilling to contribute to its treasury because it did not exclude the radicals from all connection with it. the radicals, on, the other hand, withheld their gifts because, while they were not excommunicated, they were regarded with suspicion by many of the churches, and did not have the fullest recognition from the association. this controversy was emphasized by that arising from the reform movements of the day, especially the agitation against slavery. almost without exception the radicals belonged to the anti-slavery party, while the conservative churches were generally opposed to this agitation. as a result, anti-slavery efforts became a serious cause of discord in the unitarian churches, and helped to cripple the resources of the association. when, as the climax of all, the civil war came on, the association was brought to a condition of almost desperate poverty. not more than twoscore churches contributed to its treasury, and it was obliged, to curtail its expenses in every direction.[ ] up to the year the unitarians had not been efficiently organized; and they had developed very imperfectly what has been called denominational consciousness, or the capacity for co-operative efforts. the unitarian association was not a representative body, and it depended wholly upon individuals for its membership. not more than one-fourth or, at the largest, one-third of the unitarian churches were represented in its support and in its activities. there were: unitarian churches, and there was a unitarian movement; but such a thing as a unitarian denomination, in any clearly defined meaning of the words, did not exist. this fact was explained by james freeman clarke in , when he said that "the traditions of the unitarian body are conservative and timid."[ ] how this attitude affected the unitarian association was pointedly stated by mr. clarke, after several years of experience as its secretary. "the unitarian churches in boston," he wrote, "see no reason for diffusing their faith. they treat it as a luxury to be kept for themselves, as they keep boston common. the boston churches, with the exception of a few noble and generous examples, have not done a great deal for unitarian missions. i have heard, it said that they do not wish to make unitarianism too common. the church in brattle street contains wealthy and generous persons who have given largely to humane objects and to all public purposes; but we believe that, even while their pastor was president of the unitarian association, they never gave a dollar to that association for its missionary objects. the society in king's chapel was the first in the united states which professed unitarianism. it is so wealthy that it might give ten or twenty thousand dollars a year to missionary objects without feeling it. it has always been very liberal to its ministers, to all philanthropic and benevolent objects, and its members have probably given away millions of dollars for public and social uses; but it never gives anything to diffuse unitarianism."[ ] dr. samuel k. lothrop continued as the president of the unitarian association until the annual meeting of , when dr. edward brooks hall was elected to that position for one year. after short pastorates in northampton and cincinnati, dr. hall had been settled over the first church in providence in , which position he held until his death in . at the annual meeting of dr. frederic h. hedge was elected president, and he was twice re-elected. his interest in the association was active, and he often spoke at the public meetings. one of the ablest thinkers and theologians that has appeared among unitarians in this country, he always rightly estimated the practical activities of organized religious movements. he was succeeded in by dr. rufus p. stebbins, who held the office for three years. after a settlement in leominster, dr. stebbins was the first president of the meadville theological school from to . then followed a pastorate in woburn, after which he went to ithaca and opened a mission for the students of cornell university, which grew into the unitarian church in that town. from he was pastor at newton centre until his death in . the secretary of the association from to was rev. calvin lincoln, who had been settled in fitchburg for thirty-one years, and who was the minister of the first church in hingham from until his death in . he was succeeded in by rev. henry a. miles, who continued in office until . dr. miles was settled in hallowell and lowell before serving the association, and in longwood and hingham (third parish) afterward. his little book on the birth of jesus has gained him recognition as a theologian of ability and a critic of independent judgment. for three years rev. james freeman clarke was the secretary; and in he was succeeded by george w. fox, who served in that capacity until the annual meeting of . mr. fox wrote the annual reports from to , and efficiently performed all the duties of the secretary which could devolve upon a layman, with the exception of editing the monthly journal, a task which was continued by james freeman clarke.[ ] [sidenote: publications.] in spite of its restricted income during this troubled period, the association was able, owing to its invested funds,[ ] to increase its publishing operations to a considerable extent. the number of tracts published, however, was much smaller; and their monthly issue was discontinued in order to publish the quarterly journal of the american unitarian association, the first number of which appeared in october, . during the first year each number contained ninety-six pages, which were increased to one hundred and ninety-two in , but reduced to one hundred and thirty the following year. in this publication became the monthly journal; and it was continued until december, , each number containing forty-eight pages. the journal was sent to all subscribers to the funds of the association, to life members, to all churches contributing to its funds, as well as to regular subscribers. its circulation in was , , and it increased to , before it was discontinued. it was used largely, however, for free distribution as a missionary document. the journal served an important purpose during the seventeen years of its publication, as a means of bringing the association into touch with its constituency and of making the people acquainted with its work. it published the records of the meetings of the executive committee as well as of the annual meeting, it gave numerous extracts from the correspondence of the secretary, it contained the news of the churches, and all the denominational activities were kept constantly before its readers. in its pages were frequently published biographies of prominent unitarians, notable addresses were printed, sermons appeared frequently, and able theological articles. during the editorship of james freeman clarke it contained the successive chapters of his orthodoxy: its truths and errors. it also printed one or more chapters of alger's history of the doctrine of the future life. the secretary of the association was its editor, and he made it at once a theological tract and a denominational newspaper. the increase in demand for unitarian tracts and books had been so large that early in the executive committee of the association decided that a special effort should be made to meet it. they called a meeting in freeman place chapel on the afternoon of february , which was largely attended. an address was given by dr. lothrop, the president, who said that channing's works had reached a sale of , copies, and ware's formation of christian character , , that there was an urgent call for liberal works that would meet the spiritual needs of the age. a large number of prominent ministers and laymen addressed the meeting, and expressed themselves as thoroughly sympathy with its objects. a committee was appointed to consider the proposition made by dr. george e. ellis, that a fund of $ , be raised for the publication of books. this committee reported a month later through its chairman, george b. emerson, in favor of the project; and it was voted that the money should be raised. it was easier to pass this vote, however, than to secure the money from the churches; for in , after five years of effort, the sum collected was only $ , . . the money secured, however, was immediately utilized in the publication of a number of books. three series of works were undertaken, the first of these being the theological library, in which were published selections from the works of dr. channing; wilson's unitarian principles confirmed by trinitarian testimonies; a one-volume edition of norton's statement of reasons for not believing the doctrines of trinitarians concerning the nature of god and the person of christ, with a memoir of the author by dr. william newell; a volume of theological essays selected from the writings of jowett, tholuck, guizot, roland williams, and others, and edited by george r. noyes; and martineau's studies of christianity, a series of miscellaneous papers, edited by william r. alger. the devotional library, the second of the three series, included the altar at home, a series of prayers, collects, and litanies for family devotions, written by a large number of the leading unitarian ministers, and edited by dr. miles, the secretary of the association; clarke's christian doctrine of prayer; thomas t. stone's the rod and the staff, a transcendentalist presentation of christianity as a spiritual life; the harp and the cross, a selection of religious poetry, edited by stephen g. bulfinch; sears's athanasia, or foregleams of immortality; and seven stormy sundays, a volume of original sermons by well-known ministers, with devotional services, edited by miss lucretia p. hale. a biblical library was also planned, to include a popular commentary on the new testament, a bible dictionary, and other works of a like character; but john h. morison's disquisitions and notes on the gospel of matthew was the only volume published. [sidenote: a firm of publishers.] in may, , a young business man of boston, james p. walker, established the firm of walker, wise & co., for the publication of unitarian books. in horace b. fuller joined the firm, and it became walker, fuller & co. this firm took charge of all the publishing interests of the association, and the head of the house was ambitious of bringing out all the liberal books issued in this country. among the works published were: the new discussion of the trinity, a series of articles and sermons by hedge, clarke, sears, dewey, and starr king; lamson's church of the first three centuries; farley's unitarianism defined; recent inquiries in theology, essays by jowett, mark pattison, baden powell, and other english broad churchmen, edited by dr. f.h. hedge; alien's hebrew men and times; dall's woman's right to labor; muzzey's christ in the will, the heart, and the life; ichabod nichols's sermons; martineau's common prayer for christian worship; cobbe's religious demands of the age; ware's silent pastor; frothingham's stories from the patriarchs; clarke's hour which cometh and now is; parker's prayers; a second series the altar at home; hedge's reason in religion; life of horace mann by his wife, as well as certain novels, historical works, and books for the young. the demand for liberal books was not large enough, however, even with the aid of the association, to make such a business successful; and in the autumn of the publishing firm of walker, fuller & co. failed. in part the business was carried on for a time by horace b. fuller. [sidenote: the brooks fund.] an important work in the distribution of books was inaugurated in in connection with the meadville theological school, by means of the fund for liberal christianity established at that time by joshua brooks of new york. he appointed as trustee of the fund professor frederick huidekoper, who gave his services gratuitously to its care, and to the direction of the distribution of books for which it provided. the sum given to this purpose was $ , , which was increased by favorable investments to $ , . the original purpose was to aid in any way that seemed desirable the cause of liberal christianity, and a part of the income was devoted to helping struggling societies. in time the whole income, with the approval of the donor, was centred upon the distribution of books to settled ministers, irrespective of denomination. in the whole number of books that had been distributed was , . at the present time about $ , yearly are devoted to this work, the recipients being graduates of the meadville theological school, and the ministers of any denomination who may ask for them, provided they are settled west of the hudson river. the demands upon the funds have increased so rapidly that it has become necessary to reduce the amount of each gift. [sidenote: missionary efforts.] the missionary activities of the association did not actually cease even in these dark days. in may, , rev. ephraim nute was sent to kansas, which was then the battle-ground between the pro-slavery and the anti-slavery forces of the nation. he established himself at lawrence, and was the first settled pastor in the state. with the aid of the association a church was built at lawrence in , which was the first in the state to receive dedication and to be used as a permanent house of worship. mr. nute went through all the trying scenes preceding the opening of the civil war, and did his part in maintaining the cause of liberty. he was succeeded by rev. john s. brown in , who labored in this difficult field for several years. a church was organized in san francisco in , without the aid of a minister; and there was gathered a large and prosperous congregation. in rev. charles a. farley took up the work; and he was succeeded by rev. joseph harrington, rev. frederick t. gray, and rev. rufus p. cutler. thomas starr king preached his first sermon in the church april , ; and he spoke to crowded congregations until his death, march , . on january , , a new church was dedicated, in the morning to the worship of god, and in the afternoon to the service of man. among those who carried forward the unitarian cause in the middle west was rev. nahor a. staples, a brilliant preacher and a zealous worker, who was settled in milwaukee at the end of , and who made his influence widely felt around him. in rev. robert collyer began his work in chicago as a city missionary; and the next year unity church was organized, with him as the pastor. in rev. charles g. ames began his connection with the unitarians at minneapolis, and he subsequently labored at bloomington. after a short pastorate in albany he began general missionary labors on the pacific coast. a characteristic type of the western unitarian was rev. ichabod codding, who preached at bloomington, keokuk, and baraboo, but who had no formal settlement. he was a breezy, radical, and ardent preacher, bold in statement and picturesque in style, a zealous advocate of freedom for the slave, and warmly devoted to other reforms. he was fitted admirably for the pioneer preaching to which he largely devoted himself; and his strong, vigorous, and aggressive ideas were acceptable to those who heard him. [sidenote: the western unitarian conference.] there was organized in the church at cincinnati, may , , the annual conference of western unitarian churches. at this meeting delegates were present from the churches in buffalo, meadville, pittsburg, wheeling, cincinnati, louisville, st. louis, cannelton, quincy, geneva, chicago, and detroit. much enthusiasm was expressed in anticipation of this meeting, many letters were written, approving of the proposed organization, and large expectations were manifested as to its promised work. in harmony with these large and generous anticipations of the influence of the conference was its statement of purposes, as presented in its constitution. it was organized for "the promotion of the christian spirit in the several churches which compose it, and the increase of vital, practical religion; the diffusion of gospel truth and the accomplishment of such works of christian benevolence as may be agreed upon; the support of domestic or home missionaries, the publication of tracts, the distribution of religious books, the promotion of theological education, and extending aid to such societies as may need it." when the conference organized, rev. william g. eliot was elected the president, mr. charles harlow and rev. a.a. livermore the recording and corresponding secretaries. during the year $ . were raised for missionary purposes, and three missionaries--boyer, conant, and bradley--were kept in the field, mainly in illinois and michigan. the reports of these men, given at the second meeting of the conference, held in st. louis, were full of enthusiasm and courage. at this meeting the constituency numbered nineteen churches, located in eleven states. several struggling societies had been aided, assistance given to young men preparing for the ministry, and many tracts and books had been distributed. a book depositary was opened in cincinnati, and it was proposed to establish one in every large city in the west. the call was for a much larger number of preachers, it being rightly maintained that only the living man can reach the people in such a region. "the unitarian minister is _per se_ a bookseller and colporter also, and he can thus preach to multitudes who never hear his voice." the early anticipations of a rapid advance of unitarianism in the west were not realized, partly owing to the want of ministers of energy and the necessary staying qualities, and partly to the fact that tradition is always far more powerful with the masses of men and women than reason. before the organization of the conference new churches appeared at infrequent intervals, though, if those that have ceased to exist were counted, they would not be so remote from each other in time.[ ] from the first there was in the west a distinctive attitude of freedom, which was the result in large, measure of its fluctuating conditions, and the absence of fixed habits and traditions. in the missionaries of the conference were instructed that "in spirit and in aim the conference would be christian, not sectarian, and it does not, therefore, require of them subscription to any human creed, the wearing of any distinctive name, or the doing of any merely sectarian work. all that it requires is, that they should be christians and do christian work, that they should believe on the lord jesus christ as one who spake with authority and whose religion is the divinely appointed means for the regeneration of man individually and collectively, and that they should labor earnestly, intelligently, affectionately, and perseveringly to enthrone this religion in the hearts and make it, effective over the lives of men." such a statement as this, indeed, was quite as conservative as anything put forth by unitarians in new england; but behind it was an attitude of free inquiry that gave to western unitarianism distinctive characteristics. in a committee reported on the doctrinal basis of the conference, in the form of a little book of sixty-five pages, bearing the title of unitarian views of christ.[ ] it was widely circulated, and served an excellent missionary purpose. when the conference accepted the report, in which it was declared that jesus is the son of god and the miracles of the new testament facts on which the gospel is based, a resolution was unanimously passed, asserting that "we have no right to adopt any statement of belief as authoritative or as a declaration of the unitarian faith, other than the new testament." in it was the opinion of the conference that "all who wish to take upon themselves the christian name should be so recognized." the next year the conservatives and radicals came face to face, the one party asking for the old faith according to channing, while one or more of the other party asserted their disbelief in the miracles and in the resurrection of christ. in the conference declared itself willing to "welcome as fellow laborers all who are seeking to learn and to do the will of the father and work righteousness, and recommend that in all places, with or without preaching, they organize for religious worship and culture--the work of faith and the labor of love." the meeting at quincy in was one of great interest and enthusiasm. the missionary spirit rose high; and it was proposed to put into the field an aggressive worker, and to give him the necessary financial support. to this end a missionary association was organized, with rev. robert collyer as the president, and artemas carter, a successful business man of chicago, as the treasurer. before the result desired could be realized, the war gave a very different direction to all the interests of the western churches. of the twenty-nine ministers in the west at this time, sixteen went into the army,--twelve as chaplains, two as officers, and two as privates,--while several others devoted themselves to hospital work for longer or shorter periods. rev. augustus h. conant, rev. leonard whitney, rev. frederick r. newell, and rev. l.b. mason answered with their lives to their country's call. the period immediately following the close of the civil war was one of generous giving and of great activity on the part of the western churches. from to the field was occupied by twenty-one new laborers, several new societies were organized, four old ones were resuscitated, seven new churches were built, and fifteen missionary stations were opened. the churches during these two years contributed $ , to missionary purposes and $ , to antioch college. the degree of success met with in the efforts of the western conference depended in large degree upon the interest and activity of the western churches themselves. when they devoted themselves earnestly to missionary work, they contributed to it with a fair degree of liberality, and that work prospered. when the conference was asked to withdraw from the direction of that work by rev. charles lowe, in order to secure greater unity of missionary effort by bringing all work of this kind under the direction of the association, the contributions of the churches diminished, and the missionary activities in the west languished. however valuable the aid of the unitarian association,--and there can be no question that it was of the greatest importance,--local interest and co-operation were also essential to permanent success. local activity and general oversight were alike necessary. [sidenote: the autumnal conventions.] for more than twenty years autumnal conventions, as they were called, were held in the larger cities, beginning at worcester in . these meetings originated in the worcester association of ministers at a meeting held july , , when the association considered the "desirableness of a meeting of unitarians in the autumn for the purpose of awakening mutual sympathy and considering the wants of the unitarian body."[ ] at the invitation thereafter issued by the worcester association of ministers a convention was held in the church of the second congregational parish in worcester, october - , . on the first evening a sermon was preached by dr. ezra s. gannett, and a committee of business was subsequently chosen. the next morning the convention organized, with dr. francis parkman as president and rev. cazneau palfrey as secretary. a series of resolutions were discussed,[ ] and on the second evening a sermon was preached by dr. a.p. peabody. no essays were read, and nothing but the sermons were prepared beforehand. the christian register closed its report by saying that it could "give but a faint impression of the feeling which pervaded the meeting. the discussions were characterized by great earnestness and seriousness, and were conducted, at the same time, with entire freedom and with candor and liberality toward the differences of opinion which, amidst a general unanimity upon great principles, were occasionally elicited respecting details and methods. the expectations of those who called the convention were abundantly realized." the second of the autumnal conventions was held in providence, october - , . on the first evening the theme of the sermon preached by dr. dewey was the spiritual ministry of dr. channing, and it produced a great and deep impression. the resolutions discussed related to the duty, on the part of unitarians, of making an explicit statement of their convictions, and an earnest application of them to life, and the need on the part of the denomination for a more united and vigorous action as a religious body. at the third meeting held in albany, a statement was made by dr. dewey that exactly defined these gatherings, in their methods and purposes, when he said: "this and other conventions like it that are held in our body, i am inclined to think, have never been held before in the world. there is nothing like them to be found in the records of ecclesiastical history. we meet as distinct churches, on the pure democratic basis, which we believe to be the true basis of the church of christ. we meet, without any formalities--to institute, or correct no canons--without the slightest system whatever. we come to meditate, to assist each other in experience, by unfolding our own experience, by declaring our convictions." the subjects introduced at these meetings were practical, such as commanded the interest of both ministers and laymen of the churches. the method adopted allowed a free interchange of opinions, and the participation of all in the discussions. so great was the interest awakened that these meetings were largely attended, and they were to a considerable degree helpful in bringing the churches into vital relations with each other.[ ] at the session held in brooklyn in , great interest was manifested in the vespers, then a novelty, that were arranged by samuel longfellow. this meeting was marked by its glowing patriotism, that rose to a white heat. a sermon of great power was preached by dr. bellows, interpreting the duty of the hour and the destiny of america. the resolutions and the discussions were almost wholly along the lines of patriotic duty and devotion suggested by the sermon. at the last of the autumnal conventions, held in springfield, mass., october - , , the sermons were preached by rev. edward everett hale and rev. octavius b. frothingham, while the essays were by professor charles eliot norton and rev. james freeman clarke. the autumnal conventions came to an end, probably in part because the civil war was more and more absorbing the energies of the people both in and out of the churches, and partly because the desire for a more efficient organization had begun to make itself felt. in the spring of was held the meeting in new york that resulted in the organization of the national conference, the legitimate successor to the autumnal conventions. [sidenote: influence of the civil war.] during the period of the civil war, unitarian activities were largely turned in new directions. unitarians bore their full share in the councils of the nation, in the halls of legislation, on the fields of battle, in the care of the sick and wounded, and in the final efforts that brought about emancipation and peace. at least fifty unitarian ministers entered the army as chaplains, privates, officers, and members of the sanitary commission.[ ] the unitarian association also directed its attention to such work as it could accomplish in behalf of the soldiers in the field and in hospitals. books were distributed, tracts published, and hymn-books prepared to meet their needs. rev. john f.w. ware developed a special gift for writing army tracts, of which he wrote about a dozen, which were published by the association. as the war went on, the association largely increased its activities in the army; and, when the end came, it had as many as seventy workers in the field, distributing its publications, aiding the sanitary commission, or acting as nurses and voluntary chaplains in the hospitals. the end of the war served rather to increase than to contract its labors, aid being largely needed for several months in returning the soldiers to their homes and in caring for those who were left in hospitals. early in the summer of rev. william g. scandlin was sent to the army of the potomac as the agent of the association. taken prisoner in july, he spent several months in libby prison, where he was kindly treated and exercised a beneficent influence. he was followed in this work by rev. william m. mellen, who established a library of , volumes at the convalescent camp, alexandria, and also distributed a large amount of reading matter in the army. rev. charles lowe served for several months as chaplain in the camp of drafted men on long island, his salary being paid by the association. in november, , he made a tour of inspection, as the agent of the association, to the hospitals of philadelphia, baltimore annapolis, washington, alexandria, fortress monroe, city point, and the army of the potomac, in order to arrange for the proper distribution of reading matter and for such other hospital service as could be rendered. more than , volumes of the publications of the association were distributed to the soldiers and in the hospitals, largely by rev. j.g. forman, of st. louis, and rev. john h. heywood, of louisville. among those who acted as agents of the association in furnishing reading to the army and hospitals were rev. calvin stebbins, rev. frederick w. holland, rev. benjamin h. bailey, rev. artemas b. muzzey, rev. newton m. mann, and mr. henry g. denny. rev. samuel abbot smith worked zealously at norfolk at the hospitals and in preaching to the soldiers, until disease and death brought his labors to a close. what this kind of work was, and what it accomplished, was described by louisa alcott in her hospital sketches, and by william howell reed in his hospital life in the army of the potomac. [sidenote: the sanitary commission.] the sanitary commission has been described by its historian as "one of the most shining monuments of our civilization," and as an expression of organized sympathy that "must always and everywhere call forth the homage and admiration of mankind." the organizer and leader of this great philanthropic movement for relieving human suffering was dr. henry w. bellows, the minister of all souls' church in new york, the first unitarian church organized in that city. the commission was first suggested by dr. bellows, and he was its efficient leader from the first to the last. he was unanimously selected as its president, when the government had been persuaded, largely through his influence, to establish it as an addition to its medical and hospital service. the historian of the commission has justly said that he "possessed many remarkable qualifications for so responsible, a position. perhaps no man in the country exerted a wider or more powerful influence over those who were earnestly seeking the best means of defending our threatened nationality, and certainly never was a moral power of this kind founded upon juster and truer grounds. this influence was not confined to his home, the city of new york, although there it was incontestably very great, but it extended over many other portions of the country, and particularly throughout new england, where circumstances had made his name and his reputation for zeal and ability familiar to those most likely to aid in the furtherance of the new scheme. this power was due, partly of course to the very eminent position which he occupied as a clergyman, partly to the persistent efforts and enlightened zeal with which he advocated all wise measures of social reform, perhaps to his widely extended reputation as an orator, but primarily, and above all, to the rare combination of wide comprehensive views of great questions of public policy with extraordinary practical sagacity, which enabled him so to organize popular intelligence and sympathy that the best practical results were attained while the life-giving principle was preserved. he had the credit of not being what so many of his profession are, an idéologue; he had the clearest perception of what could and what could not be done, and he never hesitated to regard actual experience as the best practical test of the value of his plans and theories. these qualities, so precious and so exceptional in their nature, appeared conspicuously in the efforts made by him to secure the appointment of the commission by the government, and it will be found that every page of its history bears the strong impress of his peculiar and characteristic views."[ ] these words of charles j. stillé, a member of the sanitary commission and its authorized historian, afterward the provost of the university of pennsylvania, indicate the remarkable qualities of leadership possessed by dr. bellows. these were undoubtedly added to and made more impressive by his oratorical genius, that was of a very high order. dr. hedge spoke of the miraculous power of speech possessed by dr. bellows, when he was at his best, as being "incomparably better than anything he could have possibly compassed by careful preparation or conscious effort," and of "those exalted moments when he was fully possessed by his demon."[ ] he was inexhaustible in his efforts for the success of the commission, in directing the work of committees and branches, in appealing to the indifferent, and in giving enthusiasm to all the forces under his direction. of the nine original members of the sanitary commission, four were unitarians,--dr. bellows, dr. samuel g. howe, dr. jeffries wyman, and professor wolcott gibbs. in the number of those added later was rev. john h. heywood, for many years the minister of the unitarian church in louisville, who rendered efficient service in the western department. in the convalescents' camp at alexandria "a wonderful woman," miss amy bradley, had charge of the efficient labors of the commission, "where for two and a half years she and her assistants rendered incalculable service, in distributing clothing among the needy, procuring dainties for the sick, accompanying discharged soldiers to washington and assisting them in procuring their papers and pay, furnishing paper and postage, and writing letters for the sick, forwarding money home by drafts that cost nothing to the soldier, answering letters of inquiry to hospital directors, securing certificates of arrears of pay and getting erroneous charges of desertion removed (the commission saved several innocent soldiers from being shot as condemned deserters), distributing reading matter, telegraphing the friends of very ill soldiers, furnishing meals for feeble soldiers in barracks who could not eat the regulation food. miss bradley assisted , men to secure arrears of pay amounting to $ , . prisoners of war, while in prison and when released by general exchange, were largely and promptly relieved and comforted by this department."[ ] another effective worker was frederick n. knapp, who had been for several years a unitarian minister, and who was the leading spirit in the special relief service of the commission, "and organized and controlled it with masterly zeal, humanity, and success."[ ] the work of mr. knapp was of great importance; for he was the confidential secretary of dr. bellows, and gave his whole time to the service of the commission. he was a methodical worker, an efficient organizer, and supplied those qualities of persistent industry and grasp of details in which dr. bellows was deficient. without his untiring energy and skilful directing power the commission would have been less effective than it was in fact. dr. bellows also described william g. scandlin as "one of the most earnest and effective of the sanitary commission agents." in the autumn of the commission was greatly crippled in its work because it could not obtain the money with which to carry on its extensive operations, and it was saved from failure by the generosity of california, and the other pacific states and territories. the remoteness of these states at that time made it impossible for them to contribute their proportion of men, "and they indulged their patriotism and gave relief to their pent-up sympathies with the national cause by pouring out their money like water."[ ] the first contribution was received by the sanitary commission on september , , and was $ , : a fortnight later the same sum was again sent; and similar contributions followed at short intervals. these sums enabled the commission to accomplish its splendid work, and to meet the urgent needs of those trying days. how the pacific coast was able to contribute so largely to this work may be explained in the words of dr. bellows, who fully understood the situation, and the vast importance of the help afforded: "the most gifted and inspiring of the patriots who rallied california and the pacific coast to the flag of the union was undoubtedly thomas starr king, minister of the first unitarian church in san francisco. born in new york, but reared in massachusetts, he had earned an almost national reputation for eloquence and wit, humanity and nobleness of soul, in the lecture-rooms and pulpits of the north and west, when at the age of thirty-five, he yielded to the religious claims of the pacific coast and transferred himself to california. there in four years he had built up as public speaker from the pulpit and platform a prodigious popularity. his temperament sympathetic, mercurial, and electric; his disposition hearty, genial, and sweet; his mind versatile, quick, and sparkling; his tact exquisite, and infallible; with a voice as clear as a bell and loud and cheering as a trumpet, his nature and accomplishments perfectly adapted to the people, and place, and the time. his religious profession disarmed many of his political enemies, his political orthodoxy quieted many of his religious opponents. generous, charitable, disinterested, his full heart and open hand captivated the california people, while his sparkling wit, melodious cadences, and rhetorical abundance perfectly satisfied their taste for intensity and novelty and a touch of extravagance. it has been said by high authority that mr. king saved california to the union. california was too loyal at heart to make the boast reasonable; but it is not too much to say that mr. king did more than any man, by his prompt, outspoken, uncalculating loyalty, to make california know what her own feelings really were. he did all that any man could have done to lead public sentiment that was unconsciously ready to follow where earnest loyalty and patriotism should guide the way."[ ] not less important in its own degree was the work done in st. louis by dr. william g. eliot, minister since of the unitarian church in that city. he became the leader in all efforts for aiding the soldiers, and was most active in forming and directing the western sanitary commission, that worked harmoniously with the national organization, but independently. a large hospital was established and maintained, a home for refugees was secured, and a large camp for "contraband" negroes was established, chiefly under the direction of dr. eliot, and largely maintained by his church. he was a potent force in keeping st. louis and the northern portions of missouri loyal to the union. the secretary of the western sanitary commission, j.g. forman, a unitarian minister for many years, was most faithful and efficient in this work; and he subsequently became its historian. in the freedman's hospital at st. louis labored with zeal and success rev. frederick r. newall; and he was also superintendent of the freedman's bureau in that city, his life being sacrificed to these devoted labors. [sidenote: results of fifteen years.] the work done by the unitarian association during the civil war and under the conditions it produced was not a large one, but it absorbed a considerable part of its energies for about five years. in all it printed over , copies of three books for the soldiers,[ ] distributed , tracts which it had prepared for them,[ ] sent to the soldiers , copies weekly of the christian register and the christian inquirer, , copies of the monthly journal, , of the monthly religious magazine, and , of the sunday-school gazette. during the last year or two of the war its tracts went out at the rate of , monthly. the tracts and the periodicals therefore numbered a monthly distribution of about , copies. the seventy volunteer agents who brought these publications to the hands of the soldiers, together with the army chaplains, agents of the sanitary commission, and the many nurses in the hospitals, made a considerable force of unitarian missionaries developed by the exigencies of the war, and the attempts to meliorate its hard conditions. the period of fifteen years, from to , which has been under consideration in this chapter, was one of the greatest trial and discouragement to the association. its funds reached their lowest ebb, a missionary secretary could not be maintained, a layman performed the necessary office duties, and no considerable aggressive work along missionary lines was undertaken. writing in a most hopeful spirit of the situation, in november, , the editor of the christian register showed that in the number of unitarian churches was , while in it was , an increase of four only in fifteen years. during this period fifty parishes had gained pastors, but fifty had lost them. several strong parishes, he said, had come into existence, and two in large places had died. most of those that had been closed were in small country towns. nevertheless, with truth it could be said of these fifteen years of discouragement and failure that every one of them was a seed-time for the harvest that was soon to be reaped. [ ] usually known as the transcendental club, sometimes as the symposium. it was started in by emerson, ripley, and hedge, and met at the houses of the members to discuss philosophical and literary subjects. it was called hedge's club because it met when rev. f.h. hedge came to boston from bangor, where he was settled in . it also included clarke, francis, alcott, dwight, w.h. channing, bartol, very, margaret fuller, and elizabeth p. peabody. [ ] twenty-eighth report of the american unitarian association, . [ ] ibid., . for other statements made at this time see pp. and of this report; quarterly journal, l , , , , ; and o.b. frothingham's transcendentalism in new england, . john gorham palfrey said (twenty-eighth report, ) that "the evidence of christianity is identical with the evidence of the miraculous character of jesus," and that "his miraculous powers were the highest evidence that he came from god." parker replied to this report of the association in his friendly letter to the executive committee. of this report john w. chadwick has said that it is "the most curious, not to say amusing, document in our denominational archives." see the organization of our liberty, christian register, july , . [ ] in the receipts from all sources for the year preceding, except from sales of books and interest on investments, was $ , . . for the next two years there was a rapid gain, the sum reported in being $ , . ; but there was a slight decrease the next year, and the financial panic of brought the donations down to $ , . , the amount reported at the annual meeting of . then there was a steady gain until the civil war began, after which the contributions were small, the general donations being only $ , . in , which sum was brought up to $ , . by contributions for special purposes, more than one-third of the whole being for the army fund. [ ] the christian register, october , . [ ] the monthly journal, i. . [ ] mr. fox entered the employ of the association in as a clerk, and then he became the assistant of the secretary by the appointment of the directors. from to the present time he has served as the assistant secretary. his services have been invaluable to the association in many ways, because of his diligence, fidelity, unfailing devotion to its interests, and loyalty to the unitarian cause. [ ] the beginning of a general fund seems to have been made in , and was secured by special subscriptions for the purpose of paying the salary of a general secretary or missionary agent. the treasurer reported in that during the previous year $ , . had been collected for this purpose. [ ] of the churches now in existence the first in chicago was organized in , that at quincy in , milwaukee and geneva in , detroit in . after the conference began its work, they appear more frequently, keokuk coming into existence in , marietta in , lawrence in , unity of chicago, kalamazoo, and buda in , bloomington in . then comes a blank during the war period, and a more rapid growth after it, especially when the national conference had given impetus to missionary activities. janesville was organized in ; ann arbor, kenosha, and baraboo, in ; tremont, in ; cleveland and mattoon, in ; unity of st. louis, kansas city, st. joseph, shelbyville, davenport, geneseo, third of chicago, and sheffield, in ; omaha, in . [ ] written by william g. eliot, of st. louis. [ ] joseph allen, the worcester association and its antecedents, . [ ] through the business committee the following resolutions were submitted for the consideration of the convention, and they were taken up in order:-- _resolved_, that we acknowledge with profound gratitude the success which has attended our labors in the cause of religious freedom, virtue, and piety, and are encouraged to persevere with renewed zeal and energy. _resolved_, that in the character and life of rev. william e. channing, just removed from us, we acknowledge one of the richest gifts of god, in intellectual endowments, pure aspiration, moral courage, and disinterested devotion to the cause of truth, freedom, and humanity, and that in view of this, we feel out increased obligation to christian fidelity and heavenward progress. _resolved_, that viewing with anxiety prevailing fanaticism and growing disregard of public trusts and private relations, we should earnestly labor for a higher religious principle, and especially urge the paramount claims of moral duty. [ ] the places and dates of the autumnal conventions were as follows: worcester, ; provence, ; albany, ; new york, ; philadelphia, ; salem, ; new bedford, ; portland, ; springfield, ; portsmouth, ; baltimore, ; worcester, ; montreal, ; providence, ; bangor, ; syracuse, ; salem, ; lowell, ; new bedford, ; boston, ; brooklyn, ; springfield, . [ ] the first regiments from massachusetts, rhode island, and kansas, had as their chaplains warren h. cudworth, augustus woodbury, and ephraim nute. charles babbidge was the chaplain of the sixth massachusetts regiment, that which was fired upon in baltimore. the first artillery company from massachusetts had as its chaplain stephen barker. others who served as army chaplains were john pierpont, edmund b. willson, francis c. williams, arthur b. fuller, sylvan s. hunting, charles t. canfield, edward h. hall, george h. hepworth, joseph f. lovering, edwin m. wheelock, george w. bartlett, john c. kimball, augustus m. haskell, charles a. humphreys, milton j. miller, george a. ball, william g. scandlin, e.b. fairchild, samuel w. mcdaniel, frederick r. newell, george w. woodward, stephen h. camp, william d. haley, leonard whitney, gilbert cummings, nahor a. staples, carlton a. staples, martin m. willis, john f. moors, l.b. mason, robert hassall, liberty billings, daniel foster, j.g. forman, and augustus h. conant. robert collyer was chaplain-at-large in the army of the potomac. charles j. bowen, william j. potter, charles noyes, james richardson, and william h. channing served as hospital chaplains. among the ministers who served as officers were: hasbrouck davis, who became a general; william b. greene, colonel; gerald fitzgerald, who enlisted as a private, rose to the rank of first lieutenant, and was elected chaplain of his regiment; edward i. galvin, lieutenant, also elected chaplain; james k. hosmer, who served through the war, at first as a private and then as a corporal, writing his experiences into the color guard and the thinking bayonet; george w. shaw and alvin allen, privates. thomas d. howard and james h. fowler were chaplains in colored regiments. after service as a chaplain of a hew hampshire regiment, edwin m. wheelock became a lieutenant in a colored regiment, as did charles b. webster. thomas w. higginson was colonel of a colored regiment, and in another henry stone was lieutenant colonel. it is doubtful if this list is complete, though an effort has been made to have it as nearly so as possible. those who served in the army, and became ministers after leaving it, have not been included. so far as known, only ordained ministers are named. [ ] history of the united states sanitary commission, being the general report of its work during the war of the rebellion. [ ] j.h. allen, our liberal movement in theology, . [ ] henry w. bellows, article on the sanitary commission, in johnson's cyclopedia, revised edition. [ ] ibid. [ ] henry w. bellows, article on the sanitary commission, in johnson's cyclopedia, revised edition. [ ] history of the sanitary commission. [ ] thoughts selected from channing's works, ware's the silent pastor, and eliot's discipline of sorrow. the association also issued one number of the monthly journal as an army companion, which contained fifty hymns of a patriotic and religions character, with appropriate tunes, selections from the bible, directions for preserving health in the army, and selections from addresses on the injustice of the rebellion and the spirit in which it should be put down. [ ] twenty tracts were published. the first was written by dr. george putnam; and was on the man and the soldier. the second was the soldier of the good cause, by prof. c.e. norton. others were a letter to a sick soldier, by rev. robert collyer; an enemy within the lines, by rev. s.h. winkley. rev. john f.w. ware wrote fourteen of these tracts, the following being some of the subjects: the home to the camp, the home to the hospital, wounded and in the hands of the enemy, traitors in camp, a change of base, on picket, the rebel, the recruit, a few words with the convalescent, mustered out, a few words with the rank and file at parting. viii. the denominational awakening. the war had an inspiring influence upon unitarians, awakening them to a consciousness of their strength, and drawing them together to work for common purposes as nothing else had ever done. from the beginning they saw in the effort to save the union, and in the spirit of liberty that animated the nation, an expression of their own principles. whatever its effect upon other religious bodies, the war gave to unitarians new faith, courage, and enthusiasm. for the first time they became conscious of their opportunity, and united in a determined purpose to meet its demands with fidelity to their convictions and loyalty to the call of humanity.[ ] no autumnal convention having been held in , owing to the failure of the committee appointed for that purpose to make the necessary arrangements, a special meeting of the unitarian association was held in the hollis street church, boston, december - , at the call of the executive committee, "to awaken interest in the work of the association by laying before the churches the condition of our funds and the demand for our labor." the attendance was large, and the tone of the meeting was hopeful and enthusiastic. after dr. stebbins, the president, had stated the purpose of the meeting, dr. bellows urged the importance of a more effective organization of the unitarian body. his success with the sanitary commission had evidently prepared his mind for a like work on the part of unitarians, and for a strong faith in the value of organized effort in behalf of liberal religion. his capacity as leader during the war had prepared men to accept it in other fields of effort, and unitarians were ready to use it in their behalf. the hopefulness that existed, in view of the success of the union cause, and the enthusiastic interest in the methods of moral and spiritual reform that was manifested because of the triumph of the spirit of freedom in the nation, led many to think that like efforts in behalf of liberal christianity would result in like successes. on the afternoon of the second day (a meeting in the evening of the first day only having been held) james p. walker, the publisher, gave a résumé of the activities of the association during the forty years of its existence, and said that its receipts had been on the average only $ , . yearly. he showed that much had been done with this small sum, and that the results were much larger than the amount of money invested would indicate. he pointed out the fact that the demands upon the association were rapidly increasing, and far more rapidly than the contributions. there was an urgent need for larger giving, he said, and for a more loyal support of the missionary arm of the denomination. he offered a series of resolutions calling for the raising of $ , during the year. rev. edward everett hale said that $ , ought to be given to the proposed object, and urged that more missionaries should be sent into the field. thereupon mr. henry p. kidder arose, and said: "it is often easier to do a great thing than a small one. i move that this meeting undertake to raise $ , for the service of the next year." dr. bellows then called the attention of the conference to the importance of considering the manner of securing this large sum and of devising methods to insure success. he proposed "that a committee of ten persons, three ministers and seven laymen, should be appointed to call a convention, to consist of the pastor and two delegates from each church or parish in the unitarian denomination, to meet in the city of new york, to consider the interests of our cause and to institute measures for its good." the two resolutions were unanimously adopted, pledging the denomination to raise $ , , and to the holding of a delegate convention in new york. the president appointed, as members of the committee of arrangements for the convention, rev. henry w. bellows, messrs. a.a. low, u.a. murdock, henry p. kidder, atherton blight, enoch pratt, and artemas carter, rev. edward e. hale, and rev. charles h. brigham. the convention in new york was not waited for in order to make an effort to secure the $ , it was proposed to raise; and early in january the president of the association, dr. rufus p. stebbins, was authorized to devote his whole time to securing that sum. a circular was sent to the churches saying that such a sum "was needed, and should and could be raised." "the hour has come," said the executive committee in their appeal to the churches, "which the fathers longed to see, but were denied the sight,--of taking our true position among other branches of the church of our lord jesus christ in the spread and establishment of the gospel." the response to this call was prompt and enthusiastic beyond any precedent. the war had made money plentiful, and it came easily to those who were successful. great fortunes had been rapidly gathered; and the country had never known an equal prosperity, even though the burden of the war had not yet been removed. in february the president of the association was able to announce that $ , . had been subscribed by twelve churches. by the end of march the pledges had reached $ , . ; and when the convention met in new york, april , , the contributions then pledged were only a few thousand dollars short of the sum desired. by the end of may the sum reported was $ , . , which was increased by several hundred dollars more. [sidenote: the new york convention of .] it was when this success was certain that the convention met in new york. the victory of the union cause was then assured, and the utmost enthusiasm prevailed. some of the final and most important scenes of the great national struggle were enacted while the convention was in session. courage and hope ran high under these circumstances; and the convention was not only enthusiastically loyal to the nation, but equally so to its own denominational interests. for the first time in the history of the unitarian body in this country the churches were directly represented at a general gathering. the number of churches represented was two hundred and two, and they sent three hundred and eighty-five delegates. many other persons attended, however; and throughout all the sittings of the convention the audience was a large one. many women were present, though not as delegates, the men only having official recognition in this gathering. it is evident from the records, the newspaper reports, and the memories of those present, that the interest in this meeting was very large, and that the attendance was quite beyond what was anticipated by any one concerned in planning it. the call to all the churches, and the giving them an equality of representation in the convention, was doubtless one of the causes of its success. as a result, an able body of laymen appeared in the convention, who were accustomed to business methods and familiar with legislative procedure, and who carried through the work of the convention with deliberation and skill. on the first evening of the convention a sermon was preached by dr. james freeman clarke that was a noble and generous introduction to its deliberations. he called for the exercise of the spirit of inclusiveness, a broad and tolerant catholicity, and union on the basis of the work to be done. on the morning of april , , at eleven o'clock, the convention met for the transaction of business in all souls' church, of which henry whitney bellows was the minister. hon. john a. andrew, then the governor of massachusetts, was elected to preside over the convention; and among the vice-presidents were william cullen bryant, rev. john gorham palfrey, hon. ebenezer rockwood hoar, rev. orville dewey, and rev. ezra stiles gannett, while rev. edward everett hale was made the secretary. in governor andrew the convention had as its presiding officer a man of a broad and generous spirit, who was insistent that the main purpose of the meeting should be kept always steadily in view, and yet that all the members and all the varying opinions should have just recognition. in a large degree the success of the convention was due to his catholicity and to his skill in reconciling opposing interests. the time of the convention was devoted almost wholly to legislating for the denomination and to planning for its future work. on the morning of the second day the subject of organization came up for consideration, and the committee selected for that purpose presented a constitution providing for a national conference that should meet annually, and that should be constituted of the minister and two lay delegates from each church, together with three delegates each from the american unitarian association, the western conference, and such other bodies as might be invited to participate in its deliberations. this conference was to be only recommendatory in its character, adopting "the existing organizations of the unitarian body as the instruments of its power." the name of the new organization was the subject of some discussion, james freeman clarke wishing to make the conference one of independent and unitarian churches, while another delegate desired to substitute "free christian" for unitarian. the desire strongly manifested by a considerable number to make the conference include in its membership all liberal churches of whatever name not acceptable to the majority of the delegates, voted with a decided emphasis to organize strictly on the unitarian basis. as soon as the convention was organized, expression was given to the demand for a doctrinal basis for its deliberations. though several attempts were made to bring about the acceptance of a creed, these met with complete failure. in the preamble to the constitution, however, it was asserted that the delegates were "disciples of the lord jesus christ," while the first article declared that the conference was organized to promote "the cause of christian faith and work." it was quite evident that a large majority of the delegates regarded the convention as christian in its purposes and distinctly unitarian in its denominational mission. a minority desired a platform that should have no theological implications, and that should permit the co-operation of every kind of liberal church. the use of the phrase lord jesus christ was strongly opposed by the more radical section of the convention, but the members of it were not organized or ready to give utterance to their protest in an effective manner. the convention gave its approval to the efforts of the unitarian association to secure the sum of $ , , and urged the churches, that had not already done so, to contribute. it also advised the securing of a like sum as an endowment for antioch college, and commended to men of wealth the needs of the harvard and meadville theological schools. the council of the conference was asked to give its attention to the necessity and duty of creating an organ for the denomination, to be called the liberal christian. a resolution looking to union with the universalist body was presented, and one was passed declaring "that there should be recognition, fellowship, and co-operation between all those various elements in our population that are prepared to meet on the basis of christianity." james freeman clarke, samuel j. may, and robert collyer were constituted a committee of correspondence, to promote acquaintance, fraternity, and unity between unitarians and all of like liberal faith.[ ] a resolution offered by william cullen bryant expressive of thanksgiving because of the near approach of peace, and for the opening made by the extinction of slavery for the diffusion of christianity in its true spirit as a religion of love, mercy, and universal liberty, was unanimously adopted by a rising vote. the convention was a remarkable success in the number who attended its sessions, the character of the men who participated in its deliberations, and the skill with which the unsectarian sect had been organized for effective co-operation and work. its influence was immediately felt throughout the denomination and upon all its activities. the change in attitude was very great, and the depressed and discouraged tone of many unitarian utterances for a number of years preceding and following gave way to one of enthusiasm and courage.[ ] [sidenote: new life in the unitarian association.] the annual meeting of the unitarian association, that soon followed, felt the new stir of life, and the awakening to a larger consciousness of power. the chief attention was directed to meeting the new opportunities that had been presented, and to preparing for the larger work required. dr. rufus p. stebbins, who had been for three years the president, and who had been actively instrumental in securing the large accession to the contributions of the year, was elected secretary, with the intent that he should devote himself to pushing forward the missionary enterprises of the association. he refused to serve, and accepted the position only until his successor could be secured. in a few weeks, the executive committee elected rev. charles lowe to this office, and he immediately entered upon its duties. he proved to be eminently fitted for the place by his enthusiastic interest in the work to be accomplished, and by his skill as an organizer. his catholicity of mind enabled him to conciliate, as far as this was possible, the conservative and radical elements in the denomination, and to unite them into an effective working body. educated at harvard college and divinity school, lowe spent two years as a tutor in the college, and then was settled successively over parishes in new bedford, salem, and somerville. his experience and skill as an army agent of the association suggested his fitness for the larger sphere of labor into which he was now inducted. for six most difficult and trying years he successfully conducted the affairs of the association. for the first time in the history of the association its income was such as to enable it to plan its work on a large scale, and in some degree commensurate with its opportunities. during the year and a half preceding the first of june, , there was contributed to the association about $ , , to antioch college $ , , to the boston fraternity of churches $ , , to the children's mission $ , , to the freedman's aid societies $ , , to the sunday school society $ , , to the christian register $ , , and to the western conference $ , , making a total of about $ , given by the denomination to these religious, educational, and philanthropic purposes; and this financial success was truly indicative of the new interest in its work that had come to the unitarian body. [sidenote: the new theological position.] although the new york convention voted that $ , ought to be raised in , because the needs of the denomination demanded it, yet only $ , were secured. the reaction that followed the close of the war had set in, the financial prosperity of the country had begun to lessen, and the enthusiasm that had made the first great effort of the denomination so eminently successful did not continue. a chief cause for the waning interest in the denomination itself was the agitation, in regard to the theological position of the unitarian body that began almost immediately after the new york convention. the older unitarians held to the bible and the teachings of jesus as the great sources of spiritual truth as strongly as did the orthodox, and they differed from them only as to the purport of the message conveyed. this may be seen in a creed offered to the new york convention, by a prominent layman,[ ] almost immediately after it was opened on the first morning. in this proposed creed it was asserted that unitarians believe "in one lord, jesus christ; the son of god and his specially appointed messenger, and representative to our race; gifted with supernatural power, approved of god by miracles and signs and wonders which god did by him, and thus by divine authority commanding the devout and reverential faith of all who claim the christian name." although this creed was not adopted by the convention, it expressed the belief of a majority of unitarians. to the same purport was the word spoken by dr. bellows, when he said: "unitarians of the school to which i belong accept jesus christ with all their hearts as the sent of god, the divinely inspired son of the father, who by his miraculously proven office and his sinless life and character was fitted to be, and was made revealer of the universal and permanent religion of the human race."[ ] these quotations indicate that the more conservative unitarians had not changed their position since , when they made official statement of their acceptance of christianity as authenticated by miracles and the supernatural. in fact, they held essentially to the attitude taken when they left the older congregational body. on the other hand, the transcendentalists and the radical unitarians proposed a new theory of the nature of religious truth, and insisted that the spiritual message of christianity is inward, and not outward, directly to the soul of man, and not through the mediation of a person or a book. almost from the first channing had been moving towards this newer conception of the nature and method of religion. he did not wholly abandon the miraculous, but it grew to have less significance for him with each year. the unitarian conception of religion as natural to man, which was maintained strenuously from the time of jonathan mayhew, made it probable, if not certain, that a merely external system of religion would be ultimately outgrown. in his lecture on self-denial channing stated this position in the clearest terms. "if," he said, "after a deliberate and impartial use of our best faculties, a professed revelation seems to us plainly to disagree with itself or to clash with great principles which we cannot question, we ought not to hesitate to withhold from it our belief. i am surer that my rational nature is from god, than that any book is an expression of his will. this light in my own breast is his primary revelation, and all subsequent ones must accord with it, and are in fact intended to blend with and brighten it."[ ] channing was not alone in accepting christianity as a spiritual principle that is natural and universal. as early as alvan lamson had defended the proposition that miracles are merely local in their nature, and that attention should be chiefly given to the tendency, spirit, and object of christianity. he claimed that it bore on the face of it the marks of its heavenly origin, and that, when these are fully accepted, no other form of evidence is required.[ ] in james walker, in writing on the philosophy of man's spiritual nature in regard to the foundations of faith, had taken what was essentially the transcendentalist view of the origin and nature of religion. he contended for the "religion in the soul" that is authenticated "by the revelations of consciousness."[ ] in convers francis, in, describing the religion of christ as a purely internal principle, maintained the "quiet, spirit-searching character of christianity," as "a kingdom wholly within the soul of man."[ ] when convers francis became a professor in the harvard divinity school, in , the spiritual philosophy had recognition there; and he had a considerable influence upon the young men who came under his guidance. though of the older way of thinking, george r. noyes, who became a professor in the school in , was always on the side of liberty of interpretation and expression. for the next two decades the divinity school sent out a succession of such men as john weiss, octavius b. frothingham, samuel longfellow, william j. potter, and francis e. abbot, who were joined by william henry channing, samuel johnson, david a. wasson, and others, who did not study there. these men gave a new meaning to unitarianism, took it away from miracles to nature, discarded its evidences to rely on intuition, rejected its supernatural deity for an immanent god who speaks through all life his divine word. during the interval between the new york convention and the first session of the national conference, which was held in syracuse, october - , , the questions which separated the conservatives and radicals were freely debated in the periodicals of the denomination, and also in sermons and pamphlets. the radicals organized for securing a revision of the constitution; and on the morning of the first day francis e. abbot, then the minister at dover, n.h., offered a new preamble and first article as substitutes for those adopted in new york, in which he stated that "the object of christianity is the universal diffusion of love, righteousness, and truth," that "perfect freedom of thought, which is at once the right and duty of every human being, always leads to diversity of opinion, and is therefore hindered by common creeds or statements of faith," and that therefore the churches assembled in the conference, "disregarding all sectarian or theological differences, and offering a cordial fellowship to all who will join them in christian work, unite themselves in a common body, to be known as the national conference of unitarian and independent churches." at the afternoon session mr. abbot's amendment was rejected; but on the motion of james freeman clarke the name was changed to the national conference of unitarian and other christian churches. a resolution stating that the expression "other christian churches was not meant to exclude religious societies which have no distinctive church organization, and are not nominally christian, if they desire to co-operate with the conference in what it regards as christian work," was laid on the table. [sidenote: organization of the free religious association.] the result of the refusal at syracuse to revise the constitution of the national conference was that the radical men on the railroad train returning to boston held a consultation, and resolved to organize an association that would secure them the liberty they desired. after correspondence and much planning a meeting was held in boston, at the house of rev. cyrus a. bartol, on february , , to consider what should be done. after a thorough discussion of the subject the free religious association was planned; and the organization was perfected at a meeting held in horticultural hall, boston, may , . some of those who took part in this movement thought that all religion had been outgrown, but the majority believed that it is essential and eternal. what they sought was to remove its local and national elements, and to get rid of its merely sectarian and traditional features. at the first meeting the speakers were o.b. frothingham, henry blanchard, lucretia mott, robert dale owen, john weiss, oliver johnson, francis e. abbot, david a. wasson, t.w. higginson, and r.w. emerson; and discussion was participated in by a.b. alcott, e.c. towne, frank b. sanborn, hannah e. stevenson, ednah d. cheney, charles c. burleigh, and caroline h. dall. of these persons, one-half had been unitarian ministers, and about one-third of them were still settled over unitarian parishes. mr. frothingham was elected president of the new organization, and rev. william j. potter secretary. the purposes of the association were "to promote the interests of pure religion, to encourage the scientific study of theology and to increase fellowship in the spirit." in the constitution was revised by changing the subject of study from theology to man's religious nature and history, and by the addition of the statement that "nothing in the name or constitution of the association shall ever be construed as limiting membership by any test of speculative opinion or belief,--or as defining the position of the association, collectively considered, with reference to any such opinion or belief,--or as interfering in any other way with that absolute freedom of thought and expression which is the natural right of every rational being." the original purpose of the free religious association, as defined in its constitution and in the addresses delivered before it, was the recognition of the universality of religion, and the representation of all phases of religious opinion in its membership and on its platform. the circumstances of its organization, however, in some measure took it away from this broader position, and made it the organ of the radical unitarian opinion. those unitarians who did not find in the american unitarian association and the national conference such fellowship as they desired became active in the free religious organization. the cause of free religion was ably presented in the pages of the radical, a monthly journal edited by sidney h. morse, and published in boston, and the index, edited by francis e. abbot, at first in toledo and then in boston. it also found expression at the sunday afternoon meetings held in horticultural hall, boston, for several winters, beginning in - ; in the conventions held in several of the leading cities of the northern states; at the gatherings of the chestnut street club; and in the annual meetings of the free religious association held in boston during anniversary week. little effort was made to organize churches, and only two or three came into existence distinctly on the basis of free religion. in connection with the index, francis e. abbot organized the liberal league to promote the interests of free religion, with about four hundred local branches; but this organization proved ineffective, and soon ceased its existence. the withdrawal of the radicals into the free religious association did not quiet the agitation in the unitarian ranks, partly because some of the most active workers in that association continued to occupy unitarian pulpits, and partly because a considerable radical element did not withdraw in any manner. the conferences had an unfailing subject for exciting discussion, and the unitarian body was at this time in a chronic condition of agitation. as in the days of the controversy about the trinity, the more conservative ministers would not exchange pulpits with the more radical. [sidenote: unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation.] at the second session of the national conference, held in new york city, october - , , another attempt was made to bring about a reconciliation between the two wings of the denomination. in an attitude of generous good will and with a noble desire for inclusiveness and peace, james freeman clarke proposed an addition to the constitution of the conference, in which it was declared "that we heartily welcome to that fellowship all who desire to work with us in advancing the kingdom of god." such a broad invitation was not acceptable to the majority; and, after an extended debate, this amendment was withdrawn, and the following, offered by edward everett hale, and essentially the same as that presented by mr. clarke, with the exception of the phrase just quoted, was adopted:-- to secure the largest unity of the spirit and the widest practical co-operation, it is hereby understood that all the declarations of this conference, including the preamble and constitution, are expressions only of its majority, and dependent wholly for their effect upon the consent they command on their own merits from the churches here represented or belonging within the circle of our fellowship. the annual meeting of the unitarian association in was largely occupied with the vexing problem of the basis of fellowship; and the secretary, charles lowe, read a conciliatory and explanatory address. he said that the wide differences of theological opinion existing in the denomination were "an inevitable consequence of the great principle on which unitarianism rests. that principle is that christian faith and christian union can coexist with individual liberty."[ ] rev. george h. hepworth, then the minister of the church of the messiah in new york, asked for an authoritative statement of the unitarian position, urging this demand with great insistence; and he presented a resolution calling for a committee of five to prepare "a statement of faith, which shall, as nearly as may be, represent the religious opinions of the unitarian denomination." while dr. bellows had been the leader in securing the adoption of the christian basis for the national conference, and the insertion into the preamble of its constitution of the expression of faith in the lordship of jesus christ, he was strongly opposed to any attempt to impose a creed upon the denomination, however attenuated it might be. he has been often charged with inconsistency, and it is difficult to reconcile his position in with that held in . what he attempted to secure, however, was the utmost of liberty possible within the limits of christianity; and, when he had committed the unitarian body to the christian position, he desired nothing more, believing that a creed would be inconsistent with the liberty enjoyed by all unitarians. without doubt his address at this meeting, in opposition to mr. hepworth's proposal, made it impossible to secure a vote in favor of a creed. "we want to represent a body," he said, "that presents itself to the forming hand of the almighty spirit of god in a fluid, plastic form. we cannot keep our denomination in that state, and yet give it the character of being cast into a positive mould. you must either abandon that great work you have done, as the only body in christendom that occupies the position of absolute and perfect liberty, with some measure of christian faith, or you must continue to occupy that position and thank god for it without hankering after some immediate victories that are so strong a temptation to many in our denomination." when the resolution in favor of a creed was brought to a vote, it was "defeated by a very large majority." by this act the unitarian body again asserted its christian position, but refused to define or to limit its christianity. notwithstanding the refusal of the unitarian association to adopt a creed, the attempt to secure one was renewed in the national conference with as much energy as if this were not already a lost cause. at the session held in new york, october, , the subject came up for extended consideration, several amendments to the constitution were proposed, and, after a prolonged discussion, that offered by george h. hepworth was adopted:-- reaffirming our allegiance to the gospel of jesus christ, and desiring to secure the largest unity of the spirit and the widest practical co-operation, we invite to our fellowship all who wish to be followers of christ. [sidenote: the year book controversy.] one result of this controversy was that in it having come to the attention of rev. o.b. frothingham, the president of the free religious association, that his name was in the list of unitarian ministers published in the year book of the unitarian association, he expressed surprise that it should have been continued there, and asked for its removal. the same action was taken by francis e. abbot, the editor of the index, and others of the radicals. this action was in part the result of the attitude taken by rev. thomas j. mumford, editor of the christian register, who in insisted that the word "religious" had no proper place in the name of the free religious association, and who invited those unitarians "who have ceased to accept jesus as pre-eminently their spiritual leader and teacher" to withdraw from the unitarian body. in november, , mr. george w. fox, the assistant secretary of the unitarian association and the editor of its year book, wrote to several of the radicals, calling their attention to the action of mr. frothingham in requesting the removal of his name, and asked if their names remained in that publication "with their knowledge and consent." in a subsequent letter to william j. potter, the minister of the unitarian church in new bedford and the secretary of the free religious association, he explained that "the year book lists of societies and ministers are simply a directory, prepared by the association for the accommodation of the denomination, and that the association does not undertake to decide the question as to what are or are not unitarian societies or ministers, but merely puts into print facts, in the making of which it assumes no responsibility and has no agency." mr. potter expressed his purpose not to ask for the removal of his name, but wrote that he did not call himself a unitarian christian or by any denominational name. the officers of the association thereupon instructed the editor of the year book to remove mr. potter's name from the list of unitarian ministers published therein. the reason for this action was stated in a letter from the editor to mr. potter, announcing that his name had been removed. the letter said, "while there might be no desire to define christianity in the case of those who claim that they are in any sense of the term entitled to be called christians, for those persons who, like yourself, disavow the name, there seems to be no need of raising any question as to how broad a range of opinion the name may properly be stretched to cover."[ ] there followed a vigorous discussion of the action of the association in dropping mr. potter's name, it being recognized that no more thoroughly religious man was to be found in the denomination, and that none more truly exemplified the christian spirit, whatever might be his wish as to the use of the christian name. at the sixth session of the national conference, held at saratoga in september, , the essex conference protested against the erasure of the name of a church in long and regular fellowship with the unitarian association from its year book; and a resolution offered by dr. bellows, indorsing the action of the officers of the national conference in inviting the new bedford church to send delegates, was passed without dissent. at the session of the western conference held in chicago during , resolutions were passed protesting against the removing of the name of any person from the accredited list of unitarian ministers until he requested it, had left the denomination, joined some other sect, or been adjudged guilty of immorality. as a result of this discussion and of the broad sympathies and inclusive spirit of the conference, the following platform, in the shape of a resolution, was adopted:-- that the western unitarian conference conditions its fellowship on no dogmatic tests, but welcomes all thereto who desire to work with it in advancing the kingdom of god. the attitude of the unitarian association and the national conference--that is, of a large majority of unitarians at this time--may be accurately defined in the words of charles lowe, who said: "i admit that we make a belief in christianity a test of fellowship. no stretch of liberality will make me wish to deny that a belief in jesus christ is the absolutely essential qualification. but i will oppose, as a test, any definition of christianity, any words about christ, for christ himself, as the principles of our fellowship and union."[ ] these words exactly define what was sought for, which was liberty within the limits of christianity. the primary insistence was upon discipleship to jesus christ, but it was maintained that loyalty to christ is compatible with the largest degree of personal liberty. fundamentally, this controversy was a continuation of that which had agitated new england from the beginning, that had divided those opposed to "the great awakening" of the middle of the eighteenth century from those who favored it, that led the unitarians away from the orthodox, and that now divided radical and conservative unitarians. the advance was always towards a more pronounced assertion of individualism, and a more positive rejection of tradition, organization, and external authority. indeed, it was towards this end that unitarianism had directed its energies from the beginning; and the force of this tendency could not be overcome because some called for a creed, and more had come to see the need of an efficient organization for practical purposes. what the radicals desired was freedom, and the broadest assertion of individuality. it was maintained by francis e. abbot that "the spiritual ideal of free religion is to develop the individuality of the soul in the highest, fullest, and most independent manner possible."[ ] the other distinctive principle of the radicals was that religion is universal, that all religions are essentially, the same, and that christianity is simply one of the phases of universal religion. david a. wasson defined religion as "the consciousness of universal relation,"[ ] and as "the sense of unity with the infinite whole," adding that "morals, reason, freedom, are bound up with it."[ ] this means, in simple statement, that religion is natural to man, and that it needs no authentication by miracle or supernatural manifestation. it means that all religions are essentially the same in their origin, and that none can claim the special favor of god in their manner of presentation to the world. according to this conception of religion, as was stated by. william j. potter, christianity is "provisional, preparatory, educational, containing, alongside of the most valuable truth, much that is only human error and bigotry and superstitious imagination."[ ] "the spiritual ideal of christianity," said francis e. abbot, "is the suppression of self and perfect imitation of jesus the christ. the spiritual ideal of free religion is the development of self, and the harmonious education of all its powers to the highest possible degree."[ ] through all this controversy what was sought for was a method of reconciling fellowship with individuality of opinion, of establishing a church in which freedom of faith for the individual shall have full recognition. in a word, the unitarian body had a conviction that tradition is compatible with intuition, institutions with personal freedom, and co-operation with individual initiative. the problems involved were too large for an immediate solution; and what unitarians accepted was an ideal, and not a fact fully realized in their denominational life. the doctrinal phases of the controversy have always been subsidiary to this larger search, this desire to give to the individual all the liberty that is compatible with his co-operation with others. the result of it has been to teach the unitarian body, in the words of francis e. abbot at syracuse, in , that "the only reconciliation of the duties of collective christian activity and individual freedom of thought lies in an efficient organization for practical christian work, based rather on unity of spirit than on uniformity of belief."[ ] [sidenote: missionary activities.] during this period of controversy, from to , the unitarian association had at its head several able men, who were actively interested in its work. the president for - was rev. john g. palfrey; and he was succeeded, in , by hon. thomas d. eliot, of new bedford, who was in both houses of the massachusetts legislature, and then for a number of years in the lower house of congress. from to the president was mr. henry chapin, of worcester, an able lawyer and judge, loyally devoted to the sunday-school work of his city and county. he was succeeded by hon. john wells, chief justice of the supreme court of massachusetts, who was deeply interested in the church with which he was connected. in mr. henry p. kidder was elected to this office,--a position he held for ten years. he was prominent in the banking interests of boston, gave much attention to the charities of the city, and was an efficient worker in the south congregational church. rev. charles lowe, the secretary from to , wisely directed the activities of the association through the early period of the great awakening of the denomination, and kept it from going to pieces on the scylla and charybdis of creed and radicalism. he was followed at a most critical and difficult time by rev. rush r. shippen, who continued to hold the office until . the reaction succeeding the great prosperity that followed the close of the civil war brought great burdens of debt to many individuals, and to cities, states, and the nation. these troubles distracted attention from spiritual interests, and joined with various other calamities in making this a trying time for churches and religious organizations. the discussions as to the theological position of the denomination naturally resulted in more or less of disorganization, and made it impossible to secure the unity of effort which is essential to any positive missionary growth. in spite of these drawbacks, however, denominational interests slowly advanced. during this period the unitarian association began to receive a considerable increase of its funds from legacies,--a result of its enlarged activities, and of the new interest awakened by the formation of the national conference. a few facts may be mentioned to illustrate the never-failing generosity of unitarian givers when specific needs are presented. in october, , occurred the great fire in chicago and the burning of unity church in that city, which was aided with $ , in rebuilding; while the third church and all souls' were helped liberally in passing through this crisis. the following year the boston fire crippled sadly the resources of the association, and instead of the $ , asked for only $ , were received. yet in the church in washington was built, and $ , were contributed to that purpose by the denomination. in ; the denomination gave $ , to free the church of the messiah in new york from debt. during this period $ , were contributed to the young men's christian union in boston, $ , to the harvard divinity school, $ , to the prospect hill school at greenfield, and $ , towards the channing memorial church in newport. during these trying times the administration of unitarian affairs in the west was in judicious hands, in rev. charles g. ames began those missionary efforts on the pacific coast that have led on to the establishment of a considerable number of churches in that section of the country. in central illinois the devoted labors of jasper l. douthit from to the present time have produced wide-reaching results in behalf of a genuine religion, temperance, good government, and education. in rev. carlton a. staples was made the missionary agent of the association in the west, with headquarters in chicago, where a book-room was established. he was succeeded in by rev. sylvan s. hunting, who was a tireless worker in the western field for many years. in rev. jenkin lloyd jones became the missionary of the wisconsin conference, and the next year of the western conference. for ten years mr. jones labored in this position with enthusiasm for the unitarian cause in the west. [sidenote: college town missions.] in the spring of the attention of the unitarian association was directed to the growing university of michigan; and rev. charles h. brigham, then the minister of the church in taunton, was invited to proceed to ann arbor, and see what might be accomplished there. meetings were held in the court-house, but in an old methodist church was purchased by the association and adapted to the uses of the new society. the congregation numbered at first about eighty persons, but gradually increased, especially from the attendance of university students. mr. brigham was asked by the students who listened to him to form a bible class for their instruction, and this increased in numbers until it included from two hundred to three hundred persons. on sunday evenings he delivered lectures wherein his wide and varied learning was made subservient to high ideals and to a noble interpretation of christianity. he led many young men and women into the liberal faith, and he exercised through them a wide influence throughout the west. his gifts as a lecturer were also made available at the meadville theological school, with which institution he was connected for ten years.[ ] the success of mr. brigham led to the founding of other college town churches, that at ithaca, the seat of cornell university, being established in . in such a mission was begun at madison for the students of the university of wisconsin, and another at iowa city for the university of iowa. in more recent years college missions have been started at lawrence, kan.; lincoln, neb.; minneapolis, minn.; berkeley, cal.; colorado springs; and amherst, mass. this has proved to be one of the most effective ways of extending unitarianism as a modern interpretation of christianity. [sidenote: theatre preaching.] another interest developed by the awakening of was the popularization of unitarianism by the use of theatres. in january, , was begun in the cooper institute, new york, a sunday evening course of lectures by clarke, bellows, osgood, frothingham, putnam, chadwick, and joseph may, which was largely attended. some of the most important doctrinal subjects were discussed. a few weeks later a similar course was undertaken in washington with like success. in march, , the suffolk conference undertook such a series of lectures in the boston theatre, which was crowded to its utmost capacity. then followed courses of sermons or lectures in lawrence, new bedford, salem, springfield, providence, chicago, and san francisco, as well as in other places. the council of the national conference, in , commended this as an important work that should be encouraged. rev. adams ayer was made an agent of the association to organize such meetings, and their success was remarkable for several years. in rev. charles lowe spoke of "that wonderful feature of our recent experience," and urged that these meetings should be so organized as to lead to definite results. an earnest effort was made to organize the theatre congregations into unsectarian societies. it was proposed to form christian unions that should work for christian improvement and usefulness. the first result of this effort was the reorganization of the boston young men's christian union in the spring of . a similar institution was formed in providence, to promote worship, education, hospitality and benevolence. unions were also formed in, salem, lowell, cambridge, new bedford, new york, and elsewhere. [sidenote: organization of local conferences.] in the autumn of , in order to facilitate the collection of money for the unitarian association, a number of local conferences were held in massachusetts. the first of these met at somerville, november , and was primarily a meeting of the cambridge association of ministers, including all the lay delegates to the new york convention from the churches which that association represented. the result of this meeting was an increase of contributions to the unitarian association, and the determination to organize permanently to facilitate that work. dr. e.e. hale has stated that the initial suggestion of these meetings came from a conversation between dr. bellows and dr. e.h. sears, in which the latter said "that a very important element in any effort which should reveal the unitarian church to itself would be some plan by which neighboring churches would be brought together more familiarly."[ ] the local conferences had distinct antecedents, however, by which their character was doubtless in some degree determined. the early county and other local auxiliaries to the unitarian association begun in and continued for at least twenty years, which were general throughout new england, afforded a precedent; but a more immediate initiative had been taken in new hampshire, where the new hampshire unitarian association had been organized at manchester, february , . it does not appear that this organization was in any way a revival of the former society of the same name in that state, which was organized at concord in , and which was very active for a brief period. a unitarian church association of maine was organized at portland, september , , largely under the influence of rev. sylvester judd, of augusta; but it had only a brief existence. the maine conference of unitarian churches was organized at farmington, july , .[ ] these organizations antedated the movement for the formation of local conferences on the part of the national conference; and they doubtless gave motive and impetus to that effort. on november , , a meeting similar to that at somerville was held by the franklin evangelical association[ ] at springfield, and with similar results. other meetings were held at lowell, dedham, quincy, salem, taunton, worcester, and boston. the attendance at all these meetings was large, they developed an enthusiastic interest, and pledges were promptly made looking to larger contributions to the unitarian association. at the syracuse meeting of the national conference, in , dr. bellows reported for the council in favor of local organizations, auxiliary to the national body. "no great national convention of any kind succeeds," it was declared, "which is not the concurrence of many local conventions, each of which has duties of detail and special spheres of influence upon whose co-operation the final and grand success of the whole depends." a series of resolutions, calling for the formation of local conferences, "to meet at fixed periods, at convenient points, for the organization of missionary work," was presented by dr. e.e. hale. in order to carry into effect the intent of these resolutions, charles lowe devised a plan of organization, which declared that the object of the local conference "shall be to promote the religious life and mutual sympathy of the churches which unite in it, and to enable them to co-operate in missionary work, and in raising funds for various christian purposes." the work of organizing such local missionary bodies was taken up at once, and proceeded rapidly. the first one was organized at sheboygan, wis., october , ; and nearly all the churches were brought within the limits of such conferences during the next two years.[ ] in the local conferences, as in the national conference, two purposes contended for expression that were not compatible with each other as practical incentives to action. the one looked to the uniting of all liberal individuals and denominations in a general organization, and the other aimed at the promotion of distinctly unitarian interests. in the national conference the denominational purpose controlled in shaping its permanent policy; but the other intent found expression in the addition of "other christian churches" to the name, though in only the most limited way did such churches connect themselves with the conference.[ ] the local conferences made like provision for those not wishing to call themselves distinctly unitarian. such desire for co-operation, however, was in a large degree ineffective because of the fact that the primary aim in the calling into existence of such conferences was an increase in the funds of the unitarian association. [sidenote: fellowship and fraternity.] under the leadership of the national conference the unitarian body underwent material changes in its internal organization and in its relations to other denominations. not only did it bring the churches to act together in the local conferences and in its own sessions, but it taught then to co-operate for the protection of their pulpits against adventurers and immoral men. before it was organized, the excessive spirit of independency in the churches would permit of no exercise of control as to their selection of ministers to fill their pulpits. at the fourth session of the national conference, held in new york in october, , the council, through dr. bellows, suggested that the local conferences refuse to acknowledge as ministers men of proven vices and immoralities. to carry out the spirit of this suggestion, dr. hale presented a resolution, which was adopted, asking the local conferences to appoint committees of fellowship to examine and to act upon candidates for the ministry. in october, , the new york and hudson river conference created such a committee "to examine the testimonials of such as desire to become members of the conference and enter the unitarian ministry." the seventh session of the national conference, held at saratoga in , provided for the appointment of a committee of fellowship, and the list of names of those appointed to its membership appears in the printed report; but there is no record that the committee ever organized. in the council reported at considerable length on the desirableness of establishing such a committee; and, again, a committee of fellowship was appointed "to take into immediate consideration the subject of the introduction into the unitarian ministry of those persons who seek an entrance into that ministry from other churches." this committee consisted of twelve persons, three each for the eastern, middle, western, and pacific states. at the session of the council of the conference stated that it had created a substitute for the old ecclesiastical council, that was called together from the neighboring ministers and churches whenever a minister was to be inducted into office. that method was costly and had dropped into desuetude; but the new method of a committee of fellowship saved true congregational methods and freed the churches from unworthy men. at this session the committee reported that it had adopted a uniform plan of action; but a resolution was passed recommending that each local conference establish its own committee of fellowship. having once been instituted, however, the committee of the national conference came slowly to be recognized as the fit means of introducing ministers into the unitarian fellowship. its authority has proven beneficent, and in no sense autocratic. it has shown that churches may co-operate in this way without intruding upon each others' rights, and that such a safeguarding of the pulpits of the denomination is essential to their dignity and morality. in the minnesota conference went one step further, and provided for a committee of fellowship with power to exclude for "conduct unbecoming a minister." [sidenote: results of the denominational awakening.] the most marked feature in the history of unitarianism in this country during the period from to was the organization of the national conference as the legislative body of the denomination, and the adjustment to it of the american unitarian association as its executive instrument. attendant upon this organizing movement was the termination of the theological discussion that had begun twenty years earlier between the conservatives and radicals, the supernaturalists and the idealists, or transcendentalists. in the large majority of unitarians were conservatives and supernaturalists, but in a marked change in belief had come about, that had apparently given the victory to the more moderate of the radicals. the majority of unitarians would no longer assert that miracles are necessary to faith in christ and the acceptance of his teachings as worthy of credence. the change that came about during these years was largely due to the leadership of henry w. bellows. what he did was to keep actively alive in the unitarian body its recognition of its christian heritage, while at the same time he boldly refused assent to its being committed to any definite creed. he insisted upon the right of unitarians to the christian name, and to all that christianity means as a vital spiritual force; but at the same time he refused to accept any limits for the christian tradition and heritage, and left them free for growth. sometimes apparently reactionary and conservative, he was at other times boldly radical and progressive. the cause of this seeming inconsistency was to be found in those gifts of imagination and emotion that made him a great preacher; but the inconsistency was more apparent than real, for in his leadership he manifested a wisdom and a capacity for directing the efforts of others that has never been surpassed in the history of religion and philanthropy in this country. he was both conservative and radical, supernaturalist and transcendentalist, a believer in miracles with a confident trust in the functions of reason. he saw both before and after, knew the worth of the past, and recognized that all the roots of our religious life are found therein, and yet courageously faced the future and its power to transform our faith by the aid of philosophy and science. consequently, his sympathies were large, generous, and inclusive. sometimes autocratic in word and action, his motives were catholic, and his intentions broad and appreciative. he gave direction to the newer unitarianism in its efforts to organize and perpetuate itself. had it been more flexible to his organizing skill, it would have grown more rapidly; but, with all its individualism and dislike of proselyting, it has more than doubled in strength since . he showed the unitarian body that freedom is consistent with organized effort, and that personal liberty is no more essential than co-ordinated action. he may be justly described as the real organizer of the unitarian body in this country. [ ] henry w. bellows, in monthly journal, iv. : "these two years of war have witnessed a more rapid progress in liberal opinions than the whole previous century. the public mind has opened itself as it has never been open before." in vi. , he said: "there are great and striking changes going on. men are breaking away from old opinions, and there is a great work for us to do." this was said in december, . william g. eliot, monthly journal, iv. : "the war has proved that our unitarian faith works well in time of trial. no other church has been so uniformly and thoroughly loyal, and no other church has done more for the sick and dying." many other similar words could be quoted. [ ] james freeman clarke reported for this committee at the syracuse session of , and stated that its members had conferred with christians, universalists, methodists, congregationalists, and others. the committee made several suggestions as to what could be done to promote general fellowship, and recommended that the title of the national conference be so changed as to permit persons of other religions bodies to find a place within it, if they so desired. the committee was reappointed; and at the third session of the conference it reported that it had visited the annual gatherings of the universalists, methodists, and free religionists, and had been cordially welcomed. they were received into the pulpits of different denominations, they found everywhere a cordial spirit of fellowship and a breaking down of sectarian barriers. at this session the conference expressed its desire "to cultivate the most friendly relations with, and to encourage fraternal intercourse between, the various liberal christian bodies in this country." a committee of three was appointed "to represent our fraternal sentiments and to consider all questions which relate to mutual intercourse and co-operation." this committee reported through edward e. hale that it had been well received at two methodist conferences and at several state conventions of the universalists. especially had it been welcomed by the african methodist church, which was the beginning of cordial relations between the two bodies for several years. the committee reported, however, that "there are but few regularly organized bodies in this country which, in their formal action, express much desire for intercourse or co-operation with us as an organized branch of the church." a resolution offered by the committee, expressing the desire of the national conference "to cultivate the most friendly relations with all christian churches and to encourage fraternal intercourse between them," was adopted. the members of the committee appointed in attended the session of the american board of foreign missions in ; and they were received with courtesy, athanase coquerel addressing the board as their representative. the committee reported that "in every direction, from clergymen and laymen of different protestant churches, we have received informal expressions of what we believe to be a very general desire that there might be a more formal and public expression of the fellowship which undoubtedly really exists between the different protestant communions." at the session of the national conference held in the council suggested the propriety of preparing a register of the free or liberal churches of the world, and it enumerated the various bodies that might be properly included; but no action was taken on this recommendation. at this session an amendment to the by-laws, offered by dr. hale, was adopted, providing for a fellowship committee with other churches. this committee was not appointed, and the amendment was not printed in its proper place in the report. apparently, the interest in efforts of this kind had exhausted itself, partly because any active co-operation with the more conservative churches was impossible, and partly because the growth of denominational feeling directed the energies of the national conference into other channels. [ ] the sessions of the national conference have been held as follows: , new york, april - , ; , syracuse, october - , ; , new york, october - , ; , new york, october - , ; . boston, october - , ; , saratoga, september - , ; , saratoga, september - , ; , saratoga, september - , ; , saratoga, september - , ; , saratoga, september - , ; , saratoga, september - , ; , saratoga, september - , ; , philadelphia, october - , ; , saratoga, september - , ; , saratoga, september - , ; , washington, october - , ; , saratoga, september - , ; , washington, october - ; , saratoga, september , . a meeting was held in chicago, in , in connection with the parliament of religions. the presidents of the national conference have been hon. john a. andrew, who served in ; hon. thomas d. eliot, whose term of service lasted to ; judge ebenezer r. hoar, from to , and again from to ; hon. john d. long, from to ; judge samuel f. miller, to ; mr. george william curtis, to ; and hon. george f. hoar, to . hon. carroll d. wright was elected to the office in . the secretaries have been rev. edward everett hale, rev. george batchelor, rev. russell n. bellows, rev. william h. lyon, and rev. daniel w. morehouse. the first chairman of the council was rev. henry w. bellows, d.d., who served to , and again from to ; professor charles carroll everett, d.d., from to ; rev. edward everett hale, d.d., from to , and from to ; rev. james de normandie, d.d., from to ; rev. brooke herford, d.d., from to ; rev. george batchelor, from to ; rev. minot j. savage, d.d., from to ; and rev. howard n. brown, from the later year to , when rev. thomas r. slicer was elected. [ ] a.a. low, a member of the first unitarian congregation in brooklyn, n.y. [ ] lecture delivered in cooper institute, new york, on unitarian views of christ, published in the christian examiner, november, , xxxi, . [ ] works, iv. . [ ] the christian examiner, march-april, , iii. . [ ] first series of tracts of a.u.a. no. . [ ] first series of a.u.a. tracts, no. , april, . [ ] forty-fifth annual report of the american unitarian association, , . [ ] this correspondence was published in full in the christian register for december and , , mr. potter's letter protesting against the action of the association being printed on the later date. [ ] memoir of charles lowe, , . [ ] freedom and fellowship in religion, . [ ] freedom and fellowship in religion, . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] fifty affirmations, . [ ] report of the second meeting of the national conference, . [ ] memoir of charles h. brigham, with sermons and lectures. [ ] christian register. march , , lxxxix. ; twenty-fifth anniversary of the worcester conference, , address by dr. hale. see memoir of charles lowe, . [ ] church exchange, may, , vi. . [ ] this association of ministers was organized august , , and was orthodox, but found itself unitarian when the denominational change took place. [ ] see appendix for a complete list of the local conferences and the dates of their organization. [ ] in a small number of instances such churches did join the conference, but the number was too small to be in any degree significant. ix. growth of denominational consciousness. the period from to the present time is marked by a growing denominational unity. gradually unitarians have come to the acceptance of their fellowship as a religious body, and to a recognition of their distinct mission. the controversy between the conservatives and the radicals was transferred to the west in , and continued to have at its basis the problem of the relation of the individual to religious institutions and traditions. the conservative party maintained that unitarians are christians, and gave recognition to that continuity of human development by which every generation is connected with and draws its life from those which precede it, and is consciously dependent upon them. on the other hand, the radical party was not willing to accept traditions and institutions as having a binding authority over individuals. some of them were reluctant to call themselves christians, not because they rejected the more important of the christian beliefs, but because they were not willing to bind any individual by the action of his fellows. it was their claim that religion best serves its own ends when it is free to act upon the individual without compulsion of any kind from others, and that its attractions should be without any bias of external authority. [sidenote: "the western issue."] at the meeting of the western conference held in cleveland in , arrangements were made looking to its incorporation, and its object was defined to be "the transaction of business pertaining to the general interests of the societies connected with the conference, and the promotion of rational religion." it was voted that the motto on the conference seal should be "freedom, fellowship, and character in religion," which was the same as that of the free religious association, with the addition of the word "character." these results were reached after much discussion, and by the way of compromise. the issues thus raised were brought forward again at st. louis, in , when rev. j.t. sunderland, the secretary and missionary of the conference, deplored the growing spirit of agnosticism and scepticism in the unitarian churches of the west. his report caused a division of opinion in the conference; and in the controversy that ensued the conservatives were represented by the unitarian, edited by rev. brooke herford and rev. j.t. sunderland, and the radicals by unity, edited by rev. j.ll. jones and rev. w.c. gannett. at the western conference meeting of , held in cincinnati, the controversy found full expression. the session was preceded a few days before by the publication of a pamphlet on the western issue from the pen of mr. sunderland, in which he contended for the theistic and christian character of the conference. a resolution offered by rev. oscar clute, "that the primary object of this conference is to diffuse the knowledge and promote the interests of pure christianity," was rejected by a considerable majority. another, offered by mr. sunderland--"that, while rejecting all creeds and creed limitations, the conference hereby expresses its purpose as a body to be the promotion of a religion of love to god and love to man"--was also rejected. that presented by william c. gannett was carried by a majority of thirty-four to ten, and declared that the western unitarian conference conditions its fellowship on no dogmatic tests, but welcomes all who wish to join it to establish truth, righteousness, and love in the world. the result was a pronounced division between the two parties within the conference; and a considerable number of churches, including some of the oldest and strongest, withdrew from co-operation in the work of the conference. at the session of , held in all souls' church, chicago, an effort was made to bring about a reconciliation; but this was not completely secured.[ ] a resolution was carried, however, by a majority of fifty-nine to three, reaffirming mr. gannett's, declaration adopted at cincinnati, but also accepting a statement in regard to fellowship and doctrines, which was called the things most commonly believed to-day among us, and read as follows:-- in all matters of church government we are strict congregationalists. we have no creed in the usual sense; that is, articles of doctrinal belief which bind our churches and fix the conditions of our fellowship. character has always been to us the supreme matter. we have doctrinal beliefs, and for the most part hold such beliefs in common; but above all doctrines we emphasize the principles of freedom, fellowship, and character in religion. these principles make our all-sufficient test of fellowship. all names that divide religion are to us of little consequence compared with religion itself. whoever loves truth and loves the good is, in a broad sense, of our religious fellowship; whoever loves the one or lives the other better than ourselves is our teacher, whatever church or age he may belong to. so our church is wide, our teachers many, and our holy writings large. with a few exceptions we may be called christian theists: theists as worshipping the one-in-all, and naming that one, god our father; christian, because revering jesus as the highest of the historic prophets of religion; these names, as names, receiving more stress in our older than in our younger churches. the general faith is hinted well in words which several of our churches have adopted for their covenant: "in the freedom of the truth, and in the spirit of jesus christ, we unite for the worship of god and the service of man." it is hinted in such words as these: "unitarianism is a religion of love to god and love to man." "it is that free and progressive development of historic christianity which aspires to be synonymous with universal ethics and universal religion." but because we have no creed which we impose as test of fellowship, specific statements of belief abound among us, always somewhat differing, always largely agreeing. one such we offer here:-- we believe that to love the good and live the good is the supreme thing in religion. we hold reason and conscience to be final authorities in matters of religious belief. we honor the bible and all inspiring scriptures, old and new. we revere jesus and all holy souls that have taught men truth and righteousness and love, as prophets of religion. we believe in the growing nobility of man. we trust the unfolding universe as beautiful, beneficent, unchanging order; to know this order is truth; to obey it is right and liberty and stronger life. we believe that good and evil inevitably carry their own recompense, no good things being failure, and no evil things success; that heaven and hell are states of being; that no evil can befall the good man in either life or death; that all things work together for the victory of good. we believe that we ought to join hands and work to make the good things better and the worst good, counting nothing good for self that is not good for all. we believe that this self-forgetting, loyal life awakes in man the sense of union, here and now, with things eternal--the sense of deathlessness; and this is to us an earnest of the life to come. we worship one-in-all,--that life whence suns and stars derive their orbits and the soul of man its ought,--that light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, giving us power to become the sons of god,--that love with whom our souls commune. this one we name the eternal god, our father. this action not satisfying the remonstrants, the controversy went on with considerable vigor for three or four years. both parties to it were characteristically unitarian in their attitude and in their demands. both sought the truth with an attempt at unbiassed judgment; and neither wished to disfellowship the other, or to put any restrictions upon its expression of its opinions. much heat was engendered by the controversy, but light was desire by both parties with sincere purpose. the conflict was finally brought to an end by the action of the national conference at its session of , held at saratoga, though this result had been practically reached in . a committee on the revision of the constitution had been appointed by the council of the session of ; and this committee reported the following preamble, which was unanimously adopted as a substitute for the preamble of and :-- the conference of unitarian and other christian churches was formed in the year , with the purpose of strengthening the churches and societies which should unite in it for more and better work for the kingdom of god. these churches accept the religion of jesus, holding, in accordance with his teaching, that practical religion is summed up in love to god and love to man. the conference recognizes the fact that its constituency is congregational in tradition and polity. therefore, it declares that nothing in this constitution is to be construed as an authoritative test; and we cordially invite to our working fellowship any who, while differing from us in belief, are in general sympathy with our spirit and our practical aims. this preamble to the new constitution proved to be so far acceptable to both parties in the western conference, as well as to their sympathizers elsewhere, that harmony was restored throughout the denomination. while the unitarian body thus retained its use of the christian name and its insistence upon loyalty to the teachings of jesus, yet it put aside every form of dogmatic test and of creedal statement. its fellowship was made very broad in its character, and all were invited to join it who so desired. [sidenote: fellowship with universalists.] at the annual meeting of the unitarian association in resolutions were passed looking to joint action between unitarians and universalists with reference to furthering their common interests. a committee was appointed to confer with a similar committee of the universalist general convention for the purpose of considering "plans of closer co-operation, devise ways and means for more efficient usefulness." in october this proposal was accepted by the general convention, and a committee appointed. at the annual meeting of the unitarian association in the report of the joint committee was presented, in which it was declared that "closer co-operation is desirable and practicable"; but the committee expressed the wish to go on record "as not desiring nor expecting to disturb in any way the separate organic autonomy of the two denominations. we seek co-operation, not consolidation, unity, non union." the committee recommended that it be given authority to consider the cases in which the two denominations are jointly interested, such as opportunities of instituting churches or missions in new fields, the circulation of tracts and books, the holding of joint meetings of ministers and churches, or other efforts to promote intellectual agreements and deep faiths of the heart, and to recommend the appropriate action to the proper organizations. at the next sessions of the unitarian association and of the universalist general convention these recommendations were accepted, and permanent members of the joint committee were appointed. this committee has entered upon its duties, and important results may be anticipated in the promotion of harmony and co-operation. [sidenote: officers of the american unitarian association.] mr. henry p. kidder continued as the president of the unitarian association until the annual meeting of . he was then succeeded by hon. george d. robinson, who held the office for only one year. he had been in both houses of the massachusetts legislature, in the national house from to , and was governor of massachusetts from to . his successor was hon. george s. hale, from to , who was a distinguished lawyer, and was greatly interested in charities and reforms. hon. john d. long was the president from to . he had been in the lower house of the massachusetts legislature, was lieutenant governor in , governor in - , in the national house from to , and from to was secretary of the navy. hon. carroll d. wright held the office from to . he was in the massachusetts senate in and , was chief of the massachusetts bureau of statistics from to , superintendent of the united states census in , has been commissioner of the national bureau of labor since , and in became president of clark college at worcester. at the annual meeting of it was thought best to make a change in the nature of the presidency, in order that the head of the association might become its chief executive officer. in that way it was sought to add dignity and efficiency to the position of the executive officer, as well as to meet the greatly increased work of the association by this addition to its salaried force. the secretary, rev. samuel a. eliot, was elected to the presidency. in rev. grindall reynolds became the secretary of the association. he had previously held pastorates in jamaica plain and concord. he had rare executive abilities, was gifted with sound common sense and a judicial temper; and he had a most efficient business capacity. under his leadership the growth of the unitarian denomination was more rapid than it had been at any earlier period; and this was largely due to his zeal, energy, and wisdom. in december, , rev. george batchelor became the secretary, and he continued in office until november, , when he became the editor of the christian register. he had previously held pastorates in salem, chicago, and lowell. he was succeeded, january , , by rev. samuel a. eliot, who had been settled over churches in denver and brooklyn, and who became the president of the association in . rev. charles e. st. john, who had been settled in northampton and pittsburg, became the secretary at the annual meeting of . [sidenote: the american unitarian association as a representative body.] in the report of the council of the national conference at the session of , dr. bellows pointed out the fact that the american unitarian association was "not a union of churches, but an association of individuals belonging to unitarian churches, who became members of it and entitled to vote by signing its constitution and the annual payment of one dollar. this association never had, and has not now, any explicit relation to our churches as churches, but only to such individuals as choose to become voluntary subscribers to its funds, and members by signing its constitution, and to such churches as choose to employ its services." this statement led to the appointment of a committee "to consider how the national conference and the american unitarian association can more effectually co-operate without sacrifice of the advantages belonging to either." the committee reported in in favor of so changing the charter of the association that a church might become a member. at the annual meeting of the association in , after a prolonged discussion, its by-laws were so amended that, while the life membership was retained, the sum creating it was raised from $ to $ ; and churches were given representation on the condition of regular yearly contributions to its treasury, two of such contributions being necessary to establish a church in this right. since that time the delegates from churches have considerably outnumbered the life members voting at the annual meetings. this has practically given the churches the controlling voice in the activities of the association. the giving a representative character to the association had the effect of increasing the contributions made to its support by the churches. under the leadership of dr. bellows, at the national conference in , there began a movement looking to the establishment of a conference in every state and the employment of a missionary by every such conference. this plan has not yet been fully carried out; but in and the following years missionary superintendents were appointed by the association for five general sections of the country, and, with some variations, this, system has continued in operation to the present time.[ ] [sidenote: the church building loan fund.] the work of building churches was greatly facilitated by the establishment, in , of a church building loan fund. the proposition to create such a fund was first brought forward by the finance committee at a meeting of the directors of the unitarian association on february , . at the march meeting a committee was appointed to mature plans; and at the meeting of the national conference in september, held at saratoga, a resolution was passed asking the association to set apart $ , for this purpose, and pledging the conference to add $ , to this sum. at the november meeting of the directors of the association the organization of the fund was completed, a board of trustees was created, and the sum of $ , was reported as secured. the fund was steadily increased by contributions from the churches and by gifts and legacies until in it amounted to $ , . . up to may, , an aggregate sum of $ , had been disbursed, in one hundred loans to ninety societies, chiefly to aid in the erection of new church edifices.[ ] [sidenote: the unitarian building in boston.] for several years after the organization of the american unitarian association the records give no indication of the place of meeting of the directors. during the latter part of , and in , david reed was the general agent of the association; and his place of business was at washington street. it is probable that the directors met at the study of the secretary or at the place of business of the agent. in december, , the firm of bowles & dearborn, booksellers, became the agents, their store being first at and then at washington street. here all unitarian publications were kept on sale, the name of "general repositary" being given to their stock of books, tracts, periodicals, and other publications of a liberal character. in the agent was leonard c. bowles, evidently a continuation of bowles & dearborn. in the depositary was removed to washington street, and was under the management of the firm of gray & bowen, who were paid $ . for their services. in the place of business of this firm was washington street; and the sum it received from the association was $ , which was the next year increased to $ . leonard c. bowles, located at washington street, again became the agent in . in james munroe & co. appear as the publishers of the annual report, but they are not mentioned as agents or as having charge of the repositary. the sum of $ was paid in that year for the rent of a room for the general secretary, rev. charles briggs; and the location of the room is probably indicated by the record that in munroe & co. were paid $ . for rent of room and clerk hire, their store being at washington street. here the headquarters of the association were at last established, for they continued in this place until . in the rental paid was $ , and for the six succeeding years it was $ . surely, these were the days of small things; but here the association carried on such activities as it had in hand, and the unitarian ministers met for conversation and consultation. in crosby, nichols & co. became the agents of the association, first at and then at washington street. this firm brought out several unitarian books, and issued the christian examiner and other unitarian periodicals. for a number of years they were intimately associated with unitarian interests, and the theological and literary traditions of the time connect them with many of the leading men and movements of boston. in the rear of their store the association had its office, its meeting-place for the directors and other officers, as well as for the monday gatherings of ministers. after these many wanderings from the rear of one bookstore to another the association at last secured an abode of its own. on march , , rooms for the use of the association were opened at bromfield street. on this occasion a small company came together, and listened to an address by dr. samuel k. lothrop, the president of the association. another change was made in october, , when walker, wise & co. undertook the book-selling, and publishing work of the association at bromfield street. in the year there came to the association an opportunity for securing a building of its own. the sum of $ , was paid for a house at chauncy street, which was occupied in the spring of . the enlarged activities of the association at this time here found the housing they needed. affiliated organizations also found a home in this building, especially the sunday school society, the christian register association, and the monthly religious magazine. the theatre meetings, begun in boston in , having suggested the need of a larger denominational building, the monthly journal of november, , proposed the erection of a building with a spacious hall for these great popular meetings, smaller rooms for social gatherings, offices for the association and other affiliated societies, and an attractive bookstore. "in short, we would have it comprise all that might properly belong to a denominational headquarters or home. we would have it in a convenient and conspicuous situation, and every way worthy of our position." this dream of mr. lowe's he brought forward again in his annual report of , when he said: "the building now occupied by the association has become wholly inadequate to its uses; and steps were taken more than a year ago by its friends in boston towards providing more suitable accommodations, and at the same time providing in connection with it for such other uses as might make the building to be erected worthy to be the headquarters of the denomination in the city which gave it birth." mr. shippen called attention to the needs of the association in his report of , saying that the project of a large hall had been abandoned, but that there was urgent demand for a building suited to the business and social needs of the denomination in boston. the great fire of november, , brought this project to a sudden termination. the chauncy street building was for many hours in danger of being burned, out it was finally saved. its market value was much increased by the fire, however; and in february, , it was sold for $ , . purchase was soon made, at a cost of $ , , of the estate at tremont place, belonging to hon. albert fearing, who had been active in the work of the association and prominent in the unitarian circles of boston. this building, entered by the association in may, , was somewhat larger than its predecessor and in some respects better suited to the needs of the association; yet the secretary, at the annual meeting held in the same month, called for the more convenient building, which should serve "as a worthy centre in this city for the various charitable and missionary activities of our faith."[ ] in his report of mr. shippen again presented his demand for a suitable home for the association and its kindred organizations. this appeal was renewed in the following year by mr. reynolds, who urged "the need of a denominational house in boston, which should be commodious, accessible, easily found, and where all our charities and all our works should find a home." "very fitting it is," he added, "that such a house should be named after him who, by his personal influence in life and by the power of his written word after his death, has been the mightiest single force for the diffusion of rational christianity." in january, , the unitarian club of boston was organized; and it soon after took up the task of erecting the desired building. the initiative was taken at a meeting of the club held december , , when mr. henry p. kidder offered to head a subscription for this purpose with the sum of $ , . the proposal was received with much enthusiasm, and a committee was appointed, consisting of henry p. kidder, charles faulkner, charles w. eliot, william endicott, jr., francis h. brown, m.d., dr. john cordner, arthur t. lyman, henry grew, thomas gaffield, and rev. grindall reynolds, to whom authority was given to raise funds, purchase a lot, and erect a building. it was arranged by this committee that the association should contribute $ , from the sale of its tremont place building, and that the club should raise $ , . subscriptions were opened february , ; and in november over $ , had been secured. a suitable lot was purchased at the corner of beacon and bowdoin streets, and the erection of the building was begun in . a prolonged labor strike delayed the completion of the building, so that the service of its dedication, which had been arranged for the evening of may , , was held in tremont temple. the presiding officer on that occasion was george william curtis; and addresses were made by drs. frederic h. hedge, andrew p. peabody, and horatio stebbins. in july the building was occupied by the association. "the denominational house is but brick and stone," said mr. reynolds in his report of ; "but it is brick and stone which testify to the new hope, vigor, life, which have been coming in these later years into our body, and without which it could not have been reared. it is brick and stone which are the pledges of a noble future, which stimulate to good work, and furnish the means of doing it."[ ] [sidenote: growth of the devotional spirit.] the last twenty years of the nineteenth century saw an increased use of the simpler christian rites in unitarian churches. in that time a distinct advance was made in the acceptableness of the communion service, and probably in the number of those willing to join in its observance. the abandonment of its mystical features and its interpretation as a simple memorial service, that would help to cherish loved ones gone hence, and the saintly and heroic of all ages, as well as the one great leader of the christian body, has given it for unitarians a new spiritual effectiveness. the same causes have led to the adoption of the rite of confirmation in a considerable number of churches. gradually the idea has grown that what rev. sylvester judd called "the birthright church" is the true one, and that it is desirable that all children should be religiously trained, and admitted to the church at the age of adolescence. mr. judd gave noble utterance to this conception of a church in a series of sermons published after his death,[ ] as well as in a sermon prepared for the thursday lecture in boston.[ ] the same idea was elaborated by rev. cyrus a. bartol in his church and congregation: a plea for their unity,[ ] wherein he contended for the union of church and parish, the opening of the communion to all as a rite accepted by the whole congregation, and not by a few church members, and the education of children as constituent members of the church from birth. it was not until much later, however, that the rite of confirmation came into use,[ ] largely because of the interpretations of the purposes and methods of christian nurture presented by bushnell, bartol, and judd. this rite could have meaning only as the expression of social responsibility on the part of parents and church alike, that true religion is not merely a question of individual opinion, but that there is high worth in those spiritual forces that are carried forward from generation to generation, and must descend from parent to child if they have effective power. in a word, the use of the confirmation rite is an abandonment of extreme individualism, and is an acceptance of the socialistic conception of spiritual development.[ ] this is distinctly a return to the conception of a church maintained by solomon stoddard at the beginning of the eighteenth century, and to that broader congregationalism he desired to see established throughout new england. it was also theoretically that of the puritan founders of new england, who maintained that all children of church members were also members of the church, but who inconsistently insisted upon a supernatural conversion in order to full membership. it is even more positively an acceptance of the theory of christian nurture held by the catholic and the episcopal churches. that theory is based on the social conception of the church, that it is an organic body, and that every child is born into it and is to be trained as a member by nature and by right. there has also been a marked change in the forms of sunday worship, especially in the general adoption of responsive readings or more elaborate rituals. the tendency has been away from the bare and unattractive service of the puritan churches, which was the acme of individualism in worship, towards the more social conception that brings the whole congregation to join in the act and in the spirit of devotion. this social conception of worship had its first distinct expression in a unitarian church when james freeman clarke organized the church of the disciples, in .[ ] his example was a potent force in introducing into many churches a richer and more expressive form of worship. another influence was that of samuel longfellow, who became the minister of the second unitarian church in brooklyn, in . he soon after introduced vesper services in place of the second sermon in the afternoon, making them largely devotional in their character. "his own taste and deep feeling were largely a condition of the full success of the vespers," says his biographer, "which were seldom elsewhere so impressive or seemed so genuine as a devotional act. they needed, for their perfect effect, the influence of a leader with whom worship was an habitual mental attitude, and who, combined with the instinct of religion the art of a poet and of a musician."[ ] the form of service thus initiated was adopted in many other churches, and slowly had its influence in giving greater beauty and spiritual expressiveness to worship in unitarian churches. about the tendency to adopt a more social and a more aesthetic form of worship came to assert itself more distinctly. to its furtherance rev. howard n. brown gave, perhaps, greater emphasis than any other person; but there were others who took an active part in the movement. the old congregational demand for simplicity, however, was very great; and there was strong feeling against anything like ritualism. the use of some kind of liturgy became quite general in the face of this objection, and a considerable number of books of a semi-ritual character were published. the most elaborate work of this nature was compiled by a committee appointed by the unitarian association, and published by it in . what is to be recognized in this tendency is not the more general use of liturgies, however simple or however elaborate, but the growth in unitarian churches of the worshipping spirit. with the development of a rational theology there has been a corresponding evolution of a simple but earnest attitude of devotion. the devotional spirit of unitarians, however, has found its most emphatic and beautiful expression in religious hymns and poems. the older unitarian piety found voice in the hymns of the younger henry ware, norton, pierpont, frothingham, peabody, lunt, bryant, and many others. it was rational and yet christian, simple in sentiment and yet it found in the new testament traditions its themes and its symbolisms. then followed the older transcendentalists, who sought in the inward life and the soul's oneness with god the chief motives to spiritual expression. the hymns and the religious poems of furness, hedge, longfellow, johnson, clarke, very, brooks, and miss scudder,[ ] have an interior and spiritual quality seldom found in devotional poetry. they are not the mere utterances of conventional sentiments or the repetition of ecclesiastical symbolisms, but the voicing of deep inward experiences that reveal and interpret the true life of the soul. of the same character are the hymns and religious poems of gannett, hosmer, and chadwick, who have but accentuated the tendencies of their predecessors. it is the more radical theology that has voiced itself in the religious songs of these men, but with a mystical or spiritual insight that fits them to the needs of all devout, worshippers. it is these genuinely poetical interpretations of the spiritual life that most often claim utterance in song on the part of unitarian congregations. a body of worshippers that can produce such a hymnology must possess a large measure of genuine piety and devotion. [sidenote: the seventy-fifth anniversary.] many of the tendencies of the unitarian movement found utterance on the occasion of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the american unitarian association. the meetings were held in tremont temple, may , ; and the attendance was large and enthusiastic, many persons coming from distant parts of the country. this meeting brought into full expression the denominational consciousness, and showed the harmony that had been secured as the result of the controversies of many years. as never before, it was realized that the unitarian body has a distinct mission, that it has organic and vital power, and that its individual members are united by a common faith for the promotion of the interests of a rational and humanitarian religion. this was also a notable occasion because it brought together representatives from nearly all the countries in which unitarianism exists in an organized form, thus clearly indicating that it is a cosmopolitan movement, and not one of merely local significance. at the morning session addresses were made by the representatives from hungary, great britain, germany, belgium, india, and japan. in the afternoon addresses were delivered by the missionaries of the association. other meetings of much interest were held during the week, that were of value as interpretations of the past of unitarianism in this country. during this anniversary week, on may , , upon the suggestion of rev. s.a. eliot, there was organized the international council of unitarian and other liberal religious thinkers and workers, its object being "to open communication with those in all lands who are striving to unite pure religion and perfect liberty, and to increase fellowship and co-operation among them." professor j. estlin carpenter, of oxford, england, was selected as the president, and rev. charles w. wendte, who shortly after became the minister of the parker memorial in boston, was made the secretary. the executive committee included representatives from the united states, great britain, japan, hungary, germany, france, italy, belgium, and switzerland. the first annual meeting was held in london, may and , , with delegates present from the above-named countries, as well as from holland, norway, india, denmark, australia, and canada.[ ] the anniversary exercises, as well as the organization of the international council, gave concrete emphasis to the growing interest in unitarian ideas and principles in many parts of the world. they gave the sense of a large fellowship, and kindled new enthusiasm. as interpreted by these meetings, the unitarian name has largely ceased to be one of merely theological signification, and has come to mean "an endeavor to unite for common and unselfish endeavors all believers in pure religion and perfect liberty."[ ] [ ] the unitarian, june, , ii. . for historical accounts of this controversy see mrs. s.c.ll. jones's western unitarian conference: its work and its mission, unity mission tract, no. ; w.c. gannett's the flowering of christianity, lesson xii., part iv.; and the unitarian, ii. and iii. a western unitarian association was organized in chicago, june , . some of the older and leading churches were connected with it, including those at meadville, ann arbor, louisville, shelbyville, church of the messiah and unity in chicago, church of the messiah in st. louis, keokuk, and others. hon. george w. mccrary was elected the president, and mrs. jonathan slade the recording secretary. in october, , rev. george batchelor became the western agent of the american unitarian association. he was succeeded the next year by rev. george w. cutter. in september, , rev. t.b. forbush was made the western superintendent of the american unitarian association, with headquarters in chicago; and he held this position until . during the period covered by these dates rev. j.r. effinger was the general missionary of the western unitarian conference, and he was succeeded by rev. f.l. hosmer and rev. a.w. gould. in the western churches were reunited in the western conference, and its secretary has been the superintendent of the american unitarian association. as defining the position of the american unitarian association during this period of controversy, it may be recalled that in june, , the directors adopted a resolution, in which they said they "would regard it as a subversion of the purpose for which its funds have been contributed, as well as of the principles cherished by its officers, to give assistance to any church or organization which does not rest emphatically on the christian basis." [ ] new england, middle states and canada, western states, southern states, and pacific coast. [ ] these loans are made without interest under established conditions, one of which is that they must be repaid in ten annual instalments. [ ] annual report of , . [ ] the building seemed to be ample, when it was first occupied, for any growth that was likely to be made for many years to come. at the present time, only sixteen years later, it is crowded; and an extension is urgently demanded. it does not now afford room for the work required, and much of that work is done at a considerable disadvantage because of the want of room. the promise for the immediate future is that much more room will be required in order to facilitate the growing work of the association. [ ] the church: in a series of sermons, boston, . [ ] the birthright church: a discourse, printed for the association of the unitarian church of maine, augusta, . mr. judd's conception of the church as a social organism was shown in the name given to the organization formed under his leadership in , called the association of the unitarian church in maine. in the preamble to the constitution he wrote: "we, the unitarian christians of maine, ourselves, and our posterity are a church.... we are a church, not of creeds, but of the bible; not of sect, but of humanity; seeking not uniformity of dogma, but communion in the religious life. we embrace in our fellowship all who will be in fellowship with us." in defining a local church, he says: "these christians, with their families, uniting for religious worship, instruction, growth, and culture, having the ordinances and a pastor, constitute a parochial church." [ ] boston, . [ ] probably dr. william g. eliot, of st. louis, was the first unitarian minister to make a systematic use of this rite. he prepared a brief manual for use in his church, the preface to which bears date of december , . seth c. beach, while minister in dedham, printed a paper on the subject in the unitarian review, january, . he held a confirmation service in the dedham church, april , . at a meeting of the western sunday school society, held in cincinnati, may , , rev. john c. learned, read a paper on the sacrament of confirmation. [ ] the views of bartol and judd are appropriate to a state church, wherein they first found expression; and their motive is always distinctly social. [ ] life of j.f. clarke, by e.e. hale, [ ] memoir of samuel longfellow, by joseph may, . [ ] miss scudder's best hymns were all written while she was a unitarian. unitarian hymnology has been nobly treated by dr. alfred p. putnam, in his singers and songs of the liberal faith, boston, . it is understood that he is preparing a second volume. the tendency to a deeper recognition of the spirit of worship has found fitting expression in the spiritual life: studies of devotion and worship, george h. ellis, . [ ] the addresses and papers of this meeting were published under the title of liberal religious thought at the beginning of the twentieth century, london, . they give the most complete account yet published of the various liberal movements in many parts of the world, and the book is one of great interest and value. [ ] from the first circular of the international council. x. the ministry at large. one of the most important of the philanthropies undertaken by the early unitarians was the ministry to the poor and unchurched in boston, usually known as the ministry at large. it began in , came under the direction of the american unitarian association and the shaping hand of dr. joseph tuckerman in , and was taken in charge by the benevolent fraternity of churches in . it was not begun by tuckerman, though its origin is usually attributed to him. even before attempts had been made to establish missions amongst the poor by the evangelical denominations; but their work was not thoroughly organized, and it had reached no efficient results when tuckerman entered upon his labors. the work of tuckerman was to take up what had been tentatively begun by others, give it a definite purpose and method, and so to inform it with his own genius for charity that it became a great philanthropy in its intent and in its methods. [sidenote: association of young men.] when the hancock grammar school-house in the north end of boston was being erected, a young man, in passing it on a september evening, said to a companion, "why cannot we have a sunday-school here?" the proposition was received with favor, and the two discussed plans while they continued their walk. they met frequently to mature their methods of procedure, and they invited others to join them in the undertaking. on the evening of october , , these two young men--frederick t. gray and benjamin h. greene--met with moses grant, william p. rice, and others, to give more careful consideration to their purpose of forming a society for mutual religious improvement.[ ] these young men met with little encouragement, and for some time there was small prospect of their succeeding in their undertaking. they continued to meet weekly, however; and on november they formed the association of young men for their own mutual improvement and for the religious instruction of the poor. in the name was changed to the association for religious improvement. the members met at each other's houses weekly, for the purpose of considering topics which related to their own personal improvement or to the wants of the community, always keeping in view the fact that their own religious growth must lie at the foundation of any great good which could be done by them for society. by degrees their number increased; and during the six years following, as appears from the records, the subjects to which their meetings were successively devoted were the desirableness of employing a missionary and building a mission-house, the condition and wants of vagrant children, the diffusion of christianity in india, the importance of issuing tracts and other religions publications, the means and best method of improving our state prisons, the utility of forming a unitarian association, the best means to be adopted to abolish intemperance, the character of theatrical entertainments, the want of infant schools, and the best methods which could be taken to aid in the promotion of peace. all of these subjects were then comparatively new, and they were but just beginning to attract attention. their importance was by no means generally understood, and least of all was the place which they were soon to occupy in public estimation anticipated.[ ] the association was discontinued in december, . [sidenote: preaching to the poor.] one of the first enterprises entered upon by this society was the securing of preaching for the poor and those connected with no religious organization. in this effort they had the co-operation of the younger henry ware, then the minister of the second church, and of john g. palfrey, then the minister of the brattle street church. in november, , henry ware began these meetings; and four series of them were held throughout the winter, in charter street, in hatters' or creek square, in pitts court, and in spring street. the charter street meetings were at first held in a room of a primary school, and then in a small chapel that had been built by a benevolent man for teaching and preaching purposes. in this place mr. ware was assisted by dr. jenks of the christian denomination, and the chapel was afterwards occupied by the latter as a minister at large. the meetings in pitts court were also held in a school-room. those in hatters' square occupied a room in a large tenement house and "here the accommodations, and probably the audience, were of a humbler character than elsewhere."[ ] [sidenote: tuckerman as minister to the poor.] early in the year dr. joseph tuckerman expressed his willingness to devote himself to this ministry; and the american unitarian association was appealed to, that the necessary financial support might be secured. dr. tuckerman had been for twenty-five years the parish minister in chelsea, but his health was such that he had been obliged to relinquish that position. on september the sum of $ was appropriated to the support of dr. tuckerman for one year as a missionary among the poor in boston; and ware, barrett, and gannett were made a committee to ascertain what amount of money could be raised for this purpose. it was thought wise not to use the regular funds of the association for so special and local an object. the women of the boston churches were therefore appealed to in behalf of this cause; and during the first year contributions were received from those connected with the congregations of the brattle street, federal street, west, new south, new north, twelfth, and chauncey place churches, amounting to $ . these contributions by the women of the churches were continued until the benevolent fraternity was organized. tuckerman entered upon his work november , . on the evening of that day he met with the association for, religious improvement, and discussed with its members the work to be undertaken. he began at once the visiting of the poor and the study of their condition in the several parts of the city, though confining himself largely to the north end. in making his first quarterly report to the unitarian association, february , , he said that he had taken fifty families into his pastoral charge. he had given special attention to the children, had arranged that those should be sent to school who had not previously attended, and provided them with shoes and clothes where these were necessary. he had also aided the sick, provided necessaries for those who were helpless and deserving, secured work for those out of employment, and given religious consolation and correction where these were required. after dr. tuckerman had entered upon his work of visiting the poor, the young men's association arranged to have him resume the discontinued evening meetings. they accordingly secured the use of a room up two flights of stairs, in what was known as the "circular building," at the corner of merrimac and portland streets. in this rude place, that had been used as a paint-shop, services were begun on sunday evening, december , . tuckerman recorded in his diary that he had "a large and very attentive audience";[ ] and on the same evening he met at the house of dr. channing "a large circle of ladies and gentlemen, who formed a society to help him visit."[ ] as soon as services were begun in the circular building, it was proposed to form a sunday-school; and on a very cold december day seven teachers and three children met to inaugurate it. they hovered about the little stove, by means of which the room was warmed, and began their work. the school grew rapidly, soon filled the room, and was given the name of the howard school. very soon, also, this room became too small to accommodate the attendants at the preaching services. in recognition of this need the friend street free chapel was erected, and opened for use on november , . [sidenote: tuckerman's methods.] during the first year of his ministry dr. tuckerman reported quarterly to the american unitarian association, and then semi-annually. in all there were printed four of the quarterly reports and fifteen of the others. it was not his custom in these reports to confine himself to an account of his work, which usually received only a brief statement at the end; but he discussed important topics relating to the condition of the poor and their needs. his third quarterly report was devoted to a consideration of the remedies to be used for confirmed intemperance. others of the topics upon which he reported were the condition of the poor in cities, the duties of a minister at large (a title invented by him, which he preferred to that of city or domestic missionary), the effects of poverty on the moral life of the poor, the means of relieving pauperism, the causes of poverty and the social remedies, the several classes amongst the poor and the best means of reaching each of them, the means to be employed for the recovery of those sunk in pauperism, poor laws and outdoor relief. among the subjects he discussed incidentally, and sometimes at considerable length, were the duty of providing seats for the poor in the churches at a small rental, the employment of children, education as a means of saving children from growing up to a life of vagrancy and pauperism, the wages of the poor and how they can be increased.[ ] he was especially interested in the rescuing of children from ignorance and vice, and he strongly advocated the establishment of schools for the instruction of dull children and those whose education had been neglected. through his efforts the broad street infant school was established, in order to reach the younger children of the poor. in he made a careful study of the religious condition of the poor; and he found that out of a population of , , which the city then contained, there were , families, or about , persons, who were not connected with any of the churches or who did not attend them with any degree of regularity. this gave him an opportunity to urge upon the public more strongly than before the importance of procuring free chapels, and a sufficient number of ministers to care for this large unchurched population. one or two ministers had labored amongst the poor before he began his work, and three or four had entered upon the same line of effort since he had done so; but these workers were too few in number to meet the large demands made upon them. in carrying on his work, dr. tuckerman sought out all who were in need of his services, without distinction of nationality, color, creed, social position, or moral condition. if he gave the preference to any, it was those who were the most wretched and debased. "it is the first object of the ministry at large, never to be lost sight of," he wrote, "and to which no other is to be preferred, as far as shall be possible to extend its offices to the poor and the poorest, to the low and the lowest, to the most friendless and most uncared for, the most miserable."[ ] he recognized the individuality of the poorest and the most vicious: he sought to foster it, and to make it the basis of moral reform and social recovery. [sidenote: organization of charities.] the influence of tuckerman's work was soon felt outside the city in which it was carried on. the people of the state came to take an interest in it, and to feel that its principles should be applied throughout the commonwealth. therefore, a commission was appointed by the lower house of the state legislature, february , , to inquire into the condition of the poor in all parts of the state, and to make such report as might be the basis of needed legislation. dr. tuckerman was made a member of this commission. the work of investigation largely fell upon him, as well as the writing of the report. his suggestions were accepted, and the results were beneficent. in the mean time the work of visiting the poor was carried on by a young man, charles f. barnard, then a student in the divinity school, who entered upon his duties in april. in october he was joined by frederick t. gray, the founder of the association for religious improvement and of the first sunday-schools for the poor. these workers were ordained in the federal street church on the evening of november , , after having thoroughly tested their capacities for the task they had assumed. dr. tuckerman set forth all the principles which have since been described under the name of "scientific charity," and he put them all into practice. in the spring of he organized a company of visitors to the poor, the members of which were to act as friends and advisers of those who were needy. in october, , he brought about a union of the ministers at large of all denominations for purposes of consultation and mutual helpfulness. this union resulted in a meeting held in february, , at which those interested in the proper care of the poor took counsel together as to the best methods to be followed. at a later meeting in march, it was decided to secure the aid of all the charitable societies in the city with a view to their co-operation and the prevention of the duplication of relief. there was accordingly organized the association of delegates from the benevolent societies of boston, the objects of which were "to adopt measures for the most effectual prevention of fraud and deception in the applicants for charity; to obtain accurate and thorough information with regard to the situation, character, and wants of the poor; and generally to interchange knowledge, experience, and advice upon all the important subjects connected with the duties and responsibilities of benevolent societies." the principle upon which this organization acted was that "the public good requires that the character and circumstances of the poor should be thoroughly investigated and known by those who administer our public charities, in order that all the relief which a pure and enlarged benevolence dictates may be freely bestowed, and that almsgiving may not encourage extravagance or vice, nor injuriously affect the claims of society at large upon the personal exertions and moral character of its members." the first annual report of this association, which appeared in october, , was written by dr. tuckerman, and was one of the best he produced. he laid down certain rules he had accepted as the results of his experience: that beggary was to be broken up; that all misapplications of charity should be reported to the board of visitors; that those asking for alms should be relieved only at their homes and after investigation; that industry, forethought, economy, and self-denial were to be fostered in order to prevent pauperism, and that no help should be given where it led to dependence and reliance upon charity. registration, investigation, prevention of duplication of alms, and the fostering of self-help were the methods brought to bear by dr. tuckerman in the organization of this association.[ ] [sidenote: benevolent fraternity of churches.] in the spring of the part of the ministry at large in boston supported by unitarians consisted of dr. tuckerman's work in visiting and ministering to the poor in their own homes, two chapels, in which barnard and gray preached and conducted their sunday-schools, and the office of the visitors to the poor. in order more effectually to organize the support of this work, the benevolent fraternity of churches was then suggested. the second, brattle street, new south, new north, king's chapel, federal street, hollis street, twelfth, and purchase street churches entered upon the work; and there was organized in each a society for the purpose of aiding the ministry at large. each of these societies was privileged to send five delegates to a central body that should undertake the support and direction of that ministry. at a meeting held april , , an organization of such delegates was effected. it was distinctly stated that "it was not the wish to add another to the eleemosynary institutions of the city to which the poor might resort either for the supply of the comforts or for the relief of necessities which belong to their bodily condition"; but the object of the fraternity was described as being "the improvement of the moral state of the poor and irreligious of this city by the support of the ministry at large, and by other means."[ ] [sidenote: other ministers at large.] dr. tuckerman continued his work of visiting the poor, so far as his health permitted, until his death, which occurred april , . his assistants and successors continued the work of visitation outside of their own congregations. in august, , rev. warren burton was assigned to this special form of ministry, and to that of a systematic investigation of the condition of the poor. he gave much attention to the needs of children, and made inquiry as to intemperance, licentiousness, and other forms of social degeneration. he was a diligent and successful worker until his ministry came to an end in october, . for about a year, in , rev. william ware also devoted himself to the house-to-house ministry; but failing health compelled his withdrawal. in april, , rev. andrew bigelow took charge of the pitts street chapel for a few months; and then for thirty-two years, until his death, in april, , he continued to visit the poor. with the assistance of his wife, he went about to the homes of the people, administering to their physical needs, acting as their friend and adviser, and giving them such moral instruction and spiritual consolation as was possible. for about one year, beginning in march, , rev. a. rumpff visited german families in behalf of the fraternity. he was succeeded in by rev. a. Ã�belacker, who continued the work for two or three years. from to professor j.b. torricelli carried on a ministry amongst the italians, spaniards, greeks, and other natives of southern europe resident in boston. after the death of dr. bigelow this personal ministry was discontinued, owing to the increase in the number of other agencies for doing this kind of work. [sidenote: ministry at large in other cities.] the work of the ministry at large was not confined to boston. the original vote of the unitarian association establishing it was that it should be aided in new york as well. in december, , rev. william henry channing entered on such a ministry in new york; and it was continued there for some years. it was also established in charlestown, roxbury, cambridge, salem, portsmouth, portland, lowell, new bedford, providence, worcester, and elsewhere in new england. with the aid of the unitarian association it was undertaken in baltimore, cincinnati, louisville, and st. louis. in rev. lemuel capen was carrying on the ministry in baltimore, rev. w.h. farmer in louisville, and rev. mordecai de lange in st. louis. the ministry at large was begun in cincinnati in , and was in charge for a short time of christopher p. cranch, who was succeeded by rev. james h. perkins, a most efficient worker, who soon became the popular minister of the unitarian church in that city. it was established in st. louis in , and a day school for colored children was opened in . a mission-house was built, and rev. charles h.a. dall was put in charge. in the mission free school was founded, and now has a matron, nursery, kindergarten, sunday-school, with lectures and entertainments. dall was succeeded by mordecai de lange, corlis b. ward, carlton a. staples, and thomas l. eliot. the city mission, as it was called, grew so large that in no one denomination could carry it on; and it became the st. louis provident association, which has done an extensive and important work.[ ] in july, , was formed the association of ministers at large in new england, of which rev. charles f. barnard was for many years the president, and rev. horatio wood, of lowell, the secretary. it met quarterly, or oftener, essays were read on subjects connected with the work of ministering to the poor, and the special phases of that work were discussed. in the spring of rev. charles f. barnard began the publication of the journal of the ministry at large as a sixteen-page octavo monthly, which was continued until , part of the time as the record; but during the later years it was issued irregularly. in dr. tuckerman published the principles and results of the ministry at large in boston, which embodied an account of his work for twelve years, and the conclusions at which he had arrived. it did much to give direction and purpose to the ministry, and to extend its influence. it can be read with interest and profit at the present time; for it contains all the principles since put into practice in many forms of charitable activity. dr. andrew p. peabody truly said of tuckerman's enterprise in behalf of the poor that it "was the earliest organized effort in that direction. its success and its permanent establishment as an institution were due to its founder's strenuous perseverance, his self-sacrifice, his apostolic fervor of spirit, and the power of his influence."[ ] joseph story spoke of the ministry at large as being one of "extraordinary success." "i deem it," he wrote, "one of the most glorious triumphs of christian charity over the cold and reluctant doubts of popular opinion." the labors of dr. tuckerman "initiated a new sphere of protestant charity," as his nephew well said.[ ] "this has been the most characteristic, the best organized, and by far the most successful co-operative work that the unitarian body has ever attempted by way of church action," was the testimony of dr. joseph henry allen.[ ] [ ] the record of the first meeting states the objects for which the young men met, as follows: "feeling impressed with the importance of giving religious instruction to the youths of that class of our poor who are destitute of any regard for their future well-being, and who, from being under the care of vicious parents, have no attention paid to their moral conduct; and also wishing to become acquainted with those persons of the different religious societies who profess to be followers of the same master, they agreed to associate themselves. having great reason to believe that god will bless their humble efforts for the spread of pure religion and virtue, and looking to him for guidance, the meeting was organized." [ ] ephraim peabody, christian examiner, january, , liv. . [ ] john ware, life of henry ware, jr., - . [ ] the secretary of the association for religious improvement made this record of the meeting: "december , . the lectures under the conduct of the association commenced this evening at - / o'clock at smith's circular building, corner of merrimack and portland streets, which was very fully attended by those for whom it was intended. the services were of the first order. rev. dr. tuckerman officiated." [ ] eber r. butler, lend a hand, v. , october, . [ ] the substance of these reports has been reproduced in a book edited by e.e. hale in , joseph tuckerman on the elevation of the poor. [ ] the principles and results of the ministry at large in boston, . [ ] ministry at large in boston, . [ ] the following is a list of the churches now maintained by the benevolent fraternity of churches, with the date when each was formed, or when it came under unitarian management: bulfinch place church, successor to wend street chapel ( ); pitts street chapel ( ), . north end union (begun in ); hanover street chapel ( ); parmenter street chapel ( ), . morgan chapel, . channing church, dorchester, successor to washington village chapel, . the suffolk street chapel ( ), succeeded by the new south free church ( ), continues its life in the parker memorial, . the warren street chapel ( ), now known as the barnard memorial church, continues its work, but is not under the direction of the benevolent fraternity. in the churches constituting the benevolent fraternity were the first church, second church, arlington street church, south congregational church, king's chapel, church of the disciples; first parish, dorchester; first parish, brighton; hawes church south boston; first parish, west roxbury; first congregational society, jamaica plain. [ ] in the british and foreign unitarian association began to consider the value of this ministry, and in the first mission was opened in london. in was formed the london domestic mission society for the purpose of carrying on the work in that city. in a similar movement was made in manchester, and in was organized the liverpool domestic mission society. the visit of dr. tuckerman to england in gave large interest to this movement. he then met mary carpenter, and she was led by him to begin her great work of charity. it was during the next year that she entered upon the work in bristol that made her name widely known. in there were two ministers at large in london, two in birmingham, and one each in liverpool, bristol, leeds, manchester, halifax, and leicester. the writings of dr. tuckerman were translated into french by the baron de gerando, a leading philanthropist and statesman of that day, who praised them highly, and introduced their methods into paris and elsewhere. of tuckerman's book on the ministry at large m. de gerando said that it throws "invaluable light upon the condition and wants of the indigent and the influence which an enlightened charity can exert." he also said of tuckerman that "he knew the difference between pauperism and poverty," thus recognizing one of those cardinal distinctions made by the philanthropist in his efforts to aid the poor to self-help and independence. [ ] memorial history of boston, iii. . [ ] sprague's annals of the unitarian pulpit, , the words quoted being from the pen of henry t. tuckerman, the well-known essayist. [ ] our liberal movement in theology, . xi. organized sunday-school work. the first sunday-schools organized in this country distinctly for purposes of religious training were by persons connected with unitarian churches. several schools had been opened previously, but they were not continued or were organized in the interests of secular instruction. in the summer of miss hannah hill, then twenty-five years of age, and miss joanna b. prince, then twenty, both teachers of private schools for small children, and connected with the first parish in beverly, mass., of which dr. abiel abbot was the pastor, opened a school in one room of a dwelling-house for the religious training of the children who did not receive such teaching at home. in the spring of the same young women reopened their school in a larger room, using the bible as their only book of instruction. sessions were held in the morning before church, and in the afternoon following the close of the services.[ ] the first season about thirty children attended, but the interest grew; and in the school occupied the dane street chapel, and became a union or town school. jealousies resulted, and a school was soon established by each church in the town. in the first parish received the original school under its sole care, and it was removed to the meeting-house. a sunday-school was begun in concord in the summer of , under the leadership of miss sarah ripley, daughter of dr. ezra ripley, the minister of the town. on sunday afternoons she taught a number of children in her father's house, since known as the "old manse." about five years later a school was opened at the centre of the town, near the church, by three young women. in a sunday-school was begun in connection with the church itself, which absorbed the others, or of which they formed the nucleus.[ ] a teacher of a charity school supported by the west church in boston was the first person to open a sunday-school in that city. in october, , the teacher of this school, miss lydia k. adams, then a member of the west parish, according to the statement of dr. charles lowell, minister of the church at the time, "having learned on a visit to beverly that some young ladies of the town were in the practice of giving religious instruction to poor children on the sabbath, consulted her minister as to the expediency of giving like instruction to the children of her school, and to those who had been members of it, on the same day. the project was decidedly approved, and immediately carried into effect." in december of the same year, miss adams was compelled by ill-health to leave her school; and ladies of the west church took charge of it, and in turn instructed the children, both on the week-days and the sabbath, till a suitable permanent teacher could be obtained. on this event they relinquished the immediate care of the week-day school, but continued the instruction of the sunday-school, till it was transferred to the church, and was enlarged by the addition of "children of a different description," in .[ ] sunday-schools were also begun in cambridgeport, in ; wilton, n.h., in ; and portsmouth, in . the latter school had the enthusiastic support of nathaniel a. haven, a young lawyer and rising politician, who devoted himself with great zeal and success to such instruction of the young.[ ] the association of young men for mutual improvement and for the religious instruction of the poor began the work of forming sunday-schools for the children of the poor in boston during the year . a school was begun in the hancock school-house, then recently built for grammar-school purposes.[ ] soon after they opened a school in merrimac street, called the howard sunday-school, in connection with the work of dr. tuckerman; and in the franklin sunday-school was begun by the same persons and for the same purposes. in connection with these schools was formed the sunday school benevolent society, composed of charitable women, who provided such children as were needy with suitable clothing. in a parish sunday-school was organized in connection with the twelfth congregational church, of which rev. samuel barrett was the minister. it was reorganized in , with the object of giving "a religious education apart from all sectarian views, as systematically as it is given to the same children in other branches of learning."[ ] in july, , the christian register spoke of "the rapid and extensive establishment of sunday-schools by individuals attached to unitarian societies," and said that in the course of two or three years "large and respectable sunday-schools have been established by unitarians in various parts of the city. several of these are parish schools, under the immediate guidance of the pastors. others are more general in their plan, receiving children from all quarters." [sidenote: boston sunday school society.] at a meeting of the teachers of the franklin sunday-school held december , , it was proposed that there be organized an association of all the teachers connected with unitarian parishes in boston and the vicinity. on february , , a meeting was held in the berry street vestry for this purpose; and on april a constitution was adopted for the boston sunday school society. the schools joining in this organization were the hancock, franklin, and howard, and those connected with the west, federal street, hollis street, and twelfth congregational churches. dr. joseph tuckerman was elected president; moses grant, vice-president; dr. j.f. flagg, corresponding secretary; and rev. frederick t. gray, recording secretary. the first annual meeting was held november , ; and the above-named officers were re-elected. on december a public meeting was held in the federal street church, which was well filled. reports of the work of the schools, including that at cambridgeport, were read; and addresses were made. the objects of the sunday school society were the helping of teachers, the extending of the interests of the schools, and the publishing of books. it was difficult to procure suitable books for use in sunday-schools and for their libraries, and the prices were very high. in the autumn of arrangements were made for the publishing of books, the american unitarian association co-operating therein by providing a capital of $ for this purpose, the profits going to the sunday school society, and the money borrowed being returned without interest. this connection was abandoned in because it was found that the unitarian name on the title-page of the books hindered their sale. in april, , was issued the first number of the christian teacher's manual, a small monthly, of which mrs. eliza lee follen was the editor, intended for the use of families and sunday-schools. according to the preface the subjects chiefly considered were the best methods of addressing the minds of children, suggestions to teachers, explanations of scripture, religious instruction from natural objects, histories taken from real life, stories and hymns adapted to children, and accounts of sunday-schools. the manual was continued for two years; and it was followed by the scriptural interpreter, edited by rev. ezra s. gannett. the editor of the interpreter preferred to publish it under his own name, because he did "not wish it to be considered the organ or the representative of a denomination of christians." "it will have one object," he said, "to furnish the means of acquaintance with the true sense and value of scripture, and particularly of the new testament; but whatever will promote this object will come within the scope the publication." it was issued bi-monthly, and was continued for five years. it was wholly devoted to the exposition of the bible, a systematic series of translations and interpretations of the gospels forming a distinct feature of its pages. a considerable part of it was prepared by the editor, who drew freely upon expository works. among the contributors were william h. furness, orville dewey, alexander young, edward b. hall, james walker, henry ware, jr., and j.p. dabney. in , dr. gannett's health having failed, the magazine was edited by theodore parker, george e. ellis, and william silsbee, then students in the harvard divinity school. one important feature of the work of the sunday school society was the extension of the cause it represented. in december, , reports were presented at the annual meeting from nearly fifty schools; and it was thought desirable that they should be brought into closer relations with the society. accordingly, frederick t. gray, the secretary, visited many of these schools. the next year, as a result, a considerable number of those outside the city connected themselves with the society; and the lists of vice-presidents and directors were enlarged to include them in its operations. afterwards this work was carried on by a committee of the society, the members of which visited the schools, giving addresses, and in other ways helping to give strength and purpose to the work in which they were engaged. schools were visited in maine, new hampshire, massachusetts, rhode island, new york, pennsylvania, kentucky, and other states. to give better opportunity for the attendance of delegates from schools outside the city, the yearly meeting was changed from december to anniversary week in may. the society published a considerable number of tracts, which were distributed gratuitously by the agents and in other ways. it also issued lesson-books, as well as books for the juvenile libraries which were forming at this time in all the churches. to meet this demand, the younger henry ware began editing, in , the sunday-school library for young persons, in which were included his own life of the saviour, mrs. john farrar's life of howard, rev. stephen g. bulfinch's holy land, and rev. thomas b. fox's sketch of the reformation. the next year mr. ware began a series of books which he called scenes and characters illustrating christian truth. another method used by the society was the giving of expository lectures. the society at first held quarterly meetings; but the interest grew, and the meetings became monthly. great enthusiasm was felt at this time in regard to the work of these schools, and many persons of prominence praised them and took part in their management. "the institution of sunday-schools constitutes one of the most remarkable features of the present age," wrote dr. joseph allen, in . "it has already done much to supply the deficiencies of domestic education, and, if wisely conducted, is destined, we trust, to become at no distant day one of the most efficient instruments in forming the characters of the young."[ ] writing in , the younger henry ware said that "the sunday-school has become one of the established institutions of religion in connection with the church, and the character of religion is henceforth to depend, in no small degree, on the wisdom with which it shall be administered."[ ] in was organized the worcester sunday school society. it had its origin as far back as november , , when a committee of the worcester association of ministers was appointed to report on the subject of sunday-schools. a meeting was held in lancaster, october , , when an organization was perfected. the succeeding meetings were largely attended, and much interest was awakened.[ ] in a similar society was organized in middlesex county; and at about the same time one came into existence in cheshire county, new hampshire. soon after societies were organized in the counties of norfolk, plymouth (north), middlesex (west), worcester, and in portland and its neighborhood. in april, , the directors of the boston sunday school society discussed the feasibility of starting a weekly paper for the use of the schools. in july, , rev. bernard whitman began the publication of the sunday school teacher and children's friend. in january, , the young christian was begun, and was published weekly at the office of the christian register, by david reed. these papers were continued only for a few years. from to mrs. eliza lee follen edited a monthly magazine for children, called the children's friend. the first number of the sunday school gazette was published in worcester, august , , under the direction of the worcester sunday school society. it was established at the suggestion of rev. edward everett hale, then a minister in that city, in connection with rev. edmund b. willson, then settled in grafton. the editor was rev. francis le baron, the minister at large in worcester, though mr. hale was a frequent contributor. when the national sunday school society was organized, the sunday school gazette was transferred to, its charge; but the publication of this paper was continued in worcester until .[ ] [sidenote: unitarian sunday school society.] as time went on, and the work of the sunday-schools enlarged, it was felt that it was necessary there should be one general organization which should bring together all unitarian schools into a compact working force. to meet this growing need, a convention of the county societies and of local schools was held in worcester, october , , at which time the sunday school society was organized as a general denominational body. hon. albert fearing, of boston, was made the president, and rev. frederick t. gray the secretary. the society provided itself with a desk in the rooms of the unitarian association, and provision was made for the collection and sale of all the helps demanded by the schools. from until the society was sadly crippled by the lack of funds. the hard times preceding the civil war, and the absorption of public interest in that great national event, made it difficult for the society to continue its work with any degree of success. for some years little was done but to hold the annual meeting in the autumn and that in anniversary week, and to continue the publication of the sunday school gazette. for a number of years, however, teachers' institutes were held; and these were continued at irregular intervals until about . the sunday school teachers' institute was organized in , and continued in existence for ten years. after the death of rev. frederick t. gray in , he was succeeded in the position of secretary of the sunday school society by rev. stephen g. bulfinch. in rev. warren h. cudworth became the secretary, and the editor of the gazette; and he held these positions until may, , when he became the chaplain of the first massachusetts regiment taking part in the civil war. in the october following, mr. joseph h. allen, a boston merchant, afterwards the editor of the schoolmate, became the secretary and editor. he continued to edit the gazette until november, ; but mr. m.t. rice was made secretary in . at the end of , when the society was in a condition of almost complete collapse, rev. thomas j. mumford became the secretary, and the editor of the gazette for one year. he restored confidence in the society, and made the paper a success. during the war the paper was published monthly for the sake of economy; but with the first of january, , it was restored to its former semi-monthly issue. the new life that came to the denomination in had its influence upon the sunday school society. in the autumn of , when the unitarian association had secured a large increase of funds, it was proposed that the sunday school society should unite with it, and that the larger organization should have the direction of all denominational activities, especially those of publishing. the more zealous friends of the society did not approve of such consolidation, and succeeded in reanimating its work by appointing as its secretary mr. james p. walker, who had been the head of the publishing firm of walker, wise & co., a young man of earnest purpose, a successful sunday-school teacher and superintendent, and an enthusiastic believer in the mission of unitarianism. mr. walker devoted his whole time to the interests of the society, and an energetic effort was made to revive and extend its work. he proved to be the man for the position, largely increasing the bookselling and publishing activities, visiting schools and conferences, and awakening much enthusiasm in regard to the interests of sunday-schools. he wore himself out in this work, however, and died in march, , greatly lamented throughout the denomination.[ ] after the death of mr. walker, consolidation with the association was again urged; but rev. leonard j. livermore was in june elected the secretary. at the annual meeting it was resolved to raise $ , for the work of the society, and the next year it was proposed to make the annual contribution $ , . the name was changed to the unitarian sunday school society at the annual meeting of , held in worcester. in mr. john kneeland became the secretary; and with the beginning of the gazette was changed to the dayspring, which was issued monthly. in the autumn of that year the society began the publication of monthly lessons, and there was issued with them a teachers' guide for the lessons of the year. with the beginning of the guide was discontinued, and the lesson papers enlarged. in november, , rev. george f. piper became the secretary,--a position he held until may , . during his administration about three hundred lessons were prepared by him, and these had a circulation of about nine thousand copies. the transition condition of the denomination made it difficult to carry on the work of the society at this time, for it was impossible to please both conservatives and radicals with any lessons that might be prepared. one superintendent warned his school against the heretical tendencies of lessons which, from the other point of view, a minister condemned as being fit for orthodox schools, but not for unitarians. in the same mail came a letter from a minister saying the lessons were too elementary, and from another saying they were much too advanced. in the latter part of mr. piper's term service was begun an important work of preparing manuals thoroughly modern in their spirit and methods.[ ] in may, , rev. henry g. spaulding became the secretary; and the work of publishing modern manuals was largely extended.[ ] at the suggestion and with the co-operation of the secretary there was organized, november , , the unitarian sunday school union of boston, having for its object "to develop the best methods of sunday-school work." at about the same time a lending library of reference books was established in connection with the work of the society. in the autumn of the society began to hold in channing hall weekly lectures for teachers. in the dayspring was enlarged and became every other sunday, being much improved in its literary contents as well as in its illustrations. the same year the society was incorporated, and the number of directors was increased to include representatives from all sections of the country; while all sunday-schools contributing to the society's treasury were given a delegate representation in its membership. mr. spaulding continued his connection with the society until january , . rev. edward a. horton, who had for several years taken an active part in the work of the society, assumed charge february , . mr. horton was made the president, it being deemed wise to have the head of the society its executive officer. during his administration there has been a steady growth in sunday-school interest, which has demanded a rapid increase in the number and variety of publications. the book department has been taxed to the utmost to meet the demand. a new book of song and service, compiled by mr. horton, has reached a sale of nearly , copies. a simple statement of "our faith" has had a circulation of , copies, and in a form suitable for the walls of sunday-school rooms it has been in considerable demand.[ ] a series of lessons, covering a period of seven years, upon the three-grade, one-topic plan, has been largely used in the schools. besides the twenty manuals published in this course of lessons, forty other text-books have been published, making a total of sixty in all, from to .[ ] there have also been many additions to sunday-school helps by way of special services for festival days, free tracts, and statements of belief. the channing hall talks to sunday-school teachers have been made to bear upon these courses of lessons. every other sunday has been improved, and its circulation extended. the number of donating churches and schools has been steadily increased, the number in being , the largest by far yet reached. at the annual meeting of the society and at local conferences representative speakers have presented the newest methods of sunday-school work. sunday-school unions have been formed in various parts of the country, and churches are awakened to a new interest in the work of religious instruction. "home and school conferences" have been held with a view to bringing parents and teachers into closer sympathy and co-operation. [sidenote: western unitarian sunday school society.] in the west the first movement towards sunday-school activities began in with the publication of a four-page lesson-sheet at janesville, wis., by rev. jenkin lloyd jones. this was continued for two or three years. through the interest of mr. jones in sunday-school work a meeting for organization was called in the fourth church, chicago, october , , when the western unitarian sunday school society was organized, with rev. milton j. miller as president and mr. jones as secretary. at the meeting the next year in st. louis a committee was appointed to prepare a song-book for the schools, which resulted in the production of the sunny side, edited by rev. charles w. wendte. the next step was to establish headquarters in chicago, where all kinds of material could be furnished to the schools, with the necessary advice and encouragement. through successive years the effort of the society was to systematize the work of unitarian sunday-schools, to put into them the best literature, the best song and service books, the best lesson papers, and other tools,--in short, to secure better and more definite teaching, such as is in accord with the best scholarship and thought of the age.[ ] in the society became incorporated, and its work from this time enlarged in all directions. to develop these results more fully, an institute was held in the third church, chicago, in november, , at which five sessions were given to sunday-school work, and two to unity club interests. in the course of several years of encouraging success, the institute developed into a summer assembly of two or more weeks' continuance at hillside, helena valley, wis., which still continues its yearly sessions. in may, , the western sunday school society was consolidated with the national organization; and the plates and stock which it possessed were handed over to the unitarian sunday school society. a western headquarters is maintained in chicago, where all the publications of the two societies are kept on sale. [sidenote: unity clubs.] as adjuncts to the sunday-school, and to continue its work for adults and in other spheres of ethical training, the unity club came into existence about the year , beginning with the work of rev. jenkin ll. jones at janesville. in the course of the next ten years nearly every unitarian church in the west organized such a club, and the movement to some degree extended to other parts of the country. in there was organized in boston the national bureau of unity clubs. these clubs devoted themselves to literary, sociological, and religious courses of study; and they furnished centres for the social activities of the churches. about the year began a movement to organize societies of young people for the cultivation of the spirit of worship and religious development. this resulted in in the organization of the national guild alliance; and in this organization joined with the bureau of unity clubs and the unitarian temperance society in supporting an agency in the unitarian building, boston, with the aid of the unitarian association. the young people's religious union was organized in boston, may , ; and in large degree, it took the place of the bureau and the alliance, uniting the two in a more efficient effort to interest the young people of the churches.[ ] [sidenote: the ladies' commission on sunday-school books.] in the autumn of , rev. charles lowe, then the secretary of the unitarian association, invited a number of women to meet him for the purpose of conference on the subject of sunday-school libraries. at his suggestion they organized themselves on october as the ladies' commission on sunday-school books, with the object of preparing a catalogue of books read and approved by competent persons. at the first meeting ten persons were present, but the number was soon enlarged to thirty; and it was still farther increased by the addition of corresponding members in cities too remote for personal attendance. among those taking part in the work of the commission at first were miss lucretia p. hale, miss anna c. lowell, mrs. edwin p. whipple, mrs. ednah d. cheney, mrs. a.d.t. whitney, mrs. s. bennett, mrs. caroline h. dall, mrs. e.e. hale, mrs. e.p. tileston, and miss hannah e. stevenson. the commission not only aimed to select books for sunday-school libraries, but also those for the home reading of young persons and for the use of teachers. it undertook also the procuring of the publication of suitable juvenile books. the first catalogue was issued in october, , and contained a list of two hundred books, selected from twelve hundred examined. in the spring of a catalogue of five hundred and seventy-three books was printed, as the result of the reading of nineteen hundred volumes. in the beginning of its work the commission did not confine its activities to the selecting of juvenile books; for the sunday school hymn and tune book, published in , was largely due to its efforts. under the administration of mr. james p. walker the sunday school society undertook to procure the publication of a number of books of fiction suitable for sunday-school libraries, and offered prizes to this end. the commission gave its encouragement to this effort, read the manuscripts, and aided in determining to whom the prizes should be given. the result was the publication of a half-dozen volumes by the sunday school society and the unitarian association. the society also aided to some extent in meeting the expenses of the commission, though these were usually met by the association. for many years the books approved by the commission were grouped under three heads: books especially recommended for unitarian sunday-school libraries; those highly recommended for their religious tone, but somewhat impaired for this purpose by the use of phrases and the adoption of a spirit not in accord with the unitarian faith; and those profitable and valuable, but not adapted to the purposes of a sunday-school library. every book recommended was read and approved by at least five persons, discussed in committee of the whole, and accepted by a two-thirds vote of all the members. books about which there was much diversity of opinion were read by a larger number of persons. this classification proved rather cumbersome, and it was often found difficult to decide into which list a book should be placed; and the result was that about the simpler plan was adopted of putting all titles in their alphabetical order, with explanatory notes for each book. in the list of books for teachers was discontinued as being no longer necessary. annual lists of books have been published by the commission since ; and, in addition, several catalogues have been issued, containing all the books approved during a period of five years. in the early days of the commission, supplementary lists for children and young persons were issued, containing books of a more secular character than were thought suitable for sunday-school libraries. gradually, it has extended its work to include the needs of all juvenile libraries; and these books are now incorporated into the one annual catalogue. in thirty-four years the commission has examined , books, and has approved , , or about one-third.[ ] [ ] sunday school times, september , . [ ] asa bullard, fifty years with the sabbath schools, . [ ] c.a. bartol, the west church and its ministers, appendix. [ ] see the remains of nathaniel appleton haven, with a memoir of his life, by george ticknor. [ ] the hancock sunday-school assembled at eight in the morning and at one in the afternoon, moses grant being the first superintendent. [ ] at the school of the twelfth congregational society, carpenter's catechism was used for the small children. this was followed by the worcester catechism, compiled in by the ministers of the worcester association of ministers, dr. joseph allen being the real author. the geneva catechism in its three successive parts, followed in order. in the bible class, use was made of hannah adams's letters on the gospels, under the immediate charge of the pastor. a hymn-book issued by the publishing fund society was in use by the whole school. [ ] christian examiner, march, , viii. . [ ] ibid., may, , xxiv. . [ ] joseph allen, history of the worcester association, - . [ ] in was published a graded series of eight manuals of christian instruction for sunday-schools and families,--a result of the activities of the sunday school society. the titles and authors of these books were early religious lessons; palestine and the hebrew people, stephen g. bulfinch; lessons on the old testament, rev. ephraim peabody; the life of christ, rev. john h. morison; the books and characters of the new testament, rev. rufus ellis; lessons upon religious duties and christian morals, rev. george w. briggs; doctrines of scripture, rev. frederic d. huntington; scenes from christian history, rev. edward e. hale. two other books connected with the early history of unitarian sunday-schools properly demand notice here. in was published the history of sunday schools and of religious education from the earliest times, by lewis g. pray, who was treasurer of the boston sunday school society from to , and chairman of its board of agents from to . he was one of the first workers in the establishing of sunday-schools in boston, and he zealously interested himself in this cause so long as he lived. he compiled the first book of hymns used in unitarian schools, and also the first book of devotional exercises. for twenty years he was superintendent of the school connected with the twelfth congregational society, holding that place from its organization in . in one of the concluding chapters of his book mr. pray gave an account of the early history of unitarian sunday-schools in boston and its neighborhood. in was published a series of addresses which had been given by rev. frederick t. gray at sunday-school anniversaries and on other similar occasions. the volume contains most interesting information in regard to the origin of sunday-schools in boston, and the beginnings of the sunday school society, as well as the work of dr. tuckerman and his assistants in the ministry, at large. [ ] memoir of james p. walker, with selections from his writings, by thomas b. fox. american unitarian association, . [ ] the first of these was rev. edward h. hall's first lessons on the bible, which appeared in ; and it was soon followed by professor c.h. toy's history of the religion of israel. [ ] among these were religions before christianity, by professor charles carroll everett, d.d., ; manual of unitarian belief, by rev. james freeman clarke, d.d., ; lessons on the life of st. paul, by rev. edward h. hall, ; early hebrew stories, by rev. charles f. dole, ; hebrew prophets and kings, by rev. henry g. spaulding, ; the later heroes of israel, by mr. spaulding, ; lessons on the gospel of luke, by mr. spaulding and rev. w.w. fenn, ; a story of the sects, by rev. william h. lyon, in . in appeared the unitarian catechism of rev. minot j. savage, though not published by the sunday school society. these books attracted wide attention, were largely used in unitarian schools, and were adopted into those of other sects to some extent. in the president of the american social science association publicly urged the use of the ethical manuals of the society by all sunday-schools. several of these books were republished in london, and dr. toy's manual was translated into dutch. the society also published a new service book and hymnal, which went into immediate use in a large number of schools, and did much for the enrichment of the devotional exercises and the promotion of an advanced standard of both words and music in the hymns. [ ] the fatherhood of god, the brotherhood of man, the leadership of jesus, salvation by character, the progress of mankind onward and upward forever. [ ] among the publications under mr. horton's administration, which may justly be called significant, are: beacon lights of christian history, in three grades; noble lives and noble deeds, dole's catechism of liberal faith, mott's history of unitarianism, pulsford's various manuals on the bible, mrs. jaynes's illustrated primary leaflets, miss mulliken's kindergarten lessons, story of israel and great thoughts of israel, in three grades, fenn's acts of the apostles, chadwick's questions on the old testament books in their right order, mrs. kate gannett wells's forty illustrated primary lessons, and walkley's helps for teachers. mr. horton, during this ten years, has written fourteen manuals on various subjects. co-extensive with the large increase of text-books has been the enrichment of lessons by pictorial aids. excellent half-tone pictures have been prepared from the best subjects. [ ] among the publications of the western unitarian sunday school society have been unity services and songs, edited by rev. james vila blake, and published in ; a service book called the way of life, by rev. frederick l. hosmer, issued in ; and unity festivals, services for special holidays, . of the lesson-books published by the society, those that have been most successful have been corner-stones of character, by mrs. kate gannett wells; a chosen nation, or the growth of the hebrew religion, by rev. william c. gannett; and the more wonderful genesis, by rev. henry m. simmons. in the society entered upon the publication of a six-year course of studies, which included beginnings according to legend and according to the truer story, by rev. allen w. gould; the flowering of the hebrew religion, by rev. w.w. fenn; in the home, by rev. w.c. gannett; mother nature's children, by rev. a.w. gould; and the flowering of christianity, the liberal christian movement toward universal religion, by rev. w.c. gannett. [ ] the objects of the young people's religious union are: (a) to foster the religious life; (b) to bring the young into closer relations with one another; and (c) to spread rational views of religion, and to put into practice such principles of life and duty as tend to uplift mankind. the cardinal principles of the union are truth, worship, and service. any young people's society may become a member of the union by affirming in writing its sympathy with the general objects of the union, adopting its cardinal principles, making a contribution to its treasury, and sending the secretary a list of its officers. the annual meeting is held in may at such day and place as the executive board may appoint. special union meetings are held as often as several societies may arrange. the union has its headquarters at room , in the unitarian building, boston, in charge of the secretary, whose office hours are from a.m. to p.m. daily. organization hints, hymnals, leaflets, helps for the national topics, and other suggestive materials are supplied. the national officers furnish speakers for initial meetings, visit unions, and help in other ways. the union maintains a department in the christian register, under the charge of the secretary, for notes, notices, helps on the topics, and all matters of interest to the unions, and also publishes a monthly bulletin in connection with the national alliance of unitarian women. [ ] in the thirty-five years which comprise the life of the commission a gradual but marked change has been in operation. sunday-school libraries are being used less and less, and town libraries have become much more numerous and better patronized by both old and young. in the spring of the question arose in the commission whether, with the decline of the sunday-school library, the need which called it into being had not ceased to exist; and, in order to secure information as to the advisability of continuing its work, cards were sent to ministers of the denomination and to public libraries, mostly in new england, asking if the lists of the commission were found useful, and whether it was desired that the sending of them should be continued. from unitarian ministers replies were received, one-half using the lists frequently and the other half occasionally or for the selection of special books. from the town libraries cordial replies were received in instances, most of them warmly approving of the lists, which had been found very useful. the result of this investigation was to bring the commission more directly into touch with the various libraries, and to give it a better understanding of their needs. xii. the women's alliance and its predecessors. the unitarian body has been remarkable for the women of intellectual power and philanthropic achievement who have adorned its fellowship. in proportion to their numbers, they have done much for the improvement and uplifting of society. in the early unitarian period, however, the special work of women was for the most part confined to the sunday-school and the sewing circle. whatever the name by which it was known, whether as the dorcas society, the benevolent society, or the ladies' aid, the sewing circle did a work that was in harmony with the needs of the time, and did it well. it helped the church with which it was connected in many quiet ways, and gave much aid to the poor and suffering members of the community. nor did it limit its activities to purely local interests; for many a church was helped by it and the early missionary societies received its contributions gladly. before the organization of the benevolent fraternity of churches, the women of boston raised the money necessary for the support of the ministry at large in that city. one of the earliest societies organized for general service, was the tuckerman sewing circle, formed in . its purpose was to assist dr. tuckerman in his work for the poor of the city by providing clothing and otherwise aiding the needy. the work of this circle is still going on in connection, with the bulfinch place church; and every year it raises a large sum of money for the charitable work of the ministry at large. the civil war helped women to recognize the need of organization and co-operation, on their part. in working for the soldiers, not only in their homes and churches, but in connection with the sanitary commission, and later in seeking to aid the freedmen, they learned their own power and the value of combination with others. in massachusetts the work of the sanitary commission was largely carried on by unitarians. in describing this work, mrs. ednah d. cheney has indicated what was done by unitarian women. "during the late war," she wrote, "a woman's branch of the sanitary commission was organized in new england. mary dwight (parkman) was its first president; but abby williams may soon took her place, which she held till the close of the war. with unwearied zeal miss may presided over its councils, organized its action, and encouraged others to work. she went down to the hospitals and camps, to judge of their needs with her own eyes, and travelled from town to town in new england, arousing the women to new effort. these might be seen, young and old, rich and poor, bearing bundles of blue flannel through the streets, and unaccustomed fingers knitting the coarse yarn, while the heart throbbed with anxiety for the dear ones gone to the war. a noble band of nurses volunteered their services, and the strife was as to which should go soonest and do the hardest work. hannah e. stevenson, helen stetson, and many another name became as dear to the soldiers as that of mother or sister. a committee was formed to supply the colored soldiers with such help as other soldiers received from their relations; and, when one of the noblest of boston's sons passed through her streets at their head, his mother 'thanked god for the privilege of seeing that day.' the same spirit went into the work of educating the freedmen. young men and women, the noblest and best, went forth together to that work of danger and toil."[ ] [sidenote: women's western unitarian conference.] it was such experiences as these that encouraged unitarian women to enter upon other philanthropic and educational labors when the civil war had come to an end. leaders had been trained during this period who were capable of guiding such movements to a successful issue. the example of the women of the evangelical churches in organizing their home and foreign missionary associations also undoubtedly influenced, to a greater or lesser degree, the women of the liberal churches. after the organization of the national conference, unitarian women began to realize, as never before, the need of co-operation in behalf of the cause they had at heart.[ ] it was in the central west, however, that the first effort was made to organize women in the interest of denominational activities. in , at the meeting of the western unitarian conference held in toledo, it was voted that the women connected with that body be requested to organize immediately for the purpose of co-operating in the general work of the conference. at this meeting two women, mrs. e.p. allis of milwaukee and mrs. mary p. wells smith of cincinnati, were placed on the board of directors. at the next annual meeting of the western conference, held in chicago, the committee on organization, consisting of thirteen women, reported the readiness of the women to give their aid to the conference work, saying in their report "that we signify not only our willingness, but our earnest desire to share henceforth with our brothers in the labors and responsibilities of this association, and that we pledge ourselves to an active and hearty support of those cherished convictions which constitute our liberal faith." in response to their request, the conference selected an assistant secretary to have charge of everything relating to the work of women. they also recommended that the women of the several churches connected with the conference should organize for "the study and dissemination of the principles of free thought and liberal religious culture, and the practical assistance of all worthy schemes and enterprises intended for the spread and upholding of these principles." in , at st. louis, there was organized the women's western unitarian conference, with mrs. eliza sunderland as president and miss f.l. roberts as secretary. during the seventeen years of its existence this conference raised much money for denominational work, developed many earnest workers, and accomplished much in behalf of the principles for which it stood. it aided in the support of several missionaries, organized the post-office mission and made it effective, and encouraged a number of women to enter the ministry. [sidenote: women's auxiliary conference.] at the national conference session of , held at saratoga, where much enthusiasm had been awakened, it was suggested that the women, who had been hitherto listeners only, should take an active part in, denominational work. at a gathering in the parlor of the united states hotel, called by mrs. charles g. ames, mrs. fielder israel, mrs. j.p. lesley, and one or two others, a plan of action was adopted that led, in , to the formation of the women's auxiliary conference. the aim of this organization was to quicken the religious life of the churches, to stimulate local charitable and missionary undertakings, and to raise money for missionary enterprises; but its work was to be done in connection with the national conference, and not as an independent organization. the purpose was stated in a circular sent to the churches immediately after the organization was effected. "hitherto," it was said, "women have not been specially represented upon the board of the national conference, and have not fully recognized how helpful they might be in its various undertakings or how much they themselves might gain from a closer relation with it. but the time has now come when our service is called for in the broad field, and also when we feel the need of being at work there; for our faith in the great truths of religion is no less vital than that of our brethren; and since the service we can render, being different from theirs, is needed to supplement it, and because it is peculiarly women's service, we must do it, or it will be left undone. it is one of the glories of such a work as ours that there is need and room in it for the best effort of every individual; indeed, without the faithful service of all it must be incomplete." in , after ten years of active existence, the conference had about eighty branches, with a membership of between , and , women. much of the success of the conference was due to its president, abby w. may. miss may was well known as a philanthropist and educator, and had occupied many prominent positions before she assumed the presidency of the auxiliary; but this was her first active work in connection with the denomination. [sidenote: the national alliance.] admirable as were the aims, and excellent as was the work of this organization, it was auxiliary to the national conference, and had no independent life. after the first enthusiasm was past, it failed to gain ground rapidly, the membership remaining nearly stationary during the last few years of its existence. as time went on, therefore, it became evident that a more complete organization was needed in order to arouse enthusiasm and to secure the loyalty of the women of all parts of the country. the new york league of unitarian women, including those of new york, brooklyn, and new jersey, organized in , showed the advantages of a closer union and a more definite purpose; and the desire to bring into one body all the various local organizations hastened the change. it was seen that, in the multiplication of organizations, there was danger of wasting the energies used, and that one efficient body was greatly to be desired. in may, , a committee was formed for the purpose of drafting a constitution for a new association, "to which all existing organizations might subscribe." the constitution provided by this committee was adopted october , , and the new organization took the name of the national alliance of unitarian and other liberal christian women. the object proposed was "to quicken the life of our unitarian churches, and to bring the women of the denomination into closer acquaintance, co-operation, and fellowship." in there were ninety branches, with about , members. while the membership, doubled under the impulse of the new organization, the increase in the amount of money raised was fivefold. the admirable results secured by the women's alliance, which has finally drawn all the sectional organizations into co-operation with itself, are in no small measure due to the energy and the organizing skill of the women who have been at the head of its activities. mrs. judith w. andrews, of boston, was the president during the first year of its existence. from to the president was mrs. b. ward dix, of brooklyn, who was succeeded by miss emma c. low, of the same city. mrs. emily a. fifield, of boston, has been the recording secretary; mrs. mary b. davis, of new york, the corresponding secretary; and miss flora l. close, of boston, the treasurer from the first. [sidenote: cheerful letter and post-office missions.] in the executive board appointed a committee to organize a cheerful letter exchange, of which miss lilian freeman clarke was made the chairman. one of its chief purposes is to cheer the lonely and discouraged, invalids and others, by interchange of letters and by gifts of books and periodicals. to young persons in remote places it affords facilities for securing a better education, with the aid of correspondence classes. by means of a little monthly magazine, the cheerful letter, religious teaching is brought to many persons, who in this find a substitute for church attendance where that is not possible. through the same channel, as well as by correspondence, these workers help young mothers in the right training of their children. libraries have been started in communities destitute of books, and struggling libraries have been aided with gifts. forty travelling libraries are kept in circulation. although much had been done to circulate unitarian tracts and the other publications of the american unitarian association, by means of colporteurs, by the aid of the post-office, as well as by direct gift of friend to friend, it remained for miss sallie ellis, of cincinnati, in , to systematize this kind of missionary effort, and to make it one of the most valuable of all agents for the dissemination of liberal religious ideas. miss ellis was aided by the cincinnati branch of the women's auxiliary, but she was from the first the heart and soul of this mission. "if there had been no miss ellis," says one who knew her work intimately, "there would have been no post-office mission. many helped about it in various ways, but she was the mission." miss ellis was a frail little woman, hopelessly deaf and suffering from an incurable disease. notwithstanding her physical limitations, she longed to be of service to the faith she cherished; and the missionary spirit burned strong within her. "i want," she said often, "to do something for unitarianism before i die"; but the usual avenues of opportunity seemed firmly closed to her. at last, in the winter of - , rev. charles w. wendte, then her pastor, anxious to find something for her to do, proposed that she should send the association's tracts and copies of the pamphlet mission to persons in the west who were interested in the liberal faith. she took up this work gladly, and during that winter distributed , tracts and copies of the pamphlet mission in twenty-six states. a tract table in the vestibule of the church was started by miss ellis; and she not only distributed sermons freely in this way, but she also sold unitarian books. it was in that she was made the secretary of the newly organized women's auxiliary in cincinnati, and that her work really began systematically. at the suggestion of mrs. mary p. wells smith, advertisements were inserted in the daily papers, and offers made to send unitarian publications, when requested. many doubted the advisability of such an enterprise, but the letters received soon indicated that an important method of mission work had been discovered. rev. william c. gannett christened this work the post-office mission, and that name it has since retained. only four and one-half years were permitted to miss ellis in which to accomplish her work,--a work dear to her heart, and one for which her many losses and sufferings had prepared her. during this period she wrote , letters, sent out , tracts and papers, sold books, and loaned . the real value of such work cannot be rightly estimated in figures. through her influence, several young men entered the ministry who are to-day doing effective work. she saved several persons from doubt and despair, gave strength to the weak, and comfort to those who mourned. at her death, in , the letters received from many of her correspondents showed how strong and deep had been her influence.[ ] the movement initiated by miss ellis grew rapidly, and has become one of the most valuable of all agents for the dissemination of liberal religious ideas. in the year the number of correspondents was about , , and the number of tracts, sermons, periodicals, and books distributed was about , . the extent of this mission is also seen in the fact that in that year about , letters were written by the workers, and about , were received. by means of the post-office mission the literature of the denomination, the tracts of the unitarian association, copies of the christian register, and other periodicals have been scattered all over the world. thousands of sermons are distributed also from tables in church vestibules. several branches publish and exchange sermons, and a loan library has been established to supplement this work.[ ] from the distribution of tracts and sermons has grown the formation of "sunday circles" and "groups" of unitarians, carefully planned circuit preaching, the employment of missionaries, and the building of chapels or small churches. two of these are already built; and the alliance has insured the support of their ministers for five years, and two others are in the process of erection. [sidenote: associate alliances.] the women on the pacific coast have been compelled in a large measure to organize their own work and to adopt their own methods, the distance being too great for immediate co-operation with the other organizations. in this work they have not only displayed energy and perseverance, but, says one who knows intimately of their efforts, "they have shown executive ability and power as organizers that have furnished an example to many non-sectarian organizations of women, and have made the unitarian women conspicuous in all charitable and social activities." the oldest society of unitarian women on the pacific coast was connected with the first church in san francisco. in it was reorganized as the society for christian work. its work has been mainly social and philanthropic, contributing reading matter to penal institutions, money for the care of the poor of the city, and aiding every new unitarian church in the state. the channing auxiliary combines the activities of the churches in the vicinity of san francisco with those in the city. its objects are "moral and religious culture, practical literary work, and co-operation with the denominational and missionary agencies of the unitarian faith." from to this society spent over $ , in aid of denominational enterprises, and it appropriates annually a large sum for post-office mission work. while these two organizations represent san francisco and its neighborhood, the women up and down the coast have also been earnest workers. in they felt the need of a closer bond of union, and organized the women's unitarian conference of the pacific coast. in this conference became a branch of the national alliance, and has co-operated cordially with it since that time. the new york league of unitarian women has been active in forming alliance branches and new churches, as well as in affording aid to meadville students. the chicago associate alliance, the southern associate alliance, and the connecticut valley associate alliance were organized in . the worcester league of unitarian women began its existence in , and was reorganized in connection with the national alliance in . [sidenote: alliance methods.] in thus coming into closer relations with each other and forming a national organization, each local branch continues free in its own action, chooses its own methods of carrying on its work, but keeps close knowledge of what the alliance as a whole is doing, that all interference with others and overlapping of assistance may be avoided, and the greatest mutual benefit may be secured. this method gives the utmost independence to the branches, while preserving the element of personal interest in all financial disbursements, and creates a strong bond of sympathy between those who give and those who receive. the first duty of each branch is to strengthen the church to which its members belong; and the value of such an organized group of women, meeting to exchange ideas and experiences on the most vital topics of human interest, has been everywhere recognized. each branch is expected to engage in some form of religious study, not only for the improvement of the members themselves, but to enable them to gain, and to give others, a comprehensive knowledge of unitarian beliefs. a study class committee provides programmes for the use of the branches, arranges for the lending and exchange of papers, and assists those who do not have access to books of reference or are remote from the centres of unitarian thought and activity. with this preparation the alliance undertakes the higher service of joining in the missionary activities of the denomination, supplementing as far as possible the work of the american unitarian association. this includes sending missionaries into new fields, aiding small and struggling churches, helping to found new ones, supporting ministers at important points, and and distributing religious literature among those who need light on religious problems. [ ] memorial history of boston, iv. . [ ] see later chapters for account of admission of women to national conference, unitarian association, the ministry, boston school board, and various other lines of activity. [ ] mary p.w. smith, miss ellis's mission. [ ] this library is in the unitarian building, beacon street, boston. xiii. missions to india and japan. foreign missions have never commanded a general interest on the part of unitarians. their dislike of the proselyting spirit, their intense love of liberty for others as well as for themselves, and the absence of sectarian feeling have combined to make them, as a body, indifferent to the propagation of their faith in other countries. they have done something, however, to express their sympathy with those of kindred faith in foreign lands. in the younger henry ware visited england and ireland as the foreign secretary of the unitarian association; and at the annual meeting of he reported the results of his inquiries.[ ] this was the beginning of many interchanges of good fellowship with the unitarians of great britain, and also with those of hungary, transylvania, france, germany, and other european countries. during the first decade or two of the existence of the unitarian association much interest was taken in the liberal movements in geneva; and the third annual report gave account of what was being done in that city and in calcutta, as well as in transylvania and great britain. some years later, aid was promised to the unitarians of hungary in a time of persecution; but they were dispossessed of their schools before help reached them. in the association founded channing and priestley professorships in the theological school at kolozsvár, and mrs. anna richmond furnished money for a permanent professorship in the same institution. soon after the renewed activity of an unsuccessful attempt was made to establish an american unitarian church in paris; and aid was given to the founding of an english liberal church in that city. these are indications of the many interchanges of fellowship and helpfulness between the unitarians of this country and those of europe. [sidenote: society respecting the state of religion in india.] as early as began a movement to aid the native unitarians of india, partly the result of a lively interest in rammohun roy and the republication in this country of his writings. on june , , the christian register gave an account of the adoption of unitarianism by that remarkable hindoo leader; and it often recurred to the subject in later years. in february of the next year it described the formation of a unitarian society in calcutta, and the conversion to unitarianism of a baptist missionary, rev. william adam, as a result of his attempt to convert rammohun roy. there followed frequent reports of this movement, and after a few months a letter from mr. adam was published. even before this there had appeared accounts of william roberts, of madras, a native tamil, who had been educated in england, and had there become a unitarian. on his return to his own country he had established small congregations in the suburbs of madras. in a letter from rev. william adam was received in boston, addressed to dr. channing. it was put into the hands of the younger henry ware, who wrote to mr. adam and rammohun roy, propounding to them a number of questions in regard to the religious situation in india. in were published in a volume the letter of ware and the series of questions sent by him to india, together with the replies of rammohun roy and william adam.[ ] this book was one of much interest, and furnished the first systematic account that had been given to the public of the reformatory religious interest awakened at that time in india. in february, , was organized the society for obtaining information respecting the state of religion in india, "with a view to obtain and diffuse information and to devise and recommend means for the promotion of christianity in that part of the world." the younger henry ware was made the president, and dr. tuckerman the secretary. already a fund had been collected to aid the british indian unitarian association of calcutta in its missionary efforts, especially in building a church and maintaining a minister. during the year there was published at the office of the christian register a pamphlet of sixty-three pages, written by a member of the information society, being an appeal to liberal christians for the cause of christianity in india. in dr. tuckerman addressed a letter on the principles of the missionary enterprise to the executive committee of the unitarian association, in which he gave a noble exposition of the work of foreign missions, especially with reference to the indian field. this letter and other writings of tuckerman served to arouse much interest. the appeal urged what many unitarians had large faith in,--the promulgation of "just and rational views of our religion" "upon enlarged and liberal principles, from which we may hope for the speedy establishment and the wider extension there of the uncorrupted truth as it is in jesus." in the sum of $ , was secured for this work; and in the spring of a pledge was made to send yearly to calcutta the sum of $ for ten years. these pledges were in connection with like efforts made by the british and foreign unitarian association. in mr. adam visited the united states, and spoke at the annual meeting of the unitarian association. following this, he was for a few years professor of oriental literature in harvard university. [sidenote: dall's work in india.] in rev. charles t. brooks, who was for many years the minister of the church in newport, visited india in search of health; and he was commissioned by the unitarian association to make inquiries as to the prospects for missionary labors in that country. in madras he met william roberts, the younger son of the former unitarian preacher there and visited the several missions carried on by him. in calcutta he found unitarians, but the work of mr. adam had left almost no results. the report of mr. brooks was such that an effort was at once made to secure a missionary for india.[ ] in rev. charles h.a. dall undertook this mission. he had been a minister at large in st. louis, baltimore, and portsmouth, and settled over parishes in needham and toronto. mr. ball was given the widest liberty of action in conducting his mission, as his instructions indicate: "there you are to enter upon the work of a missionary; and whether by preaching, in english or through an interpreter, or by school-teaching or by writing for the press, or by visiting from house to house, or by translating tracts, or by circulation of books, you are instructed, what we know your heart will prompt you to do, to give yourself to a life of usefulness as a servant of the lord jesus christ." on his arrival at calcutta, mr. ball was in a prostrate condition, and had to be carried ashore. after a time he rallied and began his work. he gathered a small congregation about him, then began teaching; and his work grew until he had four large and flourishing schools under his charge. in these he gave special attention, to moral and religious training, and to the industrial arts. in his school work he had the efficient aid of miss chamberlain, and after her death of mrs. helen tompkins. one of the native teachers, dwarkanath singha, was of great service in securing the interest of the natives, being at the head, for many years, of all the schools under mr. dall's control. mr. dall founded the calcutta school of industrial art, the useful arts' school, hindoo girls' school, as well as a school for the waifs of the streets. in these schools were , pupils, mostly hindoos, who were taught a practical religion,--the simple principles of the gospel. in education mr. dall accomplished large results, not only by his schools, but by talking and lecturing on the subject. his influence was especially felt in the education of girls and in industrial training, in both of which directions he was a pioneer. only one of his schools is now in existence, simply because the government took up the work he began, and gave it a larger support than was possible on the part of any individual or any society. mr. dall wrote extensively for the leading journals of india, and in that way he reached a larger number of persons throughout the country. this brought him a large correspondence, and he frequently journeyed far to visit individuals and congregations thus brought to his knowledge. for many years he was one of the leading men of calcutta. few great public meetings of any reformatory or educational kind were held without his having a prominent part in them. he published great numbers of tracts and lectures,[ ] and translated the works of the leading unitarians of america and great britain into hindostanee, bengali, tamil, sanscrit, and other native languages. his zeal in circulating liberal writings was great, and met with a large reward. he distributed hundreds of copies of the complete works of dr. channing, and these brought many persons to the acceptance of unitarianism. when rev. jabez t. sunderland was in india, in - , he found many traces of these volumes, even in remote parts of the country. when he was in madras, a very intelligent hindoo walked one hundred and fifty miles to procure of him a copy of channing's biography to replace a copy received from mr. dall, which, had been reread and loaned until it was almost worn out. a considerable part of mr. ball's influence was in connection with the brahmo-somaj, in directing its religious, educational, and reformatory work. he did not make many nominal unitarians; but he had a very large influence in shaping the life of india by his personal influence and by the weight of his religious character. everywhere he was greatly beloved. he earned considerable sums as a reporter and author in aid of his mission, and he lived in a most abstemious manner in order to devote as much money as possible to his work.[ ] in this devoted service he continued until his death, which took place july , . [sidenote: recent work in india.] since the death of mr. dall the aid given to india by american unitarians has been through the natives themselves. the work of pundita, ramabai has received considerable assistance, as has also that of mozoomdar. early in the year , rev. brooke herford, then minister of the arlington street church in boston, received from india a letter addressed "to the chief pastor of the unitarian congregation at boston." it proved to be from a young lawyer or pleader in banda, north-west provinces, named akbar masih. his father was an educated mohammedan, who in early life had been converted to calvinistic christianity, and had become a missionary. at the calcutta university the son had outgrown the faith he had been taught; and a volume of channing's works, put in circulation by mr. dall, had given him the mental and spiritual teaching he desired. tracts and books were sent him, and a correspondence followed. he read with great delight what he received, and in a year or two he desired to become a missionary. mr. herford sent him money, and he was employed to spend one-third of his time in the missionary service of unitarianism. when mr. herford removed to london, the support of akbar masih was arranged for in england; and he has done a large work in preaching, lecturing, holding conferences, and publishing tracts and books. nearly in the same week in which mr. herford received his first letter from akbar masih, mr. sunderland, in ann arbor, received one from hajam kissor singh, jowai, khasi hills, assam. he was a young man employed by the government as a surveyor, was well educated, but belonged to one of the primitive tribes that retain their aboriginal religion and customs to a large extent. he had been taught orthodox christianity, however; but it was not satisfactory to him. a brahmo friend loaned him a copy of channing, and furnished him with mr. dall's address. in the bundle of tracts sent him by mr. dall was a copy of the unitarian, which led him to write to its editor, mr. sunderland. a correspondence followed, and the sending of many tracts and books. mr. singh began to talk of his new views to others, who gathered in his room on sunday afternoons for religious inquiry and worship. soon there was a call for similar meetings in another village, and mr. singh began to serve as a lay-preacher. a church was organized in jowai, and then a day school was opened. tracts and books being necessary in order to carry on the work successfully, mr. sunderland raised the necessary money, printed them in khasi at ann arbor, and forwarded them to assam, thus greatly facilitating the labors of mr. singh and his assistants. also, through the help of american unitarians, mr. singh was able to secure the aid of two paid helpers. when mr. sunderland visited the khasi hills, in , as the agent of the british and foreign unitarian association, he helped to ordain a regular pastor; and he found church buildings in five villages, day-schools in four, and religious circles meeting in eight or nine others. this mission is now being supported by the english unitarians. [sidenote: the beginnings in japan.] after the death of mr. dall it was not found desirable to continue his educational work, and the missionary activities in india naturally came under the jurisdiction of the british unitarian association. at the same time, japan offered an inviting field for missionary effort, and one not hitherto occupied by unitarians. in a movement began in that country, looking to the introduction of a rational christianity, the leader being yukichi fukuzawa, a prominent statesman, head of the keiogijiku university and editor of the leading newspaper. in fumio yano, after a visit to england, took up the same mission, and urged the adoption of christianity as a moral force in the life of the nation. the latter interpreted unitarianism as being the form of christianity needed in japan, and strongly urged its acceptance. other prominent men joined with these two in commending a rational christianity to their countrymen. not long afterwards the american unitarian association was asked to establish a mission in that country. in rev. arthur m. knapp was sent to japan to investigate the situation, and in the spring of he returned to report the results of his inquiries. he had; been welcomed; by the leading men, such as the marquis tokujawa and kentaro kaneko, who opened to him many avenues of influence. he had written for the most important newspapers, had come into personal contact with the leading men of all parties, had lectured; on many occasions to highly educated audiences, and had opened a wide-reaching correspondence. on his return to japan, in , mr. knapp was prepared to begin systematic work in behalf of rational christianity. it was not his purpose, however, to seek to establish unitarianism there as the basis of a new japanese sect, but to diffuse it as a leaven for the moral and spiritual elevation of the people of japan. "the errand of unitarianism in japan," said mr. knapp to the japanese, "is based upon the familiar idea of the sympathy of religions. with the conviction that we are the messengers of distinctive and valuable truths which have not yet been emphasized, and that, in return, there is much in your faith and life which to our harm we have not emphasized, receive us not as theological propagandists, but as messengers of the new gospel of human brotherhood in the religion of man." with mr. knapp were associated rev. clay maccauley as colleague, and also garrett droppers, john h. wigmore, and william shields liscomb, who were to become, professors in the keiogijiku, a leading university, situated in tokio, and to give such aid as they could to the unitarian mission. with these men was soon associated rev. h.w. hawkes, a young english minister, who gave his services to this important work. there also accompanied the american party mr. saichiro kanda, who had become a unitarian while residing in san francisco, and had attended the meadville theological school. in the winter of - , mr. knapp returned to the united states, and a little later mr. hawkes went back to england. in rev. william i. lawrance joined the mission force; and he continued with it until , when a severe illness compelled his resignation. professor wigmore returned to america in to accept a chair in the north-western university; professor liscomb came home in , dying soon after his return; while professor droppers remained until the winter of , when he became the president of the university of south dakota. in the beginning of , mr. maccauley, after having had direction of the mission for nine years, returned to america; and it was left in control of the japanese unitarian association, the american association continuing to give it generous financial aid and counsel. as already indicated, the purpose of the mission has not been unitarian propagandism as such. it has been that of religious enlightenment, the bringing to the japanese, in a catholic and humanitarian spirit, of the body of religious truths and convictions known as unitarianism, and then permitting them to organize themselves after the manner of their own national life. no churches were organized by the representatives of the american unitarian association. those that have come into existence have been wholly at the initiative of the natives. early in was erected, in tokio, yuiitsukwan, or unity hall, with money furnished largely from the united states. this building serves as the headquarters for unitarian work, including lectures and social and religious meetings. in was organized the japanese unitarian association for the work of diffusing unitarian principles throughout the country. the mission is organized into the three departments of church extension, publication, and education. of this association, jitsunen saji, formerly a prominent buddhist lecturer and a member at present of the city council of tokyo, is the superintendent. the secretary has been saichiro kanda, who has faithfully given his time to this work since he returned to japan with the mission party, in . the broad purposes of the japanese unitarian association have been clearly defined in its constitution: "we desire to act in accordance with god's will, which we perceive by our inborn reason. we strive to follow the guidance of noble religion, exact science and philosophy, and to discover their truth. we believe it to be a natural law of the human mind to investigate freely all phenomena of the universe. we aim to maintain the peace of the world, and to promote the happiness of mankind. we endeavor to assert our rights, and to fulfil our duties as japanese citizens; and to increase the prosperity of the country by all honorable means." early in was begun the publication in japanese of a magazine called at first the unitarian, but afterwards religion. the paid circulation was about , copies, but it was largely used as a tract for free distribution. in this magazine was merged into a popular religious monthly called rikugo-zasshi or cosmos, which has a large circulation. it is published at the headquarters of the japanese unitarian association, and is the organ of the liberalizing work carried on by that institution. the association has translated thirty or forty american and english tracts,--some have been added by native writers; and these were distributed to the number of , in . a number of important liberal books, including bixby's crisis in morals, clarke's steps in belief, and fiske's idea of god, have been translated into japanese, and obtain a ready sale. an extensive work of education, is carried on through the press, nearly all the leading journals having been freely open to the unitarians since the beginning of the mission. the direct work of education has been the most important of all the phases of the mission's activities. a library of several thousand volumes, representing all phases of modern thought, has been collected in unity hall; and it is of great value to the teaching carried on there. lectures are given every sunday in unity hall, and listened to by large audiences. much has been done in various parts of tokyo, as well as elsewhere, to reach the student class, and educated persons in all classes of society; and many persons have thus been brought to an acceptance of unitarianism. in were begun systematic courses of lectures, with a view to giving educated japanese inquirers a thorough knowledge of modern religious ideas; and these grew into the senshin gakuin, or school of advanced learning, a theological school with seven professors, and an annual attendance of thirty or forty students, nearly all of whom have been graduates of colleges and universities. unhappily, the failure of financial support compelled the abandonment of this school in . the chief educational work, however, has been done in the colleges and universities, through the general diffusion of liberal religious principles, and by the free spirit of inquiry characteristic of all educated japanese. the success of the japanese mission is chiefly due to rev. clay maccauley, who gave it the wise direction and the organizing skill necessary to its permanent growth. it is a noble monument to his devotion, and to his untiring efforts for its advancement. his little book on christianity in history is very popular, both in its english and japanese versions; and thousands of copies are annually distributed. the results of the japanese mission are especially evident in a general liberalizing of religious thought throughout the country in both the buddhist and christian communions, and in the wide-spread approval shown towards its methods and principles among the upper and student classes. its chief gain, however, consists of the scholarly and influential men who have accepted the unitarian faith, and given it their zealous support. among these men are the late hajime onishi, president of the college of literature in the new imperial university at kyoto; nobuta kishimoto, professor of ethics in the imperial normal school; tomoyoshi murai, professor of english in the foreign languages school of japan; iso abe, professor in the doshisha university; kinza hirai, professor in the imperial normal school; yoshiwo ogasawara, who is leading an extensive work of social and moral reform in wakayama; saburo shimada, proprietor of the mainichi, one of the largest daily newspapers of the empire; and zennosuki toyosaki, professor in the kokumin eigakukwai, and associate editor of the rikugo zasshi.[ ] these men are educating the japanese people to know christianity in its rational forms; and their influence is being rapidly extended throughout the country. in their hands the future of liberal religion in japan is safe; and what they do for their own people is more certain of permanent results than anything that can be accomplished by foreigners. the real significance of the japanese unitarian mission is that it has inaugurated a new era in religious propagandism; that it has been for the followers of the religions traditional to japan, as well as for those of the christian missions, eminently a means for presenting them with the world's most advanced thought in religion, and that it has been a stimulus to a purer faith and a larger fellowship. [ ] first report of the executive committee of the american unitarian association, . "the thoughts of the committee have been turned to their brethren in other lands. a correspondence has been opened with unitarians in england, and the coincidence is worthy of notice, that the british and foreign unitarian association, and the american unitarian association were organized on the same day, for the same objects, and without the least previous concert. our good wishes have been reciprocated by the directors of the british society. letters received from gentlemen who have recently visited england speak of the interest which our brethren in that country feel for us, and of their desire to strengthen the bonds of union. a constant communication will be preserved between the two associations and your committee believe it will have a beneficial effect, by making us better acquainted with one another, by introducing the publications of each country into the other, by the influence which we shall mutually exert, and by the strength which will be given to our separate, or it may be, to our united efforts for the spread of the glorious gospel of our lord and saviour." [ ] correspondence relative to the prospects of christianity and the means of promoting its reception in india. cambridge: billiard & metcalfe. . pp. [ ] christian examiner, lxiii , india's appeal to christian unitarians, by rev. c.t. brooks. [ ] some gospel principles, in ten lectures, by c.h.a. dall, calcutta, . also see the mission to india instituted by the american unitarian association. boston: office of the quarterly journal. . [ ] see out indian mission and our first missionary, by rev. john h. heywood, boston, . [ ] the unitarian movement in japan: sketches of the lives and religious work of ten representative japanese. tokyo, . xiv. the meadville theological school. in a few years after the movement began for the organization of churches west of the hudson river, the needs of theological instruction for residents of that region were being discussed. in the younger henry ware was interested in a plan of uniting unitarians and "the christian connection" in the establishment of a theological school, to be located in the eastern part of the state of new york. in july of that year he wrote to a friend: "we have had; no little talk here within a few days respecting a new theological school. many of us think favorably of the plan, and are disposed to patronize it, if feasible, but are a little fearful that it is not. others start strong objections to it _in toto_. something must be done to gain us an increase of ministers."[ ] this proposition came from the christians, and their plan was to locate the school on the hudson. although this project came to nothing for the time being, it was revived a decade later. when the unitarian association had entered upon its active missionary efforts west of the alleghanies, the new impulse to denominational life manifested itself in a wide-spread desire for an increase in the number of workers available for the western field. the establishment of a liberal theological school in that region was felt to be almost a necessity, if the opportunities everywhere opening there for the dissemination of a purer faith were not to be neglected. plans were therefore formed about for the founding of a theological school at buffalo under the direction of rev. george w. hosmer, then the minister in that city; but, business becoming greatly depressed the following year, the project was abandoned. in the importance of such a school was again causing the western workers to plan for its establishment, this time in cincinnati or louisville; but this expectation also failed of realization. then rev. william g. eliot, of st. louis, undertook to provide a theological education for such young men as might apply to him. but the response to his offer was so slight as to indicate that there was little demand for such instruction. [sidenote: the beginnings in meadville.] the demand for a school had steadily grown since the year , and the fit occasion only was awaited for its establishment. it was found at meadville, penn., in the autumn of . in order to understand why it should have been founded in this country village instead of one of the growing and prosperous cities of the west, it is necessary to give a brief account of the origin and growth of the meadville church. the first unitarian church organized west of the alleghanies was that in meadville, and it had its origin in the religious experiences of one man. the founder of this church, harm jan huidekoper, was born in the district of drenthe, holland, at the village of hogeveen, in . at the age of twenty he came to the united states; and in he became the agent of the holland land company in the north-western counties of pennsylvania, and established himself at meadville, then a small village. he was successful in his land operations, and was largely influential in the development of that part of the state. when his children were of an age to need religious instruction, he began to study the bible with a view to deciding what he could conscientiously teach them. he had become a member of the reformed church in his native land, and he had attended the presbyterian church in meadville; but he now desired to form convictions based on his own inquiries. "when i had become a father," he wrote, "and saw the time approaching when i should have to give religious instruction to my children, i felt it to be my duty to give this subject a thorough examination. i accordingly commenced studying the scriptures, as being the only safe rule of the christian's faith; and the result was, that i soon acquired clear, and definite views as to the leading doctrines of the christian religion. but the good i derived from these studies has not been confined to giving me clear ideas as to the christian doctrines. they created in me a strong and constantly increasing interest in religion itself, not as mere theory, but as a practical rule of life."[ ] as the result of this study, he arrived at the conclusion that the bible does not teach the doctrines of the trinity, the total depravity of man, and the vicarious atonement of christ. solely from the careful reading of the bible with reference to each of the leading doctrines he had been taught, he became a unitarian. with the zeal of a new convert mr. huidekoper began to talk about his new faith, and he brought it to the attention of others with the enthusiasm of a propagandist. in conversation, by means of the distribution of tracts, and with the aid of the press he extended the liberal faith. he could not send his children to the church he had attended, and he therefore secured tutors for them from harvard college who were preparing for the ministry; and in october, , one of these tutors began holding unitarian services in meadville.[ ] in may, , a church was organized, and a goodly number of thoughtful men and women connected themselves with it. but this movement met with persistent opposition, and a vigorous controversy was carried on in the local papers and by means of pamphlets. this was increased when, in , ephraim peabody, afterwards settled in cincinnati, new bedford, and at king's chapel in boston, became the minister, and entered upon an active effort for the extension of unitarianism. with the first of january, , he began the publication of the unitarian essayist, a small monthly pamphlet, in which the leading theological questions were discussed. in a few months mr. peabody went to cincinnati; and the essayist was continued by mr. huidekoper, who wrote with vigor and directness on the subjects he had carefully studied. in the church for the first time secured an ordained minister, and three years later one who gave his whole time to its service.[ ] a church building was erected in , and the prosperity of the congregation was thereby much increased. in a minister of the christian connection, rev. e.g. holland, became the pastor for a brief period. at this time frederic huidekoper, a son of the founder of the unitarian church in meadville, had returned from his studies in the harvard divinity school and in europe, and was ordained in meadville, october , . it was his purpose to become a unitarian evangelist in the region about meadville, but his attention was soon directed by rev. george w. hosmer to the importance of furnishing theological instruction to young men preparing for the unitarian ministry. he was encouraged in this undertaking by mr. holland, who pointed out to him the large patronage that might be expected from the christian body. it was at first intended that mr. huidekoper should give the principal instruction, and that he should be assisted by the pastor of the independent congregational church (unitarian) and by mr. hosmer, who was to come from buffalo for a few weeks each year, exchanging pulpits with the meadville minister. when the opening of the school was fixed for the autumn of , the prospective number of applicants was so large as to necessitate a modification of the proposed plan; and it was deemed wise to secure a competent person to preside over the school and to become the minister of the church. through the active co-operation of the american unitarian association, rev. rufus p. stebbins, then settled at leominster, mass., was secured for this double service. the students present at the opening of the school on the first day of october, , were but five; but this number was increased to nine during the year. the next year the number was twenty-three, nine of them from new england. for several years the christian connection furnished a considerable proportion of the students, and took a lively interest in the establishment and growth of the school, although contributing little or nothing to its pecuniary support. it was also represented on the board of instruction by a non-resident lecturer. at this time the christian body had no theological school of its own, and many of its members even looked with disfavor upon all ministerial education. what brought them into some degree of sympathy with unitarians of that day was their rejection of binding creeds and their acceptance of christian character as the only test of christian fellowship, together with their recognition of the bible, interpreted by every man for himself, as the authoritative standard of religious truth. the churches of this denomination in the northern states were also pronounced in their rejection of the doctrines of the trinity and predestination. unitarians themselves have not been more strenuous in the defence of the principle of religious liberty than were the leaders among the christians of the last generation. the two bodies also joined in the management of antioch college, in southern ohio; and when horace mann became its president in , he was made a minister of the christian connection, in order that he might work more effectually in the promotion of its interests. the meadville school began its work in a simple way, with few instructors and a limited course of study. mr. stebbins taught the old testament, hebrew, biblical antiquities, natural and revealed religion, mental and moral philosophy, systematic theology, and pulpit eloquence. mr. huidekoper gave instruction in the new testament, hermeneutics, ecclesiastical history, latin, greek, and german. mr. hosmer lectured on pastoral care for a brief period during each year. a building for the school was provided by the generosity of the elder huidekoper; and the expenses of board, instruction, rent, fuel, etc., were reduced to $ per annum. many of the students had received little education, and they needed a preliminary training in the most primary studies. nevertheless, the school at once justified its establishment, and sent out many capable men, even from among those who came to it with the least preparation. dr. stebbins was president of the school for ten years. during his term of service the school was incorporated by the legislature of pennsylvania in the spring of . the charter was carefully drawn with a view to securing freedom in its administration. no denominational name appeared in the act of incorporation, and the original board of trustees included christians as well as unitarians. dr. stebbins was an admirable man to whom to intrust the organization of the school, for he was a born teacher and a masterful administrator. he was prompt, decisive, a great worker, a powerful preacher, an inspirer of others, and his students warmly admired and praised him. [sidenote: the growth of the school.] the next president of the school was oliver stearns, who held the office from to . he was a student, a true and just thinker, of great moral earnestness, fine discrimination, and with a gift for academic organization. he was a man of a strong and deep personality, and his spiritual influence was profound. he had been settled at northampton and over the third parish in hingham before entering upon his work at meadville. in he went to the harvard divinity school as the professor of pulpit eloquence and pastoral care until , when he became the professor of theology; and from to he was the dean of the school. he was a preacher who "held and deserved a reputation among the foremost," for his preaching was "pre-eminently spiritual." "in his relations to the divinity schools that enjoyed his services, it is impossible to over-estimate the extent, accuracy, and thoroughness of his scholarship, and his unwearying devotion to his work."[ ] during dr. stearns' administration the small building originally occupied by the school was outgrown; and divinity hall was built on land east of the town, donated by professor frederic huidekoper, and first occupied in . in began a movement to elevate, the standard of admission to the school, in order that its work might be of a more advanced character. to meet the needs of those not able to accept this higher standard, a preparatory department was established in , which was continued until . rev. abiel a. livermore became the president of the school in , and he remained in that position until . he had been settled in keene, cincinnati, and yonkers before going to meadville. he was a christian of the finest type, a true gentleman, and a noble friend. under his direction the school grew in all directions, the course of study being largely enriched by the addition of new departments. in church polity and administration, including a study of the sects of christendom, was made a special department. in the school opened its doors to women, and it has received about thirty women for a longer or shorter term of study. in the academic degree of bachelor of divinity was offered for the first time to those completing the full course. in the philosophy of religion, and also the comparative study of religions, received the recognition they deserve. the same year ecclesiastical jurisprudence became a special department. in rev. e.e. hale lectured on charities, and from that time this subject has been systematically treated in connection with philanthropies. a movement was begun in to endow a professorship in memory of dr. james freeman clarke, which was successful. these successive steps indicate the progress made under the faithful administration of dr. livermore. he became widely known to unitarians by his commentaries on the books of the new testament, as well as by his other writings, including volumes of sermons and lectures. in george l. cary, who had been for many years the professor of new testament literature, became the president of the school, a position he held for ten years. under his leadership the school has largely advanced its standard of scholarship, outgrown studies have been discarded, while new ones have been added. new professorships and lectureships have been established, and the endowment of the school has been greatly increased. huidekoper hall, for the use of the library, was erected in , and other important improvements have been added to the equipment of the school. in the adin ballou lectureship of practical christian sociology was established, and in the hackley professorship of sociology and ethics. from the time of its establishment the huidekoper family have been devoted friends and benefactors of the theological school.[ ] frederic huidekoper occupied the chair of new testament literature from to , and from to that of ecclesiastical history. his services were given wholly without remuneration, and his benefactions to the school were numerous. he also added largely to the brookes fund for the distribution of unitarian books. his historical writings made him widely known to scholars, and added to the reputation of the school. his belief of the first three centuries concerning christ's mission to the underworld appeared in ; judaism at rome, ; and indirect testimony of history to the genuineness of the gospels, . he also republished at his own expense many valuable works that were out of print. among the other professors have been rev. nathanial s. folsom, who was in charge of the department of biblical literature from to . of the regular lecturers have been rev. charles h. brigham, rev. amory d. mayo, and dr. thomas hill. there has been an intimate relation between the meadville church and the theological school, and several of the pastors have been instructors and lecturers in the theological school, including rev. j.c. zachos, rev. james t. bixby, and rev. james m. whiton. the christian denomination has been represented among the lecturers by rev. david millard and rev. austin craig. the whole number of graduates of the meadville theological school up to april, , has been ; and eighty other students have entered the ministry. at the present time of its students are on the roll of unitarian ministers. thirty-two of its students served in the civil war, twenty per cent of its graduates previous to the close of the war being engaged in it as privates, chaplains, or in some other capacity. the endowment of the school has steadily increased until it now is somewhat more than $ , . [ ] memoir of henry ware, jr. . [ ] j.f. clarke, christian examiner, september, , lvii. . "mr. huidekoper had the satisfaction, in the later years of his life, of seeing a respectable society worshipping in the tasteful building which he loved and of witnessing the prosperity of the theological school in which he was so much interested. we have never known any one who seemed to live so habitually in the presence of god. the form which his piety mostly took was that of gratitude and reliance. his trust in the divine goodness was like that of a child in its mother. his cheerful views, of this life and of the other, his simple tastes, his enjoyment of nature, his happiness in society, his love for children, his pleasure in doing good, his tender affection for those nearest to him,--these threw a warm light around his last days and gave his home the aspect of a perpetual sabbath. a well-balanced activity of faculties contributed still more to his usefulness and happiness. he was always a student, occupying every vacant hour with a book, and so had attained a surprising knowledge of biography and history." mr. huidekoper died in meadville, may , . [ ] john m. merrick, afterwards settled in hardwick and walpole, mass., who was in mr. huidekoper's family from october, , to october, . he was succeeded by andrew p. peabody, who did not preach. in - washington gilbert, who had settlements in harvard, lincoln, and west newton, was the tutor and preacher. [ ] rev. george nichols, july, , to july, ; rev. alanson brigham, who died in meadville, august , ; rev. john quincy day, october, , to september, . [ ] a.p. peabody, harvard reminiscences, , [ ] the first treasurer of the school was edgar huidekoper, who was succeeded by professor f. huidekoper, and he in turn by edgar huidekoper, the son of the first treasurer. among the other generous friends and benefactors of the school have been alfred huidekoper, miss elizabeth huidekoper, and mrs. henry p. kidder. xv. unitarian philanthropies. the liberal movement in religion was characterized in its early period by its humanitarianism. as theology grew less important for it, there was an increase in its philanthropy. with the waning of the sectarian spirit there was a growth in desire for practical reforms. the awakened interest in man and enlarged faith in his spiritual capacities showed itself in efforts to improve his social condition. no one expressed this tendency more perfectly than dr. channing, though he was a spiritual teacher rather than a reformer or philanthropist. any statement concerning the charities in connection with which channing was active will give the most inadequate idea of his actual influence in this direction. he was greatly interested in promoting the circulation of the bible, in aiding the cause of temperance, and in bringing freedom to the slave. his biographer says that his thoughts were continually becoming concentrated more and more upon the terrible problem of pauperism, "and he saw more clearly each year that what the times demanded was that the axe should be laid at the very root of ignorance, temptation and strife by substituting for the present unjust and unequal distribution of the privileges of life some system of cordial, respectful brotherly co-operation."[ ] his interest in education was most comprehensive, and he sought its advancement in all directions with the confident faith that it would help to uplift all classes and make them more truly human.[ ] [sidenote: unitarian charities.] the liberals of new england, in the early years of the nineteenth century, were not mere theorizers in regard to human helpfulness and the application of christianity to life; for they endeavored to realize the spirit of charity and service. largely under their leadership the massachusetts bible society was organized in . a more distinctly charitable undertaking was the fragment society, organized in to help the poor by the distribution of garments, the lending of bedding to the sick and clothes to children in charity schools, as well as the providing of such children with shoes. this society also undertook to provide bibles for the poor who had none. under the leadership of rev. joseph tuckerman, then settled in chelsea, there was organized, may , , the boston society for the religious and moral improvement of seamen, "to distribute tracts of a religious and moral kind for the use of seamen, and to establish a regular divine service on board of our merchant vessels." in the massachusetts society for the suppression of intemperance, in the massachusetts peace society, and at about the same time the society for the employment of the poor came into existence. of the early unitarians rev. octavius b. frothingham justly said: "they all had a genuine desire to render the earthly lot of mankind tolerable. it is not too much to say that they started every one of our best secular charities. the town of boston had a poor-house, and nothing more until the unitarians initiated humane institutions for the helpless, the blind, the insane. the massachusetts general hospital ( ), the mclean asylum for the insane ( ), the perkins blind asylum ( ), the female orphan asylum ( ), were of their devising."[ ] what this work meant was well stated by dr. andrew p. peabody, when he said there was "probably no city in the world where there had been more ample provision for the poor than in boston, whether by private alms-giving, benevolent organizations, or public institutions."[ ] nor was this altruistic spirit manifested alone in boston, for mr. frothingham quotes the saying of a lady to dr. e.e. hale: "a unitarian church to you merely means one more name on your calendar. to the people in this town it means better books, better music, better sewerage, better health, better life, less drunkenness, more purity, and better government."[ ] the unitarian conception of the relations of altruism and religion was pertinently stated by dr. j.t. kirkland, president of harvard college during the early years of the nineteenth century, when he said that "we have as much piety as charity, and no more."[ ] one who knew intimately of the work of the ministry at large has truly said of the labors of dr. tuckerman: "from the beginning he had the moral and pecuniary support of the leaders of life in boston; her first merchants and her statesmen were watching these experiments with a curious interest, and although he was often so radical as to startle the most conservative notions of men engaged in trade, or learned in the old-fashioned science of government, there was that in the persistence of his life and the accuracy of his method which engaged their support."[ ] another instance of unitarian philanthropy is to be found in the support given to rev. edward t. taylor, usually known as "father taylor," in his work for sailors. when he went to boston in to begin his mission, the first person he visited was dr. channing, and the second ralph waldo emerson, then a settled pastor in the city. both of these men made generous contributions to his mission, and aided him in securing the attention of wealthy contributors.[ ] in fact, his bethel was almost wholly supported by unitarians. for thirty years mr. albert fearing was the president of the boston port society, organized for the support of taylor's seamen's bethel. the corresponding secretary was mr. henry parker. among other unitarian supporters of this work was hon. john a. andrew.[ ] we have no right to assume that the unitarians alone were philanthropic, but they had the wealth and the social position to make their efforts in this direction thoroughly effective.[ ] that the results were beneficent may be understood from the testimony of mrs. horace mann. "the liberal sects of boston," she wrote to a friend, "quite carried the day at that time in works of benevolence and christian charity. they took care of the needy without regard to sectarianism. such women as helen loring and elizabeth howard, (mrs. cyrus a. bartol), dorothea dix, mary pritchard (mrs. henry ware), and many others less known to the world, but equally devoted to the work, with many youthful coadjutors, took care of the poor wonderfully."[ ] after spending several weeks in boston in , and giving careful attention to the charities and philanthropies of the city, charles dickens wrote: "i sincerely believe that the public institutions and charities of this capital of massachusetts are as nearly perfect as the most considerate wisdom, benevolence, humanity, can make them. i never in my life was more affected by the contemplation of happiness, under circumstances of privation and bereavement, than in my visits to these establishments."[ ] [sidenote: education of the blind.] the pioneer in the work of educating the blind and the deaf was dr. samuel g. howe, who had been one of those who in went to greece to aid in the establishment of greek independence. on his return, in , he became acquainted with european methods of teaching the blind; and in that year he opened the massachusetts school and asylum for the blind, "the pioneer of such establishments in america, and the most illustrious of its class in the world."[ ] in his father's house in pleasant street, dr. howe began his school with a few pupils, prepared books for them, and then set about raising money to secure larger facilities. colonel thomas h. perkins, of boston, gave his house in pearl street, valued at $ , , on condition that a like sum should be contributed for the maintenance of the school. in six weeks the desired sum was secured, and the school was, afterwards known as the perkins institution for the blind. dr. howe addressed seventeen state legislatures on the education of the blind, with the result of establishing schools similar to his own. his arduous task, however, was that of providing the blind with books; and he used his great inventive skill in perfecting the necessary methods. he succeeded in making it comparatively easy to print books for the blind, and therefore made it possible to have a library of such works. in the autumn of dr. howe discovered laura bridgman, who had only the one sense of touch remaining in a normal condition; and his remarkable success, in her education made him famous. in connection with her and other pupils he began the process of teaching the deaf to use articulate speech, and all who have followed him in this work have but extended and perfected his methods. while teaching the blind and deaf, dr. howe found those who were idiotic; and he began to study this class of persons about , and to devise methods for their education. as a member of the massachusetts legislature in , he secured the appointment of a commission to investigate the condition of the idiotic; and for this commission he wrote the report. in , the state having made an appropriation for the teaching of idiotic, children, ten of them were taught at the blind asylum, under the care of dr. howe. in a separate school was provided for such children. dr. howe was called "the massachusetts philanthropist," but his philanthropy was universal in its humanitarian aims. he gave large and faithful attention, in and later, to prisons and prisoners; he was a zealous friend of the slave and the freedman; and in he devoted arduous service to the reform of the state charities of massachusetts. his biographer justly says of his spirit of universal philanthropy: "he joined in the movement in boston which abolished imprisonment for debt; he was an early and active member of the boston prison discipline society, which once did much service; and for years, when interest in prison reform was at a low ebb in massachusetts, the one forlorn relict of that once powerful organization, a prisoner's aid society, used to hold its meetings in dr. howe's spacious chamber in bromfield street. he took an early interest in the care of the insane, with which his friends horace mann, dr. edward jarvis, and dorothea dix were greatly occupied; and in later years he introduced some most useful methods of caring for the insane in massachusetts. he favored the temperance reform, and wrote much as a physician on the harm done to individuals and to the human stock by the use of alcoholic liquors. he stood with father taylor of the seamen's bethel in boston for the salvation of the sailors and their protection from cruel punishments, and he was one of those who almost abolished the flogging of children in schools. during his whole career as a reformer of public schools in new england, horace mann had no friend more intimate or helpful than dr. howe, nor one whose support was more indispensable to mann himself."[ ] dr. howe was an attendant upon the preaching of theodore parker, and was his intimate friend. in after years he was a member of the congregation of james freeman clarke at the church of the disciples. "after our return to america," says mrs. howe of the year , "my husband went often to the melodeon, where parker preached until he took possession of the music hall. the interest which my husband showed in these services led me in time to attend them, and i remember as among the great opportunities of my life the years in which i listened to theodore parker."[ ] [sidenote: care of the insane.] another among the many persons who came under the influence of dr. channing was dorothea dix, who, as a teacher of his children, lived for many months in his family and enjoyed his intimate friendship. her biographer says: "she had drunk in with passionate faith dr. channing's fervid insistence on the presence in human nature, even under its most degraded types, of germs, at least, of endless spiritual development. but it was the characteristic of her own mind that it tended not to protracted speculation, but to immediate, embodied action."[ ] her work for the insane was the expression of the deep faith in humanity she had been taught by channing. when she entered upon her humanitarian efforts, but few hospitals for the insane existed in the country. a notable exception was the mclean asylum at somerville, which had been built as the result of that same philanthropic spirit that had led the unitarians to establish the many charities already mentioned in these pages. in march, , miss dix visited the house of correction in east cambridge; and for the wretched condition of the inmates, she at once set to work to provide remedies. then she visited the jails and alms-houses in many parts of the state, and presented a memorial to the legislature recounting what she had found and asking for reforms. she was met by bitter opposition; but such persons as samuel g. howe, dr. channing, horace mann, and john g. palfrey came to her aid. the bill providing for relief to the insane came into the hands of a committee of which dr. howe was the chairman, and he energetically pushed it forward to enactment. thus miss dix began her crusade against an enormous evil. in miss dix reported that in three years she had travelled ten thousand miles, visited eighteen state penitentiaries, three hundred jails and houses of correction, and five hundred almshouses and other institutions, secured the establishment or enlargement of six hospitals for the insane, several county poorhouses, and several jails on a reformed plan. she visited every state east of the rocky mountains, and also the british provinces, to secure legislation in behalf of the insane. she secured the erection of hospitals or other reformatory action in rhode island, new jersey, pennsylvania, indiana, illinois, kentucky, tennessee, missouri, mississippi, louisiana, alabama, south carolina, nova scotia, and newfoundland. her labors also secured the establishment of a hospital for the insane of the army and navy, near washington. all this was the work of nine years. in miss dix gave her attention to providing an adequate life-saving equipment for sable island, one of we most dangerous places to seamen on the atlantic coast; and this became the means of saving many lives. in she went to england for needed rest; but almost at once she took up her humanitarian work, this time in scotland, where she secured a commission of inquiry, which in resulted in reformatory legislation on the part of parliament. in she visited the island of jersey, and secured great improvements in the care of the insane. later in that year she visited switzerland for rest, but in a few weeks was studying the charities of paris and then those of italy. in rome she had two interviews with the pope, and the erection of a new hospital for the insane on modern principles resulted. speaking only english, and without letters of introduction, she visited the insane hospitals and the prisons of greece, turkey, austria, sclavonia, russia, germany, sweden, norway, denmark, holland, and belgium. "day by day she patiently explored the asylums, prisons, and poor-houses of every place in which she set her foot, glad to her heart's core when she found anything to commend and learn a lesson from, and patiently striving, where she struck the traces of ignorance, neglect, or wrong, to right the evil by direct appeal to the highest authorities." on her return home, in september, , she was met by many urgent appeals for help in enlarging hospitals and erecting new ones; and she devoted her time until the outbreak of the civil war in work for the insane in the southern and middle north-western states. as soon as the troops were ordered to washington, she went there and offered her services as a nurse, and was at once appointed superintendent of women nurses for the whole army. she carried through the tasks of this office with energy and devotion. in she secured the erection of a monument to the fallen soldiers in the national cemetery, at hampton. then she returned at once to her work in asylums, poorhouses, and prisons, continuing this task until past her seventy-fifth year. "her frequent visits to our institutions of the insane now, and her searching criticisms," wrote a leading alienist, "constitute of themselves a better lunacy commission than would be likely to be appointed in many of our states."[ ] the last five years of her life were spent as a guest in the new jersey state asylum at trenton, it being fit that one of the thirty-two hospitals she had been the means of erecting should afford her a home for her declining years. miss dix was called by many "our lady," "our patron saint"; and well she deserved these expressions of reverence. president fillmore said in a letter to her, "wealth and power never reared such monuments to selfish pride as you have reared to the love of mankind." she had the unreserved consecration to the needs of the poor and suffering that caused her to write: "if i am cold, they are cold; if i am weary, they are distressed; if i am alone, they are abandoned."[ ] her biographer justly compares her with the greatest of the saints, and says, "precisely the same characteristics marked her, the same absolute religious consecration, the same heroic readiness to trample under foot the pains of illness, loneliness, and opposition, the same intellectual grasp of what a great reformatory work demanded."[ ] truly was it said of her that she was "the most useful and distinguished woman america has produced."[ ] [sidenote: child-saving missions.] as was justly said by professor francis g. peabody, "the boston children's mission was the direct fruit of the ministry of dr. tuckerman, and antedates all other conspicuous undertakings of the same nature. the first president of the children's mission, john e. williams, a unitarian layman, moved later to new york, and became the first treasurer of the newly created children's aid society of that city, formed in . thus the work of the children's mission and the kindred service of the warren street chapel, under the leadership of charles barnard, must be reckoned as the most immediate, if not the only american antecedent, of the great modern works of child-saving charity."[ ] the children's mission to the children of the destitute grew out of the work of the howard sunday-school, then connected with the pitts street chapel. when several men connected with that school were discussing the fact that a great number of vagrant children were dealt with by the police, fanny s. merrill said to her father, mr. george merrill, "father, can't we children do something to help those poor little ones?" this question suggested a new field of work; and a meeting was held on april , , under the auspices of rev. robert c. waterston, to consider this proposition. on may the society was organized "to create a special mission to the poor, ignorant, neglected children of this city; to gather them into day and sunday schools; to procure places and employment for them; and generally to adopt and pursue such measures as would be most likely to save or rescue them from vice, ignorance and degradation." in the beginning this mission was supported by the unitarian sunday-schools in boston, but gradually the number of schools contributing to its maintenance was enlarged until it included nearly all of those connected with unitarian churches in new england. as soon as the mission was organized, rev. joseph e. barry was made the missionary; and he opened a sunday-school in utica street. beginning in , one or more women were employed to aid him in his work. in may, , rev. edmund squire began work as a missionary in washington village; but this mission was soon given into the hands of the benevolent fraternity. in june, , mr. b.h. greene was engaged to visit the jail and lockup in aid of the young persons found there. in work was undertaken in east boston, and also in south boston. from this time onward from three to five persons were constantly employed as missionaries, in visiting throughout the city, persuading children to attend day-schools, sewing-schools, and sunday-schools, securing employment for those old enough to labor, and in placing children in country homes. in april, , mr. barry took a party of forty-eight children to illinois; and five other parties followed to that state and to michigan and ohio. since homes have been found in new england for all children sent outside the city. in november, , a hall in eliot street was secured for the religious services of the mission, which included boys' classes, sunday-school, and various organizations of a moral and intellectual character. in a house was rented in camden street especially for the care of the boys who came under the charge of the mission. in march, , was completed the house on tremont street in which the work of the mission has, since been carried on. an additional building for very young children was provided in october, . for years mr. barry continued his work as the missionary of this noble ministry to the children of the poor. since mr. william crosby has been the efficient superintendent, having served for eighteen years previously as the treasurer. the mission has cared for more than five thousand children. [sidenote: care of the poor.] it has been indicated already that much attention was given to the care of the poor and to the prevention of pauperism. it is safe to assume that every unitarian minister was a worker in this direction. it is well to notice the efforts of one man, because his work led to the scientific methods of charitable relief which are employed in boston at the present time. when rev. ephraim peabody became the minister of king's chapel, in , he turned his attention to the education of the poor and to the prevention of pauperism. in connection with rev. frederick t. gray he opened a school for those adults whose education had been neglected. especial attention was given to the elementary instruction of emigrant women. many children and adults accepted the opportunity thus afforded, and a large school was maintained for several years. with the aid of mr. francis e. parker another important work was undertaken by mr. peabody. although dr. tuckerman had labored to prevent duplication of charitable gifts and to organize the philanthropies of boston in an effective manner, with the increase of population the evils he strove to prevent had grown into large proportions. in order to prevent overlapping, imposition, and failure to provide for many who were really needy, but not eager to push their own claims, mr. peabody organized the boston provident association in . this society divided the city into small districts, and put each under the supervision of a person who was to examine every case that came before the society within the territory assigned him. the first president of this society was hon. samuel a. eliot, who was a mayor of the city, a representative in the lower house of congress, and an organizer of many philanthropies. this society was eminently successful in its operations, and did a great amount of good. its friendly visits to the poor and its judicious methods of procuring the co-operation of many charity workers prepared the way for the introduction, in , of the associated charities of boston, which extended and effectively organized the work begun by mr. peabody.[ ] numerous other organizations might be mentioned that have been initiated by unitarians or largely supported by them.[ ] [sidenote: humane treatment of animals.] the work for the humane treatment of animals was begun, and has been largely carried on, by unitarians. the founder of the american society for the prevention of cruelty to animals was henry bergh, who was a member of all souls' church in new york, under the ministry of dr. bellows. in he began his work in behalf of kindness to animals in new york city, and the society he organized was incorporated april , . it was soon engaged in an extensive work. in mr. bergh proceeded to organize branch humane societies; and, as the result of his work, most of the states have legislated for the humane care of animals. a similar work of a unitarian is that of mr. george t. angell in boston, who in founded, and has since been the president of, the massachusetts society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. in he became the president of the american humane education society, a position he continues to hold. he is the editor of our dumb animals, and has in many ways been active in the work of the great charity with which he has been connected. [sidenote: young men's christian unions.] the initiative in the establishment of christian unions for young men in cities, on a wholly unsectarian basis, was taken by a unitarian. mr. caleb davis bradlee, a harvard undergraduate, who was afterward a boston pastor for many years, gathered together in the parlor of his father's house a company of young men, and proposed to them the formation of a society for mutual improvement. this was on september , ; and the organization then formed was called the biblical literature society. those who belonged to the society during the winter of - were so much benefited by it that they decided to enlarge their plans and to extend their influence to a greater number. at the suggestion of rev. charles brooks, minister of the unitarian church in south hingham, the name was changed to the boston young men's christian union, the first meeting under the new form of organization being held march , . on october of the same year the society was incorporated, many of the leading men of the city having already given it their encouragement and support.[ ] [sidenote: educational work in the south.] after the close of the civil war there was a large demand for help in the south, especially amongst the negroes. most of the aid given by unitarians was through other than denominational channels; but something was done by the unitarian association as well as by other unitarian organizations. miss amy bradley, who had been a very successful worker for the sanitary commission, opened a school for the whites in wilmington, n.c. her work extended to all the schools of the city, and was eminently successful. she became the city and then the county superintendent of schools. she was supported by the unitarian association and the soldiers' memorial society. among the unitarians who at that time engaged in the work of educating the negroes were rev. henry f. edes in georgia, rev. james thurston in north carolina, miss m. louisa shaw in florida, miss bottume on ladies' island, and miss sally holley and miss caroline f. putnam in virginia. in the unitarian association entered upon a systematic effort to aid the negroes through co-operation with the african methodist episcopal church. the sum of $ , was in that year devoted to this work; and it was largely spent in educational efforts, especially in aid of college and theological students. wilberforce university had the benefit of lectures from dr. george w. hosmer, president of antioch college, and of edward orton, james k. hosmer, and other professors in that institution. libraries of about fifty volumes of carefully selected books, including elementary works of science, history, biography, and a few theological works, were given to ministers of that church who applied for them. this connection continued for several years, and was of much importance in the advancement of the south. with the first of january, , the unitarian association established a bureau of information in regard to southern education, of which general j.b.f. marshall, who had been for many years the treasurer of the hampton institute, was made the superintendent. this bureau, during its existence of three years, investigated the claims of various schools, and recommended those most deserving of aid. in miss mabel w. dillingham and miss charlotte r. thorn, who had been teachers for several years in the hampton institute, opened a school for negroes in calhoun, ala. miss dillingham died in ; and she was succeeded by her brother, rev. pitt dillingham, as the principal of the school. the calhoun school has been supported mostly by unitarians, and it has been successful in doing a practical and important work. during the first eight years of the tuskegee institute it received $ , annually from unitarians, and in more recent years $ , annually. this has been given by individuals, churches, and other organizations, but in no sense as a denominational work. concerning the aid given to the hampton institute this statement has been made by the principal: "the unitarian denomination has had a very important part in the work of hampton. our first treasurer was general j.f.b. marshall, a unitarian who made it possible for general armstrong first to gain access to boston and secure friends there, many of whom have been lifelong contributors to this work. general marshall came to hampton in , and for some twelve years took a most important part in building up this institution. he trained young men for the treasurer's office, who still hold important positions in the school, and others who have been sent to various institutions. the home of general and mrs. marshall here was of incalculable help in many ways, brightening and cheering the lives of our teachers and students. unitarians have always had a prominent part in the support of hampton. mrs. mary hemenway was the largest donor to the institute during her lifetime. she gave $ , for the purchase of our hemenway farm, and helped general armstrong in many ways."[ ] [sidenote: educational work for the indians.] at three different periods the unitarian association has undertaken educational work amongst the indians. the first of these proved abortive, but is of much interest. james tanner,[ ] a half-breed chippeway or ojibway from minnesota, appeared before the board of the association, february , , in behalf of his people. he had been a baptist missionary to the ojibways, but had found that he could accomplish little while the indians continued their roving life and their wars with the sioux. he therefore wished to have his people adopt a settled agricultural life. the baptist home missionary society, with which he was laboring, would not accede to his plans in this respect, and desired that he should confine himself to the preaching of the gospel. unable to do this on account of his liberal views, he went to boston with the hope that he might secure aid from the baptists there. he was soon told that he was a unitarian, and he sought a knowledge of those of that faith. he was thus led to apply to the unitarian association for help, which was granted. he secured an outfit of agricultural and other implements, and returned to his people in the spring of . in december of that year mr. tanner attended a meeting of the board of the association, accompanied by six ojibway chiefs. on this unique occasion the calumet was smoked by all present, and addresses were made by the indians. in april, , the board reluctantly abandoned this enterprise, because the money for the yearly expenditure of $ , , which it required, could not be secured.[ ] in president grant inaugurated the policy of educating the indians under the direction of the several religious denominations of the country. to the unitarians were assigned the utes of colorado. the reservation at white river was placed in charge of mr. j.s. littlefield, and that at los pinos of rev. j. nelson trask. several other persons took up this work, including rev. henry f. bond and his wife. in the utes were removed to a reservation in utah. in the spring of mr. bond returned to them for the purpose of establishing a boarding-school amongst them; but, not getting sufficient encouragement, he went to montana, where in the autumn he opened the montana industrial school, with eighteen pupils from the crows in attendance. buildings were erected, farm work begun, carpenter and blacksmith shops put in operation, all at a cost of $ , . the school was located on the big horn river, thirty miles from fort custer. it was the object of the montana industrial school to remove the indian children from their nomadic conditions and to give them a practical education, with so much of instruction in books as would be of real help to them. the boys were taught farm work and the use of tools, while the girls were trained in sewing, cooking, and other useful employments. at the same time there was constant training in cleanliness, good manners, and right living. the school was fairly successful; and the results would doubtless have been important, could the experiment have gone on for a longer period. in mr. bond withdrew from the school on account of his age, and it was placed in charge of rev. a.a. spencer. with the st of july, , however, the care of the school was assumed by the national government. extended as this chapter has become, it has failed to give anything like an exhaustive statement of the philanthropies of unitarians. their charitable activities have been constant and in many directions. this may be seen in the wide-reaching philanthropic interests of dr. edward everett hale, whose lend-a-hand clubs, king's daughters societies, and kindred movements admirably illustrate the practical side of unitarianism, its broad humanitarian spirit, its philanthropic and reformatory purpose, and its high ideal of christian fidelity and service. [ ] memoir, iii. ; one-volume edition, . [ ] memoir, iii. , ; one-volume edition, , . [ ] boston unitarianism, . [ ] harvard graduates, . [ ] boston unitarianism, . [ ] elizabeth p. peabody, reminiscences of dr. w.e. channing, . [ ] eber r. butler, lend a hand, october, , v. . [ ] elizabeth p. peabody, reminiscences of w.e. channing, . [ ] gilbert haven, anecdotes of rev. edward t. taylor, . [ ] ibid., . [ ] gilbert haven, anecdotes of rev. edward t. taylor, . [ ] american notes, chap. iii. [ ] frank b. sanborn, biography of dr. s.g. howe, philanthropist, . [ ] frank b. sanborn, biography of dr. s.g. howe, philanthropist, . [ ] reminiscences, . [ ] francis tiffany, life of dorothea lynde dix, . [ ] francis tiffany, life of dorothea lynde dix, . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] report of the national conference, , . [ ] sermons of ephraim peabody, introductory memoir, xxv; memorial history of boston, iv. , george s. hale on the charities of boston; a.p. peabody, harvard graduates, . [ ] besides the fragment society, the children's mission, and the boston provident society, already mentioned and still vigorously at work, several other societies are wholly supported by unitarians. of these may be named the howard benevolent society in the city of boston, organized in , incorporated in ; young men's benevolent society, organized in , incorporated in ; industrial aid society for the prevention of pauperism, organized in , incorporated in . [ ] alfred manchester, life of caleb davis bradlee, ; first anniversary, address before the boston young men's christian union by rev. f.d. huntington, appendix. [ ] personal letter from mr. h.b. frissell. [ ] edwin james, a narrative of the captivity and adventures of john tanner during thirty tears' residence among the indians of north america. (john tanner was the father of james.) [ ] quarterly journal, ii. , ; iii. , , , . xvi. unitarians and reforms. the belief of unitarians in the innate goodness of man and in his progress towards a higher moral life, together with their desire to make religion practical in its character and to have it deal with the actual facts of human life, has made it obligatory that they should give the encouragement of their support to whatever promised to further the cause of justice, liberty, and purity. their attitude towards reforms, however, has been qualified by their love of individual freedom. they have had a dread of ecclesiastical restriction and of any attempt to coerce opinions or to establish a despotism over individual convictions. and yet, with all this insistence upon personal liberty, no body of men and women has ever been more devoted to the furthering of practical reforms than those connected with unitarian churches. no one, for instance, was ever more zealous for individual freedom than theodore parker; but he was essentially a reformer. he was a persistent advocate of peace, temperance, education, the rights of women, the rights of the slave, the abolition of capital punishment, reform in prison discipline, and the application of humanitarian principles to the conduct of life. [sidenote: peace movement.] "it may be doubted whether any man who ever lived contributed more to spread just sentiments on the subject of war and to hasten the era of universal peace," said dr. channing of noah worcester, who has been often called "the apostle of peace." it was the second contest with great britain that led dr. worcester to consider the nature and effects of war. in august, , on the day appointed for a national fast, he preached a sermon in which he maintained that the war then beginning was without sufficient justification, and that war is always an evil. in he further studied the subject, with the result that he wrote a little book which he called a solemn review of the custom of war.[ ] the solemn review was widely circulated, it was translated into many languages, it made a deep and lasting impression, and it had a world-wide influence in preparing the minds of men for the acceptance of peace principles. the remedy for war it proposed was an international court of arbitration.[ ] through the efforts of dr. worcester the massachusetts peace society was organized december , , one of the first societies of the kind in the world.[ ] william phillips was made the president, and dr. noah worcester the corresponding secretary, with dr. henry ware, dr. channing, and rev. francis parkman among his councillors. on the executive committee with dr. worcester in were rev. ezra ripley and rev. john pierce. other unitarian members and workers were james freeman, nathaniel l. frothingham, charles lowell, samuel c. thacher, j.t. kirkland, and joseph tuckerman; and, of laymen, moses grant, josiah quincy, and colonel joseph may. in dr. worcester began the publication of the friends of peace, a small quarterly magazine, a large part of the contents of which he wrote himself. after the first number, having obtained the assistance of several wealthy friends, he relinquished the copyright; and the numbers were republished in several parts of the country, thus obtaining a wide circulation. he devoted himself almost wholly to this publication and the advocacy of the cause of peace until , when he relinquished its editorship. "this must be looked upon as a very remarkable work," wrote henry ware, the younger. "to his wakeful mind everything that occurred and everything that he read offered him materials; he appeared to see nothing which had not a bearing on this one topic; and his book becomes a boundless repository of curious, entertaining, striking extracts from writers of all sorts and the history of all times, displaying the criminality and folly of war, and the beauty and efficacy of the principles of peace."[ ] in his efforts hi behalf of peace, dr. worcester had the support of dr. channing's "respectful sympathy and active co-operation."[ ] according to dr. john pierce, channing was the life and soul of the massachusetts peace society. "for years," says his biographer, "he devoted himself to the work of extending its influence with unwavering zeal, as many of his papers of that period attest."[ ] from his pulpit dr. channing frequently expressed his faith in the principles of peace, and he strongly advocated those christian convictions and that spirit of good will which would make war impossible if they were applied to the conduct of nations. not less devoted to the cause of peace was dr. ezra s. gannett, of whom his son says: "he thought that reason, religion, the whole spirit as well as the letter of the gospel, united in forbidding war. probably, he was non-resistant up to, rather than in, the absolutely last extremity; although he writes that an english book which dr. channing lent him as the best he knew upon the subject, 'has made me a thorough peace man!'"[ ] "let the fact of brotherhood be fairly grasped," wrote dr. frederic h. hedge, "and war becomes impossible."[ ] "the tremendous extent and pertinacity of the habit of human slaughter in battle," wrote dr. william r. alger, "its shocking criminality, and its incredible foolishness, when regarded from an advanced religious position, are three facts calculated to appall every thoughtful man and startle him into amazement." "it is vain," he said, "to undertake to impart a competent conception of the crimes and miseries belonging to war. their appalling character and magnitude stun the imagination and pass off like the burden of a frightful dream."[ ] worcester's solemn review convinced rev. samuel j. may "that the precepts, spirit, and example of jesus gave no warrant to the violent, bloody resistance of evil; that wrong could be effectually overcome by right, hatred by love, violence by gentleness, evil of any kind by its opposite good. i preached this," he said, "as one of the cardinal doctrines of the gospel, and endeavored especially to show the wickedness and folly of the custom of war."[ ] in he organized a county peace society, the first in the country; and his first publication was in advocacy of this reform.[ ] of the men connected with political life, charles sumner was the most devoted and influential friend of the peace cause. as early as march, , he wrote to a friend, "i hold all wars, as unjust and, unchristian." his address on the true grandeur of nations, given before the mayor and other officials of boston, july , , was one of the noblest and most effective utterances on the subject. though a considerable part of the audience was in military array, sumner showed the evils of war in uncompromising terms, denouncing it as cruel and unnecessary, while with true eloquence, great learning, and deep conviction he made his plea for peace. "the effect was immediate and striking," wrote george w. curtis. "there were great indignation and warm protest on the one hand, and upon the other sincere congratulation and high compliment. sumner's view of the absolute wrong and iniquity of war was somewhat modified subsequently; but the great purpose of a peaceful solution of international disputes he never relinquished."[ ] he said in this oration that "in our age there can be no peace that is not honorable; there can be no war that is not dishonorable." this statement was severely criticised, but it indicates his uncompromising acceptance of peace principles.[ ] he added these pertinent sentences: "the true honor of a nation is to be found only in deeds of justice and in the happiness of its people, all of which are inconsistent with war. in the clear eye of christian judgment vain are its victories, infamous are its spoils."[ ] he further declared that "war is utterly and irreconcilably inconsistent with true greatness."[ ] these views he continued to hold throughout his life, though in a more conciliatory spirit; and on several occasions he presented them before the peace society and elsewhere. when in the senate he was a leader of the cause of arbitration, and exerted his large influence in securing its adoption by the united states as a means of preventing war with foreign countries. as late as july, , he wrote to one of his friends: "i long to witness the harmony of nations, which i am sure is near. when an evil so great is recognized and discussed, the remedy must be near at hand."[ ] the work done by julia ward howe for the cause of peace is eminently worthy of recognition. one chapter of her reminiscences is devoted to her "peace crusade" of . the cruel and unnecessary character of the franco-prussian war led her to write an appeal to mothers to use their influence in behalf of peace. "the august dignity of motherhood and its terrible responsibilities now appeared to me in a new aspect," she writes, "and i could think of no better way of expressing my sense of these than of sending forth an appeal to womanhood throughout the world, which i then and there composed."[ ] she printed and distributed her appeal, had it translated into french, spanish, italian, german, and swedish, and then spent many months in corresponding with leading women in various countries. she invited these women to a women's peace congress to be held in london. after holding two successful meetings in new york, she began her crusade in england, holding meetings in many places, and also attending a peace congress in paris. she hired a hall in london, and held sunday meetings to promote the reform she had deeply at heart. the women's congress was a success, and after two years of earnest effort mrs. howe had the satisfaction of knowing that she had done something to promote peace on earth and good will among men. [sidenote: temperance reform.] unitarians have been active in the cause of temperance, but again as individuals rather than as a denomination. the emphasis they have put on the importance of individual opinion and personal liberty has made them often reluctant to join societies that sought to promote this reform by restrictive and coercive measures. as a body, therefore, they have shown a greater inclination to the use of moral suasion than legislative power. from dr. channing this reform had the most earnest approval. "the temperance reform which is going on among us," he wrote, "deserves all praise, and i see not what is to hinder its complete success. i believe the movements now made will succeed, because they are in harmony with and are seconded by the general spirit and progress of the age. every advance in knowledge, in refined manners, in domestic enjoyments, in habits of foresight and economy, in regular industry, in the comforts of life, in civilization, good morals and religion, is an aid to the cause of temperance; and believing as we do that these are making progress, may we not hope that drunkenness will be driven from society?"[ ] he regarded the subject from a broader point of view than many, and urged that a sound physical education for all youth, as well as larger opportunities for intellectual improvement on the part of workingmen, would do much to prevent intemperance.[ ] he maintained that to give men "strength within to withstand the temptations of intemperance" is incalculably more important than to remove merely outward temptations. better education, innocent amusements, a wider spirit of sympathy and brotherhood, discouragement of the use and sale of ardent spirits, were among the means he recommended for suppressing this evil.[ ] the massachusetts society for the suppression of intemperance was organized at the state house in boston on february , , "to discountenance and suppress the too free use of ardent spirits, and to encourage and promote temperance and general morality." this was one of the first temperance societies organized in the country, and its chief promoters were unitarians. dr. john c. collins, who published the records of the society, said of the year , when he became a member, that "channing, gannett, and others were the most active men at that time in the temperance cause."[ ] dr. abiel abbot was the first corresponding secretary of the society, and on the council were drs. kirkland, lothrop, worcester, and pierce. among the other unitarian ministers who were active in the society were charles lowell, the younger henry ware, john pierpont, and john g. palfrey. among the laymen were moses grant, nathan dane, dr. john ware, stephen fairbanks, dr. j.f. flagg, william sullivan, amos lawrence, samuel dexter, and isaac parker.[ ] auxiliary societies were organized in salem, beverly, and other towns; and these gave to the temperance cause the activities of such unitarians as theophilus parsons, robert rantoul, and samuel hoar.[ ] of the more recent interest of unitarians in questions of temperance reform there may be mentioned the thorough study made by the united states commissioner of labor, and printed in under the title of economic aspects of the liquor problem.[ ] this investigation was ordered by congress as the result of a petition sent to that body by the unitarian temperance society. probably few petitions have ever been sent to congress that contained so many prominent names of leading statesmen, presidents of colleges and universities, bishops, clergymen, well-known literary men, and other persons of influence. the unitarian temperance society was organized september , , in connection with the meeting of the national conference at saratoga. its purpose is "to work for the cause of temperance in whatever ways may seem to it wise and right; to study the social problems of poverty, crime, and disease, in their relation to the use of intoxicating drinks, and to diffuse whatever knowledge may be gained; to discuss methods of temperance reform; to devise and, so far as possible, to execute plans for practical reform; to exert by its meetings and by its membership such influence for good as by the grace of god it may possess." it has held annual meetings in boston, and other meetings in connection with the national conference; it has published a number of important tracts, temperance text-books, and temperance services for sunday-schools; and it has exerted a considerable influence on the denomination in shaping public opinion in regard to this reform. the presidents of the society have been rev. christopher r. eliot, rev. george h. hosmer, and rev. charles f. dole. the subject of temperance reform has been before the national conference on several occasions and in various forms. at the session of a resolution offered by miss mary grew was adopted:-- that the unutterable evils continually wrought by intemperance, the easy descent from moderate to immoderate drinking, and the moral wrecks strewn along that downward path, call upon christians and patriots to practise and advocate abstinence from the use of all intoxicating liquors as a beverage. in a series of resolutions recommended by the unitarian temperance society were adopted as expressing the convictions of the conference:-- first, that the liquor saloon, as it exists to-day in the united states, is the nation's chief school of crime, chief college of corruption in politics, chief source of poverty and ruined homes, chief menace to our country's future, is the standing enemy of society, and, as such, deserves the condemnation of all good men. second, that, whatever be the best mode of dealing with the saloon by law, law can avail little until those who condemn the saloon consent to totally abstain themselves from the use of alcoholic drink for pleasure. third, that we affectionately and urgently call on every minister and all laymen and women in our denomination--our old, our young, our rich, our poor, our leaders, and our humblest--to take this stand of total abstinence, remembering those that are in bonds as bound with them, and throw the solid influence of our church against the influence of the saloon. [sidenote: anti-slavery.] in proportion to its numbers no religious body in the country did so much to promote the anti-slavery reform as the unitarian. no unitarian defended slavery from the pulpit or by means of the press, and no one was its apologist.[ ] many, however, did not approve of the methods of the abolitionists, and some strongly opposed the extreme measures of a part of that body of reformers. the desire of unitarians to be just, rational, and open-minded, exposed many of them to the criticism of being neither for nor against slavery. but it is certain that they were not indifferent to its evils nor recreant to their humanitarian principles. the period of the anti-slavery agitation was truly one that tried the souls of men; and those who were equally conscientious, desirous of serving the cause of justice and humanity, and solicitous for the welfare of the slave, widely differed from one another as to what was the wise method of action. among those severely condemned by the anti-slavery party were several unitarian ministers of great force of character and of a genuinely humanitarian spirit. three of them may be selected as representative. dr. orville dewey had seen something of slavery, and was strongly opposed to it. he thought the system hateful in itself and productive of nearly unmingled evil, and yet he was not in favor of immediate emancipation. his frequent indictments of slavery in his sermons and lectures were severe in the extreme; but his demand for wise and patient counsel, and for a rational method of gradual emancipation, subjected him to severe condemnation. "and nothing else brings out the nobleness of dr. dewey into such bold relief as the fact," says rev. john w. chadwick, "that the immeasurable torrent of abuse that greeted his expressed opinion did not in any least degree avail to make him one of the pro-slavery faction. he differed from the most earnest of the anti-slavery men only as to the best method of getting rid of the curse of human bondage."[ ] as early as dr. e.s. gannett said that "the greatest evil under which our nation labors is the existence of slavery. it is the only vicious part of our body politic, but this is a deep and disgusting sore. it must be treated with the utmost judgment and skill." the violence of the abolitionists he did not approve, however; for his respect for law and constituted authority was so great that he was not ready for radical measures. he abhorred slavery, but he was not willing to condemn the slaveholder. he was therefore regarded by the abolitionists as more hostile to them than any other unitarian minister. his attitude as a peace man, his strong regard for justice and fair dealing, as well as his earnest faith in the gentle influence of the gospel, forbade his accepting the strenuous methods of the abolitionists. he would not, however, permit anti-slavery ministers to be silenced in unitarian meetings. when he saw something of slavery, in , he expressed his convictions in regard to it in these forcible words: "it is the attempt to degrade a human being into something less than a man,--not the confinement, unjust as this is, nor the blows, cruel as these are,--but the denial of his equal share in the rights, prerogatives, and responsibilities of a human being, which brands the institution of slavery with its peculiar and ineffaceable odiousness."[ ] another minister who came under the condemnation of the abolitionists was rev. john h. morison, and yet he preached sermons against slavery that met with the vigorous disapproval of his congregation. "we all agree," he wrote in , "in the sad conviction that slavery in its political influence, more than all other subjects, threatens to upturn the foundation of our government; that in its moral and religious bearings it is a grievous wrong to master and slave; and that, as it is in violation of the fundamental principles of christian duty, it must, if continued beyond the absolute necessity of the case, be attended with consequences the most disastrous." again, when daniel webster made his th of march speech in , dr. morison, then the editor of the christian register, took the earliest possible opportunity to express himself as strongly as he could against it. "we at the north," he wrote, "believe that slavery is morally wrong." he said that the government, in its attempt to defend slavery as against the moral convictions of a large number of the people, was doing the country a great harm.[ ] the position of these men and of others who thought and acted with them can best be understood by recognizing the fact that they were opposed to sectarian methods in promoting reforms as in advancing the interests of religion. it is probable that in these heated times neither party did full justice to the spirit and purposes of the other. even so gentle and charitable a man as rev. samuel j. may speaks of the "discreditable pro-slavery conduct of the unitarian denomination." "the unitarians as a body," he says again, "dealt with the question of slavery in anything but an impartial, courageous, and christian way. continually in their public meetings the question was staved off and driven out because of technical, formal, verbal difficulties which were of no real importance, and ought not to have caused a moment's hesitation. avowing among their distinctive doctrines the fatherly character of god and the brotherhood of man, we had a right to expect from the unitarians a steadfast and unqualified protest against so unjust, tyrannical, and cruel a system as that of american slavery. and considering their position as a body, not entangled with any pro-slavery alliances, not hampered with any ecclesiastical organization, it does seem to me that they were pre-eminently guilty in reference to the enslavement of the millions in our land with its attendant wrongs, cruelties, horrors. they refused to speak as a body, and censured, condemned, execrated their members who did speak faithfully for the down-trodden, and who co-operated with him whom a merciful providence sent as the prophet of the reform."[ ] the testimony of rev. o.b. frothingham is fully as condemnatory of unitarian timidity and conservatism, even of the moral cowardice betrayed by many of the leaders. he says the unitarians, as such, "were indifferent or lukewarm; the leading classes were opposed to the agitation. dr. channing was almost alone in lending countenance to the reform, though his hesitation between the dictates of natural feeling and christian charity towards the masters hampered his action, and rendered him obnoxious to both parties,--the radicals finding fault with him for not going further, the conservatives blaming him because he went so far."[ ] mr. frothingham finds, however, that the transcendentalists were quite "universally abolitionists, their faith in the natural powers of man making them zealous promoters of the cause of the slave." he insists that as a class "the unitarians were not ardent disciples of any moral cause, and took pride in being reasoners, believers in education and in general social influence, in the progress of knowledge and the uplifting of humanity by means of ideas," but that they permitted these qualities to cool their ardor for reform and to mitigate their love of humanity.[ ] the biographers of william lloyd garrison are never tired of condemning dr. channing for what they call his timidity, his shunning any personal contact with the great abolitionist, his failure to grapple boldly with the evils of slavery, and his half-hearted espousal of the cause of abolition. the unitarians generally are by these writers regarded in the same manner.[ ] most of the accounts mentioned were written by those who took part in the agitation against slavery, in condemnation of those who had not kept step with their abolition pace or in apology for those whose words and conduct were thought to need defence. the time has come, perhaps, when it is possible to consider, the attitude of individuals and the denomination without a partisan wish to condemn or to defend. in this spirit the statement of samuel j. may is to be accepted as true and just, when he says: "we unitarians have given to the anti-slavery cause more preachers, writers, lecturers, agents, poets, than any other denomination in proportion to our numbers, if not without any comparison."[ ] among those who listened to william lloyd garrison when in october, , he first presented in boston his views in favor of immediate emancipation, were samuel j. may, samuel e. sewall, and a.b. alcott; and these men at once became his disciples and friends.[ ] when garrison organized the new england anti-slavery society in december, , he was actively supported by samuel e. sewall, david lee child, and ellis gray loring. it was to the financial support of sewall and loring, though they did not at first accept his doctrine of immediate emancipation, that garrison owed his ability to begin the liberator, and to sustain it in its earliest years.[ ] for many years, edmund quincy was connected with the liberator, serving as its editor when garrison was ill, absent on lecturing tours, or journeying in europe. the massachusetts anti-slavery society, which in succeeded the new england society, had during many years francis jackson as its president, edmund quincy as its corresponding secretary, and robert f. walcutt as its recording secretary, all unitarians. in was formed the cambridge anti-slavery society, under the leadership of the younger henry ware; and the membership was largely unitarian, including the names of dr. henry ware, sidney willard, charles follen, william h. charming, artemus b. muzzey, barzillai frost, charles t. brooks, and frederic h. hedge. the purposes of the society were stated in its constitution:-- we believe that the emancipation of all who are in bondage is the requisition, not less of sound policy, than of justice and humanity; and that it is the duty of those with whom the power lies at once to remove the sanction of the law from the principle that man can be the property of man,--a principle inconsistent with our free institutions, subversive of the purposes for which man was made, and utterly at variance with the plainest dictates of reason and christianity. in samuel may visited england, and at unitarian meetings described the obstacles in the way of the abolition of slavery, and spoke of the apathy of american unitarians. he advised the sending a letter of fraternal counsel to the unitarian ministers of the united states "in behalf of the unhappy slave." such a letter was prepared, and signed by eighty-five ministers. it was published in the unitarian papers in this country, a meeting was held to consider it, and a reply sent to england signed by one hundred and thirty ministers. mr. may was severely condemned for his part in causing such a letter to be sent, and the reply was rather in the nature of a protest than a friendly acceptance of the advice given. a year later, however, this letter was again the subject of earnest discussion. in anniversary week, , a meeting of unitarian ministers was held to "discuss their duties in relation to american slavery." the call for this meeting was signed by james thompson, joseph allen, caleb stetson, samuel ripley, converse francis, william ware, samuel j. may, artemus b. muzzey, oliver stearns, james w. thompson, alonzo hill, andrew p. peabody, henry a. miles, frederic h. hedge, james f. clarke, george w. briggs, samuel may, barzillai frost, nathaniel hall, david fosdick, and john weiss. at the third session, by a vote of forty-seven to seven, it was declared "that we consider slavery to be utterly opposed to the principles and spirit of christianity, and that, as ministers of the gospel, we feel it our duty to protest against it, in the name of christ, and to do all we may to create a public opinion to secure the overthrow of the institution." it was also decided to appoint a committee to draw up, secure signatures to, and publish "a protest against the institution of american slavery, as unchristian and inhuman." though some of those who spoke at these meetings condemned the abolitionists, yet all of them expressed in the strongest terms their opposition to slavery. the committee selected to prepare this protest consisted of caleb stetson, james f. clarke, john parkman, stephen g. bulfinch, a.p. peabody, john pierpont, samuel j. may, oliver stearns, george w. briggs, william p. tilden, and william h. channing. the protest was written by james freeman clarke and was accepted essentially as it came from his hands. it was signed by one hundred and seventy-three ministers,[ ] the whole number of unitarian ministers at that time being two hundred and sixty-seven. some of the most prominent ministers were conspicuous by the absence of their names from this protest. it must be understood, however, that those who did not sign it were as much opposed to slavery as those who did. "this protest," said the editor of the christian register, in presenting it to the public,[ ] "is written with great clearness of expression and moderation of spirit. it exhibits unequivocally and distinctly the sentiments of the numerous and most enlightened body of clergy whose names are attached to it, as well as many other ministers of the denomination who may be disinclined to act conjointly, or do not feel called upon to act at all in any prescribed way, on the subject." it was not a desire to defend slavery that kept these ministers from signing the protest, but their excessive individualism, and their unwillingness to commit the denomination to opinions all might not accept. a few paragraphs from the protest will indicate its spirit and purpose:-- "especially do we feel that the denomination which takes for its motto liberty, holiness and love should be foremost in opposing this system. more than others we have contended for three great principles,--individual liberty, perfect righteousness, and human brotherhood. all of these are grossly violated by the system of slavery. we contend for mental freedom; shall we not denounce the system which fetters both mind and body? we have declared righteousness to be the essence of christianity; shall we not oppose the system which is the sum of all wrong? we claim for all men the right of brotherhood before a universal father; ought we not to testify against that which tramples so many of our brethren under foot?" "we, therefore, ministers of the gospel of truth and love, in the name of god the universal father, in the name of christ the redeemer, in the name of humanity and human brotherhood, do solemnly protest against the system of slavery as unchristian, and inhuman," "because it is a violation of right, being the sum of all unrighteousness which man can do to man," "violates the law of love," "degrades man, the image of god, into a thing," "necessarily tends to pollute the soul of the slave," "to defile the soul of the master," "restricts education, keeps the bible from the slave, makes life insecure, deprives female innocence of protection, sanctions adultery, tears children from parents and husbands from wives, violates the divine institutions of families, and by hard and hopeless toil makes existence a burden," "eats out the heart of nations and tends every year more and more to sear the popular conscience and impair the virtue of the people." "we implore all christians and christian preachers to unite in unceasing prayer to god for aid against this system, to leave no opportunity of speaking the truth and spreading the light on this subject, in faith that the truth is strong enough to break every yoke." "and we do hereby pledge ourselves, before god and our brethren, never to be weary of laboring in the cause of human rights and freedom until slavery be abolished and every slave made free." although many ministers and laymen took the position that the question of slavery was not one that should receive attention in the meetings of the unitarian association or other religious organizations, that these should be kept strictly to their own special purposes, it was not possible to exclude the one great exciting topic of the age. how persistently it intruded itself is clearly indicated in words used by dr. bellows at the annual meeting of the association, in . "year after year this horrid image of slavery come in here," he said, "and obtruded itself upon our concerns. it has prevented our giving attention to any other subject; we could not keep it out of our minds; and why is that awful crime against humanity still known in the world, still supported and active in this age of christendom, but because it is in alliance with certain views of theology with which we are at war?"[ ] at the same meeting strong resolutions of sympathy with the free settlers of kansas, and with charles sumner because "the barbarity of the slave power had attempted to silence him by brutal outrage," were unanimously adopted.[ ] in the subject of slavery came before the western conference in its session at alton. the most uncompromising anti-slavery resolutions were presented at the opening of the meeting, and everything else was put aside for their consideration, a day and a half being devoted to them. the opinion of the majority was, in the words of one of the speakers, that slavery is a crime that "denies millions marital and parental rights, requires ignorance as a condition, encourages licentiousness and cruelty, scars a country all over with incidents that appall and outrage the human world." dr. w.g. eliot, of st. louis, and others, thought it not expedient to press the subject to an issue, though he regarded slavery in much the same way as did the other members of the conference. when the conference finally took issue with slavery, he and his delegates withdrew from its membership. his assistant, rev. carlton a. staples, and rev. john h. heywood, of louisville, went with the majority. a committee appointed to formulate a statement the conference could accept said that it had no right to interfere with the freedom of action of individual churches; but it recommended them to do all they could in opposition to slavery, and said that the conference was of one mind in the conviction "that slavery is an evil doomed by god to pass away." this report was accepted by the conference with only one opposing vote.[ ] when the year had arrived, unitarians were practically unanimous in their condemnation of slavery. when the names of individual unitarians who took an active part in the anti-slavery movement are given, it is at once seen how important was the influence of the denomination. early in the century rev. noah worcester uttered his word of protest against slavery. rev. charles follen joined the massachusetts anti-slavery society in the second year of its existence, and no nobler champion of liberty ever lived. if dr. channing was slow in applying his christian ideal of liberty to slavery, there can be no question that his influence was powerful on the right side, and all the more so because of his gentle and ethical interpretation of individual and national duty. his various publications on the subject, his identification of himself with the abolitionists by joining their ranks in the massachusetts state house in , his speech in faneuil hall in protest against the killing of lovejoy in alton during the same year, exerted a great influence in behalf of abolition throughout the north. it is only necessary to mention john pierpont, theodore parker, william h. furness, william h. channing, william goodell, theodore d. weld, ichabod codding, caleb stetson, and m.d. conway in order to recognize their uncompromising fidelity to the cause of freedom. only less devoted were such men as charles lowell, nahor a. staples, sylvester judd, nathaniel hall, thomas t. stone, o.b. frothingham, abiel a. livermore, samuel johnson, samuel longfellow, thomas j. mumford, and many others. samuel j. may and his cousin, samuel may, were both employed by the massachusetts anti-slavery society. from until the latter was the general agent of that organization; and his assistant was another unitarian minister, robert f. walcutt. james freeman clarke, though settled at louisville from to , was opposed to slavery; and in the pages of the western messenger, of which he was publisher and editor, he took every occasion to press home the claims of emancipation. john g. palfrey emancipated the slaves that came into his possession from his father's estate, insisting on receiving them for that purpose, though the opportunity was given him to accept other property in their stead. in accordance with this action was his attitude toward slavery in the pulpit and on the platform, as well as when he was a member of the lower house of congress. of unitarian laymen who were loyal to the ideal of freedom, the list may properly open with the name of josiah quincy, afterwards mayor of boston and president of harvard college, who began as early as his opposition to slavery, and carried it faithfully into his work as a member of the national house of representatives soon after. the fidelity of john quincy adams to freedom during many years is known to every one, and his service in the national house has given him a foremost place in the company of the anti-slavery leaders. not less loyal was the service of charles sumner, horace mann, john p. hale, george w. julian, john a. andrew, samuel g. howe, henry i. bowditch, william i. bowditch, thomas w. higginson, george f. hoar, ebenezer r. hoar, george s. boutwell, and henry b. anthony. of the poets the anti-slavery reform had the support of longfellow, lowell, bryant, and emerson. the unitarian women were also zealous for freedom. the loyalty of lydia maria child is well known, as are the sacrifices she made in publishing her early anti-slavery books. lucretia mott, of the unitarian branch of the friends, was a devoted supporter of the anti-slavery cause. mrs. maria w. chapman was one of the most faithful supporters of garrison, doing more than any one else to give financial aid to the anti-slavery reform movement in its earlier years. with these women deserve to be mentioned eliza lee follen, angelina grimké weld, lucy stone, and many more. a considerable group of persons who had been trained in evangelical churches became essentially unitarians as a result of the anti-slavery agitation. of these may be mentioned william lloyd garrison, gerrit smith, beriah green, joshua r. giddings, myron holley, theodore d. weld, and francis w. bird. of the first four of these men, george w. julian has said: "they were theologically reconstructed through their unselfish devotion to humanity and the recreancy of the churches to which they had been attached. they were less orthodox, but more christian. their faith in the fatherhood of god and the brotherhood of man became a living principle, and compelled to reject all dogmas which stood in its way."[ ] [sidenote: the enfranchisement of women.] it is not surprising that the first great advocate of "the rights of women" in this country should have been the unitarian, margaret fuller. she did no more than apply what she had been taught in religion to problems of personal duty, professional activity, and political obligations. with her freedom of faith and liberty of thought meant also freedom to devote her life to such tasks as she could best perform for the good of others. it was inevitable that other unitarian women should follow her example, and that many women, trained in other faiths, having come to accept the doctrine of universal political rights, should seek in unitarianism the religion consonant with their individuality of purpose and their sense of human freedom. among the leaders of the movement for the enfranchisement of women have been such unitarians as elizabeth cady stanton, susan b. anthony, lucy stone, julia ward howe, mary a. livermore, maria weston chapman, caroline h. dall, and louisa m. alcott. the first pronounced woman suffrage paper in the country was the una, begun at providence in , with mrs. caroline h. dall as the assistant editor. among other unitarian contributors were william h. charming, elizabeth p. peabody, thomas w. higginson, ednah d. cheney, amory d. mayo, elizabeth oakes smith, lucy stone, and mrs. e.c. stanton. the next important paper was the revolution, begun at new york in , with susan b. anthony as publisher and elizabeth cady stanton and parker pillsbury as editors. then came the woman's journal, begun at boston in , with mary a. livermore, lucy stone, julia ward howe, t.w. higginson, and henry b. blackwell, all unitarians, as the editors. the first national woman's suffrage meeting was held in worcester, october and , ; and among those who took part in it by letter or personal presence were emerson, alcott, higginson, pillsbury, samuel j. may, william h. channing, william h. burleigh, elizabeth c. stanton, catherine m. sedgwick, caroline kirkland, and lucy stone. in april, , when the constitution of massachusetts was to receive revision, a petition was presented, asking that suffrage should be granted to women. of twenty-seven persons signing it, more than half were unitarians, including abby may alcott, lucy stone, t.w. higginson, anna q.t. parsons, theodore parker, william i. bowditch, samuel e. sewall, ellis gray loring, charles k. whipple, and thomas t. stone. among other unitarians who have taken an active part in promoting this cause have been lucretia mott, mary grew, caroline m. severance, celia c. burleigh, angelina grimké weld, and maria giddings julian. of men there have been dr. william f. channing, james f. clarke, george f. hoar, george w. curtis, john s. dwight, john t. sargent, samuel johnson, samuel longfellow, octavius b. frothingham, adin ballou, george w. julian, frank b. sanborn, and james t. fields. unitarians have been amongst the first to recognize women in education, literature, the professions, and in the management of church and denominational interests. at the convention held in new york in , which organized the national conference, no women appeared as delegates; and the same was true at the second session, held at syracuse in . at that session rev. thomas j. mumford moved "that our churches shall be left to their own wishes and discretion with reference to the sex of the delegates chosen to represent them in the conference"; and this resolution was adopted. at the third meeting, held at new york in , thirty-seven women appeared as delegates, including julia ward howe and caroline h. dall. the lay delegates to the session held at washington in numbered four hundred and two; and, of these, two hundred and twenty seven were women. at the annual meeting of the unitarian association in , rev. john t. sargent brought forward the subject of the representation of women on its board of directors. dr. james f. clarke made a motion looking to that result, which was largely discussed, much opposition being manifested. it was urged by many that women were unfit to serve in a position demanding so much business capacity, that they would displace capable men, and that it was improper for them to assume so public a duty. charles lowe, james f. clarke, john t. sargent, and others strongly championed the proposition, with the result that miss lucretia crocker was elected a member of the board.[ ] the first woman ordained to the unitarian ministry was mrs. celia c. burleigh, who was settled over the parish in brooklyn, conn., october , . the sermon was preached by rev. john w. chadwick, and the address to the people was given by mrs. julia ward howe. a letter was read from henry ward beecher, in which he said to mrs. burleigh: "i do cordially believe that you ought to preach. i think you had a _call_ in your very nature." mrs. burleigh continued at brooklyn for less than three years, ill-health compelling her to resign. the second woman to enter the unitarian ministry was miss mary h. graves, who was ordained at mansfield, mass., december , . she was subjected to a thorough examination; and the committee reported "that her words have commanded our thorough respect by their freedom and clearness, and won our full sympathy and approval by their earnest, discreet, and beautiful spirit." mrs. eliza tupper wilkes was ordained by the universalists at rochester, minn., may , , though she had preached for two or three years previously; and she subsequently identified herself with the unitarians. mrs. antoinette brown blackwell was ordained in central new york, in , by the orthodox congregationalists; but somewhat later she became a unitarian. the first woman to receive ordination who has continued without interruption her ministerial duties was miss mary a. safford, ordained in . she has held every official position in connection with the iowa unitarian association, and she has also been an officer of the western conference and a director of the american unitarian association. several women have also frequently appeared in unitarian pulpits who have not received ordination or devoted themselves to the ministry as a profession. among these are mrs. caroline h. dall, mrs. julia ward howe, and mrs. mary a. livermore. in mrs. howe was active in organizing the women's ministerial conference, which met in the church of the disciples, and brought together women ministers of several denominations. of this conference mrs. howe was for many years the president. in most unitarian churches there is no longer any question as to the right of women to take any place they are individually fitted to occupy. on denominational committees and boards, women sit with entire success, their fitness for the duties required being called in question by no one. in those conferences where women have for a number of years been actively engaged in the work of the ministry they are received on a basis of perfect equality with men, and the sex question no longer presents itself in regard to official positions or any other ministerial duty. [sidenote: civil service reform.] the first advocate of the reform of the civil service was charles sumner, who as early as december, , anticipated its methods in a series of articles contributed to a newspaper.[ ] he was the first to bring this reform before congress, which he did april , , when he introduced a bill to provide a system of competitive examinations for admission to and promotion in the civil service, which made merit and fitness the conditions of employment by the government, and provided against removal without cause. this bill was drawn by sumner without consultation with any other person, but the time had not yet arrived when it could be successfully advocated. the next person to advocate the reform of the civil service in congress was thomas a. jenckes, of rhode island, who in brought the merit system forward in the form of a report from the joint committee on retrenchment, which reported on the condition of the civil service, and accompanied its report with a bill "to regulate the civil service and to promote its efficiency." the next year mr. jenckes made a second report, but it was not until that action on the subject was secured.[ ] george w. curtis says that at first he "pressed it upon an utterly listless congress, and his proposition was regarded as the harmless hobby of an amiable man, from which a little knowledge of practical politics would soon dismount him."[ ] most members of congress thought the reform a mere vagary, and that it was brought forward at a most inopportune time.[ ] mr. jenckes was the pioneer of the reform, according to curtis, who says that he "powerfully and vigorously and alone opened the debate in congress."[ ] he drew the amendment to the appropriation bill in that became the law, and under which the first civil service commission was appointed. "by his experience, thorough knowledge, fertility of resource and suggestion and great legal ability, he continued to serve with as much efficiency as modesty the cause to which he was devoted."[ ] one of the first persons to give attention to this subject was dorman b. eaton, an active member of all souls' church in new york, who was for several years chairman of the committee on political reform of the union league club of new york. in , and again in and , he travelled in europe to secure information in regard to methods of civil service. the results of these investigations were presented in his work on civil service in great britain, a report made at the request of president hayes. in he was appointed a member of the civil service commission by president grant; in he was the chairman of the committee appointed by president arthur; and in he was reappointed by president cleveland. the bill of january, , which firmly established civil service by act of congress, was drawn by him. he was a devoted worker for good government in all its phases; and the results of his studies of the subject may be found in his books on the independent movement in new york and the government of municipalities. he was described by george william curtis as "one of the most conspicuous, intelligent, and earnest friends of reform."[ ] the most conspicuous advocate of the merit system was mr. george william curtis, another new york unitarian, who was the chairman of the civil service commission of . in he became the president of the new york civil service reform association, a position he held until his death. the national civil service reform league was organized at newport in august, ; and he was the president from that time as long as he lived. his annual addresses before the league show his devoted interest in its aims, as well as his eloquence, intellectual power, and political integrity.[ ] in an address before the unitarian national conference, in , mr. curtis gave a noble exposition and vindication of the reform which he labored zealously for twelve years to advance.[ ] it has been justly said of mr. curtis that "far above the pleasures of life he placed its duties; and no man could have set himself more sternly to the serious work of citizenship. the national struggle over slavery, and the re-establishment of the union on permanent foundations enlisted his whole nature. in the same spirit, he devoted his later years to the overthrow of the spoils system. he did this under no delusion as to the magnitude of the undertaking. probably no one else comprehended it so well. he had studied the problem profoundly, and had solved every difficulty, and could answer every cavil to his own satisfaction." there can be no question that "his name imparted a strength to the movement no other would have given." nor can there be much question that "among public men there was none who so won the confidence of sincere and earnest men and women by his own personality. the powers of such a character, with all his gifts and accomplishments, was what mr. curtis brought to the civil service reform."[ ] [ ] american unitarian biography, edited by william ware; memoir of worcester, by henry ware, jr., i. , . [ ] solemn review, edition of by american peace society, . [ ] it had been preceded by societies in ohio and new york, results of the influence of the solemn review. [ ] unitarian biography, i. . [ ] memoir, ii. ; one-volume edition, . [ ] ibid., iii. ; one-volume edition, . [ ] memoir, . [ ] christian examiner, may, , xlviii. . [ ] ibid., november, , lxxi. . [ ] life, . [ ] ibid., . [ ] cyclopedia of american biography, v. . [ ] memoir, ii. . [ ] memoir. [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., iv. . [ ] reminiscences, . [ ] memoir, iii. ; one-volume edition, . [ ] memoir, iii. ; one-volume edition, , . [ ] works, ii. . [ ] when will the day come? and other tracts of the massachusetts temperance society, . [ ] of the twenty-seven annual addresses given before this society from to , at least sixteen were by unitarians; and among these were john t. kirkland, abiel abbot, william e. channing, edward everett, the younger henry ware, gamaliel bradford, charles sprague, james walker, alexander h. everett, william sullivan, and samuel k. lothrop. the first four presidents of this society--samuel dexter, nathan dane, isaac parker, and stephen fairbanks--were unitarians. of the same faith were also a large proportion of the vice-presidents and other officers. many of the tracts published by the society were written by unitarians. [ ] unitarians of every calling have been the advocates of temperance. among those who have been loyal to it in word and action may be named john adams, jeremy belknap, jonathan phillips, charles lowell, ezra s. gannett, john pierpont, samuel j. may, amos lawrence, horace mann, william h. and george s. burleigh, governor pitman, william g. eliot, rufus p. stebbins, and william b. spooner. "many of the leading men and women who were eminent as lawyers, judges, legislators, scholars, also prominent in the business walks of life, and in social position, gave this cause the force of their example, and the inspiration of their minds. by their contributions of money, by their personal efforts, by their public speeches and writings, and by their practice of total abstinence, they rendered very valuable service." [ ] twelfth annual report of the commissioner of labor, . [ ] theodore clapp, of new orleans, may be an exception, though he is claimed by the universalists. see s.j. may's recollections of the anti-slavery conflict, . [ ] autobiography and letters, , , . the criticism of dr. dewey may be found in s.j. may's recollections, . [ ] memoir, , , . see s.j. may, recollections, , , for an anti-slavery indictment of dr. gannett. [ ] memoir, chapter on slavery. [ ] recollections of the anti-slavery conflict, chapter on the unitarians, . [ ] see lydia maria child's account of conversations with channing on this subject, in her letters from new york. [ ] recollections and impressions, , . [ ] the story of his life as told by his children. [ ] recollections, . [ ] s.j. may, recollections, ; life of a.b. alcott, ; life of garrison, i. . [ ] life of garrison, i. . [ ] the more prominent names are herewith given as they were printed in the christian register: joseph allen, j.h. allen, s.g. bulfinch, c.f. barnard, charles briggs, w.g. babcock, c.t. brooks, warren burton, c.h. brigham, edgar buckingham, william h. channing, james f. clarke, s.b. cruft, a.h. conant, c.h.a. dall, r. ellis, converse francis, james flint, william h. furness, n.s. folsom, frederick a. farley, frederick t. gray, henry giles, f.d. huntington, e.b. hall, n. hall, f.h. hedge, f. hinckley, g.w. hosmer, f.w. holland, thomas hill, sylvester judd, james kendall, william h. knapp, a.a. livermore, s.j. may, samuel may, m.i. mott, a.b. muzzey, j.f. moors, henry a. miles, william newell, j. osgood, s. osgood, andrew p. peabody, john parkman, john pierpont, theodore parker, cyrus pierce, j.h. perkins, cazneau palfey, o.w.b. peabody, samuel ripley, chandler robbins, caleb stetson, oliver stearns, rufus p. stebbins, edmund q. sewall, charles sewall, john t. sargent, george f. simmons, william silsbee, william p. tilden, j.w. thompson, john weiss, robert t. waterston, william ware, j.f.w. ware, e.b. willson, frederick a. whitney, jason whitman. [ ] printed in the christian register, october , . [ ] quarterly journal, iii. . [ ] ibid., . [ ] unity, sept. , , mrs. s.c.ll. jones, historic unitarianism in the west. [ ] life of joshua r. giddings, . [ ] memoir of charles lowe, . in four of the eighteen directors of the american unitarian association were women. [ ] life, iii. . [ ] life of charles sumner, iv. ; works, vii. . [ ] g.w. curtis, orations and addresses, ii. . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] g.w. curtis, orations and addresses, ii. . [ ] see curtis's orations and addresses, ii.; also, his reports as civil service commissioner, and various addresses before the social science association. [ ] edward cary, life of curtis, american men of letters, . [ ] george william curtis and civil service reform, by sherman s. rogers, in atlantic monthly, january, , lxxi. . xvii. unitarian men and women. many of the most influential americans have been in practical accord with unitarianism, while not actually connected with unitarian churches. they have accepted its principles of individual freedom, the rational interpretation of religion, and the necessity of bringing religious beliefs into harmony with modern science and philosophy. among these may be properly included such men as benjamin franklin, john marshall, gerrit smith, john g. whittier, william lloyd garrison, andrew d. white, and abraham lincoln. whittier was a friend, and white an episcopalian; but the religion of both is acceptable to all unitarians. marshall was undoubtedly a unitarian in his intellectual convictions, and he sometimes attended the unitarian church in washington; but his church affiliations were with the episcopalians. john c. calhoun was all his life a member of an episcopal church and a communicant in it; but he frequently attended the unitarian church in washington, and intellectually he discarded the doctrines taught in the creeds of his church. lincoln belonged to no church, and had no interest in the forms and disputes that constitute so large a part of outward religion; but he was one of those men whose great deeds rest on a basis of simple but profoundest religious conviction. the most explicit statement he ever made of his faith was in these words: "i have never united myself to any church, because i have found difficulty in giving my assent, without mental reservation, to the long, complicated statements of christian doctrine which characterize their articles of belief and confessions of faith. when any church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole qualification of membership, the saviour's condensed statement of both law and gospel, 'thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself,' that church will i join with all my heart and all my soul."[ ] this declaration brings lincoln into fullest harmony with the position of the unitarian churches. [sidenote: eminent statesmen.] the intellectual tendencies of the eighteenth century led many of the leading americans to discard the puritan habit of mind and the religious beliefs it had cherished. an intellectual revolt caused the rejection of many of the protestant doctrines, and a political revolt in the direction of democracy led to the acceptance of religious principles not in harmony with those of the past. many americans shared in these protests who did not openly break with the older faiths. washington was of this class; for, while he remained outwardly a churchman, he had little intellectual or practical sympathy with the stricter beliefs. franklin was thoroughly of the deistic faith of the thinkers of england and france in his time. these tendencies had their effect upon such men as john adams, timothy pickering, joseph story, and theophilus parsons, as well as upon thomas jefferson and william cranch. they showed themselves with especial prominence in the case of jefferson, who always remained outwardly faithful to the state religion of virginia, in which he had been educated, attended the episcopal church in the neighborhood of his home, sometimes joining in its communion, but who was, nevertheless, intellectually a pronounced unitarian. with jefferson his unitarianism was a part of his democracy, for he was consistent enough to make his religion and his politics agree with each other. as he would have kings no longer rule over men, but give political power into the hands of the people, so in religion he would put aside all theologians and priests, and permit the people to worship in their own way. it was for this reason that he rejoiced in the emancipating work of channing, of which he wrote in , "i rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creeds and conscience neither to kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of only one god is reviving; and i trust there is not a young man now living who will not die a unitarian."[ ] jefferson's revolt against authority was tersely expressed in his declaration: "had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel."[ ] this was in harmony with his saying, that "the doctrines of jesus are simple and tend all to the happiness of man."[ ] it also fully agrees with the claims of the early unitarians with regard to the teachings of jesus. "no one sees with greater pleasure than myself," he wrote, "the progress of reason in its advance toward rational christianity. when we shall have done away with the incomprehensible jargon of the trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one are three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding reared to mask from view the simple structure of jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated--we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples; and my opinion is that, if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been christian."[ ] however mistaken jefferson may have been in the historical opinions thus expressed, we cannot question the sincerity of his beliefs or fail to recognize that he had the keenest interest in whatever gave indication of the growth of a rational spirit in religion. these opinions he shared with many of the leading men of his time; but he was more outspoken in their utterance, as he was more consistent in holding them. that washington, though remaining an episcopalian, was in fullest accord with jefferson in his principles of toleration and religious freedom, is apparent from one of his letters. "i am not less ardent in my wish," he wrote, "that you may succeed in your toleration in religious matters. being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, i am disposed to indulge the professors of christianity in the church with that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, easiest, and least liable to exception."[ ] intellectually, franklin was a deist of essentially the same beliefs with jefferson, as may be seen in his statement of faith: "i believe in one god, the creator of the universe; that he governs it by his providence; that he ought to be worshipped; that the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. these i take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion. as to jesus of nazareth, i think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but i apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and i have some doubts of his divinity; though it is a question i do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it."[ ] franklin was a member of a unitarian church in london. [sidenote: some representative unitarians.] the church in washington, not having been popular or of fine appointments, has been a test of the unitarian faith of those frequenting the capital city. it has included in its congregation, from time to time, such men as john adams, john quincy adams,[ ] john marshall, joseph story, samuel f. miller, millard fillmore, william cranch, george bancroft, nathan k. hall, james moore wayne, and senators daniel webster, john c. calhoun, william s. archer, henry b. anthony, william b. allison, timothy o. howe, edward everett, justin s. morrill, charles sumner, william e. chandler, george f. hoar, and john p. hale. william winston seaton and joseph gales, once prominent in washington as editors and publishers of the national intelligencer, were both unitarians. in new york the unitarian churches have had among their attendants and members such persons as william cullen bryant, catherine m. sedgwick, henry d. sedgwick, henry wheaton, peter cooper, george william curtis, george ticknor curtis, moses h. grinnell, dorman b. eaton, and joseph h. choate. the churches in salem have had connected with them such men as john prince, nathaniel bowditch, benjamin peirce, timothy pickering, john pickering, leverett saltonstall, joseph story,[ ] jones very, william h. prescott, and nathaniel hawthorne.[ ] [sidenote: judges and legislators.] during the early unitarian period "the judges on the bench" included such men as theophilus parsons, isaac parker, and lemuel shaw, all of whom held the office of chief justice in massachusetts. other lawyers, jurists, and statesmen were fisher ames, political orator and statesman; nathan dane, who drew the ordinance for the north-western territory; samuel dexter, senator, and secretary of the treasury under john adams; christopher gore, senator, and governor of massachusetts; and benjamin r. curtis, of the united states supreme court. other chief justices of the supreme court of massachusetts have been george t. bigelow, john wells, pliny myrick, walbridge a. field, charles allen; and of associates in that court have been ebenezer rockwood hoar, benjamin f. thomas, seth ames, samuel s. wilde, levi lincoln, and john lowell. among the governors of massachusetts have been levi lincoln, edward everett, john davis, john h. clifford, john a. andrew, george s. boutwell, john d. long, thomas talbot, george d. robinson, j.q.a. brackett, oliver ames, frederic t. greenhalge, and roger wolcott. the first mayors of boston, john phillips, josiah quincy,[ ] and harrison gray otis, were unitarians. then, after an interval of one year, followed samuel a. eliot and jonathan chapman. it has often been assumed that unitarianism attracts only intellectual persons; but it also appeals to practical business men, legislators, and the leaders of political life. in maine have been vice-president hannibal hamlin, governor edward kent, and chief justice john appleton. in new hampshire it has appealed to such men as chief justices cushing, henry a. bellows, jeremiah smith, and, charles doe, as well as to governors onslow stearns, charles h. bell, benjamin f. prescott, and ichabod goodwin; in rhode island, governors lippitt and seth paddelford, chief justices samuel ames and samuel eddy, general ambrose e. burnside, and william b. weeden, historian and economist. alphonso taft and george hoadly, both governors of ohio, were unitarians, as were austin blair, john t. bagley, charles s. may, and henry h. crapo, governors of michigan. among the prominent unitarians of iowa have been senator william b. allison and general george w. mccrary. in california may be named leland stanford, horace davis, chief justice w.h. beatty, and oscar l. shafter of the supreme court. [sidenote: boston unitarianism.] what unitarianism has been in the lives of its men and women may be most conspicuously seen in boston and the region about it, for there throughout the first half of the nineteenth century unitarianism was the dominant form of christianity. of the period from to , when dr. lyman beecher was settled in boston, mrs. stowe has given this testimony: "all the literary men of massachusetts were unitarians. all the trustees and professors of harvard college were unitarians. all the élite of wealth and fashion crowded unitarian churches. the judges on the bench were unitarian, giving decisions by which the peculiar features of church organization, so carefully ordained by the pilgrim fathers, had been nullified."[ ] of the same period dr. beecher wrote, "all offices were in the hands of unitarians."[ ] these statements were literally true, except in so far as they implied that unitarians used high positions in order to overthrow the old institutions of massachusetts and substitute those of their own devising. the calmer judgment of the present day would not accept this conclusion, and it has no historic foundation. the religious development of boston brought its churches into the acceptance of a tolerant, rational, and practical form of christianity, that was not dogmatic or sectarian. it took the unitarian name, but only in the sense of rejecting the harsher interpretations of the doctrine of the trinity and of election. the members of the unitarian churches during this period were devout in an unostentatious manner, pious after a simple fashion, loyal christians without excess of zeal, lovers of liberty, but in a conservative spirit. this simple form of piety enabled the men who accepted it to govern the state in a most faithful manner. they managed its affairs justly, wisely, and in the true intent of economy. sometimes it was complained that they held a much larger number of offices than was their proportion according to population; but to this john g. palfrey replied that the people of the state had confidence in them, and elected them because nobody else governed so well. with the aid of the biography of james sullivan, judge, legislator, attorney-general, and diplomatist,[ ] we may study the constituency of a single church in boston, the brattle street church. we find there james bowdoin and john hancock, rival candidates for the position of governor of the state in . the same rivalry occurred twenty years later between james sullivan and caleb strong, both of the number of its communicants. on the parish committee of this church at one time were hancock, bowdoin, and sullivan, who became governors of the state, and judges wendell and john lowell.[ ] some years later there were included in the congregation such men as daniel webster, harrison gray otis, abbott lawrence, and amos lawrence, who was one of the deacons for many years. of the distinguished business men of boston may be named john amory lowell, john c. amory, jonathan phillips (the confidential friend and supporter of dr. channing), thomas wigglesworth, j. huntington wolcott, augustus hemenway, stephen c. phillips, and thomas tileston. francis cabot lowell was largely concerned in building up the manufacturing interests of massachusetts, especially the cotton industry; and the city of lowell took his name in recognition of the importance of his leadership in this direction. for similar reasons the city of lawrence was named after abbott lawrence, minister of the united states to great britain, who was one of the leading merchants of boston in the china trade, and was also largely concerned in the development of cotton manufacturing. with these business and manufacturing interests amos lawrence was also connected. nathan appleton[ ] was associated with francis c. lowell in the establishment of the great manufacturing interests that have been a large source of the wealth of massachusetts. thomas h. perkins, from whom was named the perkins institute for the blind, was also concerned in the china trade and in the first development of railroads. robert gould shaw was another leading merchant, who left a large sum of money for the benefit of the children of mariners. john murray forbes was a builder of railroads, notably active in the financial support of the national government during the civil war, and a generous friend of noble men and interests.[ ] nathaniel thayer was a manager of railroads, erected thayer hall at harvard college, and bore the expenses of agassiz's expedition to south america. a boston man by birth and training, who knew the defects as well as the merits of the class of men and women who have been named, has given generous testimony to the high qualities of mind and heart possessed by these unitarians. in writing of his maternal grandfather, octavius brooks frothingham has said: "peter c. brooks was an admirable example of the unitarian laymen of that period, industrious, honest, faithful in all relations of life, charitable, public-spirited, intelligent, sagacious, mingling the prudence of the man of affairs with the faith of the christian.... as one recalls the leading persons in brattle street, federal street, chauncy place, king's chapel, the new north, the new south,--men like adams, eliot, perkins, bumstead, lawrence, sullivan, jackson, judge shaw, daniel webster, jacob bigelow, t.b. wales, dr. bowditch,--forms of dignity and of worth rise before the mind. better men there are not. more honorable men, according to the standard of the time, there are not likely to be.... he joined the church and was a consistent church member. he was not effusive, demonstrative, or loud-voiced. his name did not stand high on church lists or among the patrons of the faith. his was the calm, rational, sober belief of the thoughtful, educated, honorable men of his day,--men like lemuel shaw, joseph story, daniel a. white,--intellectual, noble people, with worthy aims, a lofty sense of duty, a strong conviction of the essential truths of revealed christianity; sincere believers in the gospel, of enduring principle, of pure, consistent, blameless life and conduct. speculative theology he cared little or nothing about. he was no disputant, no doubter, no casuist; of the heights of mysticism, of the depths of infidelity, he knew nothing. he was conservative, of course, from temperament rather than from inquiry. he took the literal, prose view of calvinism, and rejected doctrines which did not commend themselves to his common sense. in a word, he was a unitarian of the old school.... the unitarian laity in general, both men and women, had a genuine desire to render the earthly lot of mankind more tolerable. it is not too much to say that they started every one of our best secular charities. they were exceedingly liberal in their gifts to harvard college, and to other colleges as well--for they were not at all sectarian, as their large subscriptions to the roman catholic cathedral proved. whatever tended to exalt humanity, in their view, was encouraged. they were as noble a set of men and women as ever lived."[ ] this estimate of the unitarians of boston during the first half of the nineteenth century is eminently just and accurate. to a large extent these men and their associates in the unitarian churches gave to the city its worth and its character; and they built up the industries, the commerce, the educational and philanthropic interests, and the progressive legislation of massachusetts. they were men of integrity and sincerity, who were generous, faithful, and just. they accepted the religion of the spirit, and they gave it expression in daily conduct and character. [ ] f.b. carpenter, six months in the white house, . [ ] james parton, life of thomas jefferson, . [ ] charles w. upham, life of timothy pickering, iv. . [ ] p.l. ford's edition jefferson's works, x. . [ ] life of pickering, iv. . [ ] p.l. ford, the true george washington, . [ ] p.l. ford, the many-sided franklin, . see diary of ezra stiles, iii. . [ ] john quincy adams, in reply to a question about the church in washington, said: "i go there to church, although i am not decided in my mind as to all the controverted doctrines of religion." years later he said to a preacher in the unitarian church at quincy: "i agree entirely with the ground you took in your discourse. you did not speak of any particular class of doctrines that were everlasting, but of the great, fundamental principles in which all christians agree; and these, i think, are what will be permanent." see a.b. muzzey, reminiscences and memorials of the men of the revolution and their families, . [ ] william w. story, life and letters of joseph story, , . joseph story grew away from calvinism in early manhood, and accepted a humanitarian view of the nature of christ. "no man was ever more free from a spirit of bigotry and proselytism," says his biographer. "he gladly allowed every one freedom of belief and claimed only that it should be a genuine conviction and not a mere theologic opinion, considering the true faith of every man to be the necessary exponent of his nature, and honoring a religious life more than a formal creed. he admitted within the pale of salvation mohammedan and christian, catholic and infidel. he believed that whatever is sincere and honest is recognized by god--that as the views of any sect are but human opinion, susceptible of error on every side, it behooves all men to be on their guard against arrogance of belief--and that in the sight of god it is not the truth or falsehood of our views, but the spirit in which we believe which alone is of vital consequence. his moral sense was not satisfied with a theory of religion founded upon the depravity of man and recognizing an austere and vengeful god, nor could he give his metaphysical assent to the doctrine of the trinity. in the doctrines of liberal christianity he found the resolution of his doubts, and from the moment he embraced the unitarian faith he became a warm and unhesitating believer." [ ] for an interesting picture of new england unitarianism see recollections of my mother (mrs. anne jean lyman), by mrs. j.p. lesley. mrs. lyman's home was in northampton, mass. the reminiscences of caroline c. briggs describe life in the same town and under similar conditions. also memoir of mary l. ware, memorial of joseph and lucy clark allen by their children, and life of dr. samuel willard. [ ] edmund quincy, life of josiah quincy, . in a speech to the overseers of harvard university in , josiah quincy said: "i never did and never will call myself a unitarian; because the name has the aspect, and is loaded by the world with the imputation of sectarianism." his biographer says: "he regarded differences as of slight importance, especially as to matters beyond the grasp of the human intellect. his catholicity of spirit fraternized with all who profess to call themselves christians, and who prove their title to the name by their lives." it was precisely this catholicity of spirit that was the most characteristic feature of early american unitarianism, and not the rejection of the doctrine of the trinity. however, josiah quincy was undoubtedly a unitarian, both in what he rejected and in what he affirmed, as may be seen from these words recorded in his diary in : "from the doctrines with which metaphysical divines have chosen to obscure the word of god,--such as predestination, election, reprobation, etc.,--i turn with loathing to the refreshing assurance which, to my mind, contains the substance of revealed religion,--in every nation he who feareth god, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him." [ ] autobiography, correspondence, etc., of lyman beecher, ii. . [ ] ibid., . [ ] thomas c. amory. life of james sullivan. [ ] john lowell, a son of judge john lowell, and a brother of dr. charles lowell of the west church, was the author of an effective controversial pamphlet entitled are you a christian or a calvinist? or do you prefer the authority of christ to that of the genevan reformer? both the form and spirit of these questions being suggested by the late review of american unitarianism in the panoplist, and by the rev. mr. worcester's letter to mr. channing. by a layman. boston, . [ ] nathan appleton's interest in theology may be seen in his book entitled the doctrine of original sin and the trinity, discussed in a correspondence between a clergyman of the episcopal church, in england, and a layman of boston, united states, published in boston in . "i was brought up," he said in one of these letters, "in the strictest form of calvinistic congregationalism; but since arriving at an age capable of examining the subject, and after a careful study of it, i have renounced what appear to me unworthy views of the deity, for a system which appears to me more worthy of him, and less abhorrent to human reason." "i can say," he wrote in another letter, "that the unitarian party embraces the most intelligent and high-minded portion of the community. it is my opinion that the views of the unitarians are the best and only security against the spirit of infidelity which is prevailing so extensively amongst the most highly educated and intelligent men in europe." see memoir of nathan appleton, by robert c. winthrop. [ ] john murray forbes: letters and recollections, edited by his daughter, sarah forbes hughes. [ ] boston unitarianism, , , , . xviii. unitarians and education. the interest of unitarians in education has always been very great, but it has not been in the direction of building and fostering sectarian institutions. as a body, unitarians have not only been opposed to denominational colleges, but they have been leaders in promoting unsectarian education. freedom of academic teaching and the scientific study of theology may be found where unitarianism has no existence, and yet it is significant that in this country such mental liberty should have first found expression under unitarian auspices. from the first, american unitarianism has been unsectarian and liberty-loving, taking an attitude of toleration, free investigation, and loyalty to truth. that it has always been faithful to its ideal cannot be maintained, and yet its history shows that the open-mindedness and the spirit of freedom have never been wholly ignored. [sidenote: pioneers of the higher criticism.] the attitude of the early unitarians towards the bible, their trust in it as the revealed word of god and the source of divine authority in all matters of faith, and their confidence that a return to its simple principles would liberate men from superstition and bigotry, naturally made them the first to welcome the higher criticism of the bible in this country. such men as noah worcester and his successors brought to the bible new and common-sense interpretations, and began the work of pointing out the defects in the common version. the unitarians were not hampered by the theory of the verbal infallibility of the bible; and they were therefore prepared to advance the critical work of the scholars, as it came to them from england and germany, as was no other religious body in this country. joseph, s. buckminster was an enthusiastic student of the bible, securing when in europe all the apparatus of the more advanced criticism that could then be procured; and after his return to boston he gave his attention to bringing out the new testament in the most scholarly form that was then possible. in , in connection with william wells, and under the patronage of harvard college, he republished griesbach's greek testament, with a selection of the most important various readings. he also formed a plan of publishing in this country all the best modern english versions of the hebrew prophets, with introductions and notes; but he did not find the necessary support for this project. in the monthly anthology and in the general repository he "first discussed subjects of biblical criticism in a spirit of philosophical and painstaking learning, and took the critical study of the scriptures from the old basis on which it had rested during the arminian discussions and placed it on the solid foundation of the text of the new testament as settled by wetstein and griesbach, and elucidated by the labors of michaelis, marsh, rosenmüller, and by the safe and wise learning of grotius, le clerc, and simon." "it has," wrote george ticknor, "in our opinion, hardly been permitted to any other man to render so considerable a service as this to christianity in the western world."[ ] in mr. buckminster was made the first lecturer in biblical criticism at harvard, on, the foundation established by the gift of samuel dexter; and he entered with great interest and enthusiasm upon the work of preparing for the duties of this office. we are assured that "this appointment was universally thought to be an honor most justly due to his pre-eminent attainments in this science";[ ] but his death the next year brought these plans to an untimely end. to some extent the critical work of buckminster was continued by edward everett, his successor in the brattle street church. mr. everett's successor in that pulpit, rev. john g. palfrey, became the professor of sacred literature in the harvard divinity school in , and was the dean of that institution. in his lectures on the jewish scriptures and antiquities, published in four volumes, from to , he gave the most advanced criticism of the time. a more important work was done by professor andrews norton, who was as radical in his labors as a biblical critic as he was conservative in his theology. for the time when they were published, his statement of reasons, the first edition of which appeared in , historical evidences of the genuineness of the gospels, - , translation of the gospels, with notes, , internal evidences of the genuineness of the gospels, , have not been surpassed by any other work done in this country. as a scholar, he was careful, thorough, honest, and uncompromising in his search for the truth. in an extended note added to the second volume of his work on the genuineness of the gospels he investigated the origin of the pentateuch and the validity of its historical statements. he showed that the work could not have bee its man written by moses, that it was a compilation from prior accounts, and that its marvels were not to be accepted as authentic history.[ ] in dealing with the new testament, professor norton discarded the first two chapters of matthew, regarding them as later additions. frothingham speaks of norton as "an accomplished and elegant scholar," and says that his interpretations of the bible were by unitarians "tacitly received as final." "he was the great authority, as bold, fearless, truthful, as he was exact and careful."[ ] although these words of praise intimate that unitarians were too ready to accept the conclusions of professor norton as needing no emendation, yet his work was searching in its character and thoroughly sincere in its methods. considering the general attitude of scholarship in his day, it was bold and uncompromising, as well as accurate and just. another scholar was george rapall noyes, who was a country pastor in brookfield and petersham from to , and devoted his leisure to biblical studies. he became the professor of hebrew and, lecturer on biblical literature in the harvard divinity school in . his translations, with notes, of the poetical books of the old testament, beginning with job in , were of great importance as aids, to the interpretation of the hebrew scriptures. his translation of the new testament, which appeared after his death, in , gave the best results of critical studies in homely prose, and with painstaking fidelity to the original. that noyes was in advance of the criticism of his time may be indicated by the fact that, when he published his conclusions in regard to the messianic prophecies in ,[ ] he was threatened with an indictment for blasphemy by the attorney-general of massachusetts. better judgment prevailed against this attempt to coerce opinion, but that such an indictment was seriously considered shows how little genuine criticism there was then in existence. what are now the commonplaces of scholarship were then regarded as destructive and blasphemous. noyes said that the truth of the christian religion does not in any sense depend upon the literal fulfilment of any predictions in the old testament by jesus as a person.[ ] he said that the apostles partook of the errors and prejudices of their age,[ ] that the commonly received doctrine of the inspiration of the whole bible is a millstone about the neck of christianity,[ ] and that the bible contains much that cannot be regarded as revelation.[ ] even as early as these opinions were generally accepted by unitarians; and they were not thought to impair the true worth of the spiritual revelation contained in the bible, and especially not the divine nature of the teachings of christ. it was very important, as dr. joseph henry allen has said, in speaking of norton and noyes, that "these decisive first steps were taken by deliberate, conscientious, conservative scholars,--the best and soberest scholars we had to show."[ ] the work of ezra abbot especially deserves notice here, because of "the variety and extent of his learning, the retentiveness and accuracy of his memory, the penetration and fairness of his judgment."[ ] for fourteen years previous to his death, in , he was the professor of new testament criticism and interpretation in the harvard divinity school. he also rendered important service as a member of the american committee on the revision of the new testament. his essay on the authorship of the fourth gospel was one of the ablest statements of the conservative view of the origin of that writing. the volume of his critical essays, collected after his death, shows the ripe fruits of his "punctilious and vigilant scholarship." he was a zealous unitarian, and did much to show that the new testament is in harmony with that faith. in rev. theodore parker published his translation of de wette's introduction to the new testament, with learned notes. the extreme views of baur and zeller were interpreted by rev. o.b. frothingham in his the cradle of the christ, . various attempts were also made by those who were not professional scholars to bring the bible into harmony with modern religious ideas. one of the most notable of these was that of dr. william henry furness, pastor of the church in philadelphia from to . his remarks on the four gospels appeared in , and was followed by jesus and his biographers, , thoughts on the life and character of jesus of nazareth, , and the veil partly lifted and jesus becoming visible, , as well as several other works. his attempt was to give a rational interpretation of the life of jesus that should largely eliminate the miraculous and yet preserve the spiritual. these works have little critical value, and yet they have much of charm and suggestiveness as religious expositions of the gospels. of somewhat the same nature was dr. edmund h. sears's the fourth gospel: the heart of christ, , a work of deep spiritual insight. [sidenote: the catholic influence of harvard university.] the catholic and inclusive spirit manifested by the unitarians in their biblical studies is worthy of notice, however, much more than any definite results of scholarship produced by them. in the cultivation of the broader academic fields which their control of harvard university brought within their reach this attitude is especially conspicuous. at no time since it came under their administration has it been used for sectarian purposes, to make proselytes or to compel acceptance of their theology. during the first half of the nineteenth century, harvard was in some degree distinctly unitarian; but since it has been wholly non-sectarian. when the divinity school was organized, it was provided in its constitution that no denominational requirements should be exacted of professors or students; yet the school was essentially unitarian until . in that year the president, charles w. eliot, asked of unitarians the sum of $ , as an endowment for the school; but he insisted that it should be henceforth wholly unsectarian, and this demand was received with approval and enthusiasm by unitarians themselves. in president eliot said at a meeting held in the first church in boston for the purpose of appealing to unitarians in behalf of the school: "the harvard divinity school is not distinctly unitarian either by its constitution or by the intention of its founders. the doctrines of the unsectarian sect, called in this century unitarians, are indeed entitled to respectful consideration in the school so long as it exists, simply because the school was founded, and for two generations, at least, has been supported, by unitarians. but the government of the university cannot undertake to appoint none but unitarian teachers, or to grant any peculiar favors to unitarian students. they cannot, because the founders of the school, themselves unitarians, imposed upon the university the following fundamental rule for its administration: that every encouragement shall be given to the serious, impartial, and unbiassed investigation of christian truth, and that no assent to the peculiarities of any denomination of christians shall be required either of the instructors or students."[ ] dr. charles carroll everett, dean of the school from to , has said that "in some respects it differs from every other theological seminary in the country." "no pains are taken to learn the denominational relations of students even when they are applicants for aid." "no oversight is exercised over the instruction of any teacher. no teacher is responsible for any other or to any other."[ ] in compulsory attendance upon prayers was abolished at harvard university. religious services are regularly held every week-day morning, on thursday afternoons, and on sunday evenings, being conducted by the plummer professor of christian morals, with the co-operation of five other preachers, who, as well as the plummer professor, are selected irrespective of denominational affiliations. in this and other ways the university has made itself thoroughly unsectarian. its attitude is that of scientific investigation, open-mindedness towards all phases of truth, and freedom of teaching. theology is thus placed on the same basis with other branches of knowledge, and religion is made independent of merely dogmatic considerations. this undenominational temper at harvard university has been developed largely under unitarian auspices. its presidents for nearly a century have been unitarians, namely: john t. kirkland, - ; josiah quincy, - ; edward everett, - ; jared sparks, - ; james walker, - ; cornelius c. felton, - ; thomas hill, - ; and charles w. eliot since . kirkland, everett, sparks, walker, and hill were unitarian ministers; but under their administration the university was as little sectarian as at any other time. when the new era of university growth began in , with the founding of cornell university, the influence of harvard was widely felt in the development of great unsectarian educational institutions. although ezra cornell was educated as a friend, he was expelled from that body, and connected himself with no other religious sect. he was essentially a unitarian, often attending the preaching of dr. rufus p. stebbins. the university which took his name was inspired with the harvard ideal, and, while recognizing religion as one of the great essential phases of human thought and life, gave and continues to give equal opportunity to all sects. another instance of the same spirit is washington university, which began under unitarian auspices, but soon developed into an entirely undenominational institution. members of the unitarian church in st. louis secured a charter for a seminary, which in was organized as the washington institute. in it was reorganized as washington university, and the charter declared, "no instruction, either sectarian in religion or party in politics, shall be allowed in any department of said university, and no sectarian or party test shall be allowed in the selection of professors, teachers, or other officers of said university or in the admission of scholars thereof, or for any purpose whatever." sectarian prejudice, however, regarded the university as essentially unitarian; and for the first twenty years of its existence three-fourths of the gifts and endowments came from persons of that religious body. although dr. william g. eliot knew nothing of the original movement for forming a seminary under liberal auspices, he gave the institution his unstinted support and encouragement. he was the president of the board of management from the first, and in he became the chancellor. at his death, in , the university included smith academy, mary institute, and a manual training school, these being large preparatory schools; the college proper, school of engineering, henry shaw school of botany, st. louis school of fine arts, law school, medical school, and dental college. it then had sixteen hundred students and one hundred and sixty instructors. the endowments have since been largely increased, the number of students has increased to two thousand, and important new buildings have been added. dr. eliot gave the university its direction and its unsectarian methods, and it has attained its present position because of his devoted labors. the leland stanford jr. university in california, and clark university in massachusetts, both founded by unitarians, further illustrate the harvard spirit in education. [sidenote: the work of horace mann.] horace mann was an earnest and devoted unitarian, the intimate friend of channing and parker, to both of whom he was largely indebted for his intellectual and spiritual ideals. he was inspired by their ideas of reform and progress, and to their personal sympathy he owed much. it is now universally conceded that to him we are indebted for the diffusion of the common-school idea throughout the country, that he developed and brought to full expression the conception of universal education. in full sympathy with him in this work were such men as dr. channing, edward everett, theodore parker, josiah quincy, samuel j. may, and the younger robert rantoul; but he made the common school popular, and put it forward as a national institution. when mann became the secretary of the massachusetts board of education on its creation, in , the theory that all children should be educated by the state, if not otherwise provided for, was by no means generally accepted; nor was it an accepted theory that such education should be strictly unsectarian.[ ] mann fought the battle for these two ideas, and virtually established them for the whole nation. on the first board one-half the members were unitarians,--horace mann, the younger robert rantoul, jared sparks, and edmund dwight. some of the staunchest and most devoted and most liberal friends of mann were of other denominations; but the work for common schools was thoroughly in harmony with unitarian principles. edmund dwight was largely instrumental in securing the establishment of a board of education in massachusetts, and he brought about the election of horace mann to fill the position of its secretary. he was a leading merchant in boston, and his house was a centre for meetings and consultations relating to educational interests. he contributed freely for the purpose of enlarging and improving the state system of common schools, his donations amounting to not less than $ , .[ ] the first person to clearly advocate the establishment of schools for the training of teachers was rev. charles brooks, minister of the second unitarian church in hingham from to , afterwards professor of natural history in the university of the city of new york, and a reformer and author of some reputation in his day. in he began to write and lecture in behalf of common schools, and especially in the interest of normal schools.[ ] he spoke throughout the state in behalf of training schools, with which he had become acquainted in prussia; he went before the legislature on this subject; and he carried his labors into other states.[ ] horace mann took up the idea of professional schools for teachers and made it effective. edmund dwight gave $ , to the state for this purpose, and schools were established in . when the first of these normal schools opened in lexington, july , , its principal was rev. cyrus peirce, who had been the minister of the unitarian church in north reading from to , and then had been a teacher in north andover and nantucket. "had it not been for cyrus peirce," wrote henry barnard, "i consider the cause of normal schools would have failed or have been postponed for an indefinite period."[ ] dr. william t. harris has said that "all normal school work in this country follows substantially one tradition, and this traces back to the course laid down by cyrus peirce."[ ] in the lexington school peirce was succeeded by samuel j. may, who had been settled over unitarian churches in brooklyn and scituate.[ ] the work done by horace mann for education includes his labors as president of antioch college from to . he maintained that the chief end of education is the development of character; and he sought to make the college an altruistic community, in which teachers and students should labor together for the best good of all. he put into practice the nonsectarian principle, made the college coeducational, and developed the spirit of individual freedom as one of cardinal importance in education. "the ideas for which he stood," has written one who has carefully studied his work in all its phases, "spread abroad among the people of the ohio valley, and showed themselves in various state institutions, normal schools, and high schools that were planted in the central west. altogether, apart from mr. mann's visible work in antioch college may be found agencies which he set at work, whose influence only eternity can measure. it was a great thing to the new west that a high standard of scholarship should be placed before her sons and daughters, and that a few hundred of them should be sent out into every corner of the state, and ultimately to the farthest boundaries of the nation, with a sound scholarship and a love for truth there and then wholly new. his reputation for scholarship and zeal gave his opinions greater weight than those of almost any other man in the country. as a result the most radical educational ideas were received from him with respect; and he carried forward the work of giving a practical embodiment to co-education, non-sectarianism, and the requirements of practical and efficient moral character, as perhaps no other educator could have done. his influence among people, and the aspirations which he kindled in thousands of minds by public addresses and personal contact, did for the people of the ohio valley a work, the extent and value of which can never be measured."[ ] [sidenote: elizabeth peabody and the kindergarten.] horace mann was largely influenced by dr. channing throughout his career as an educational reformer,[ ] as was his wife and her sister, elizabeth p. peabody. it was to channing that miss peabody owed her interest in the work of education; and his teachings brought her naturally into association with bronson alcott, and made her the leader in introducing the kindergarten into this country. she was influenced by the kindergarten method, at an early date, and she gave years of devoted labor to its extension. in connection with her sister, mrs. horace mann, she wrote culture in infancy, , guide to the kindergarten, , and letters to kindergartners, . as a result of her enthusiastic efforts, kindergartens were opened in boston in ; and it was in that she organized the american froebel union, which became the kindergarten department of the national educational association in . the kindergarten messenger was begun by her in , and was continued under her editorship until , when it was merged in the new education. miss peabody's kindergarten guide has been described as one of the most important original contributions made to the literature of the subject in this country. her name is most intimately associated with the educational progress of the country because of her enthusiasm for the right training of children and her spiritual insight as a teacher. [sidenote: work of unitarian women for education.] much has been done by unitarian women to advance the cause of education. the conversations of margaret fuller, held in boston from to , were an important influence in awakening women to larger intellectual interests; and many of those who attended them were afterwards active in promoting the educational enterprises of the city. in miss abby williams may, mrs. ann adeline badger, miss lucretia crocker, and miss lucia m. peabody were elected members of the school committee of boston, but did not serve, as their right to act in that capacity was questioned. thereupon the legislature took action, making women eligible to the office. the next year misses may, crocker, and peabody, with mrs. kate gannett wells, mrs. mary safford blake, and miss lucretia hale, were elected, and served. in misses crocker, hale, may, and peabody were re-elected; and in miss crocker was elected one of the supervisors of the public schools of boston. it is significant that the first women to hold these positions were unitarians. it is also worthy of note that miss sarah freeman clarke, sister of james freeman clarke, was the first landscape painter of her sex in the country; and that mrs. cornelia w. walter was the first woman to edit a large daily newspaper, she having become the editor and manager of the boston transcript at an early date. in was organized by miss anna e. ticknor, daughter of professor george ticknor, the historian, the society to encourage studies at home. during the twenty-four years of its existence it conducted by correspondence the reading and studies of over , women in all parts of the country, and did an important work in enlarging the sphere of women, preparing them for the work of teachers and for social and intellectual service in many directions. the society was discontinued in , because, largely through its influence, many other agencies had come in to do the same work; but the large lending library, which had been an important feature of the activities of the society, was continued under the management of the anna ticknor library association until . the memorial volume, published in , shows how important had been the work of the society to encourage studies at home, and how many women, who were otherwise deprived of intellectual opportunities, were encouraged, helped, and inspired by it. it was said of miss ticknor, by samuel eliot, the president of the society throughout the whole period of its existence: "while appreciative of the restrictions which she wished to remove, she was desirous to gratify, if possible, the aspirations of the large number of women throughout the country who would fain obtain an education, and who had little, if any, hope of obtaining it. she was very highly educated herself, and thought more and more of her responsibility to share her advantages with others not possessing them. in addition to these moral and intellectual qualifications, she possessed an executive ability brought into constant prominence by her work as secretary of the society. she was a teacher, an inspirer, a comforter, and, in the best sense, a friend of many and many a lonely and baffled life."[ ] the service of mrs. mary hemenway to education also deserves recognition. possessed of large wealth, she devoted it to advancing important educational and intellectual interests. she established the normal school of swedish gymnastics in boston, and provided for its maintenance until it was adopted by the city as a part of its educational system. with her financial support the hemenway south-western archaeological expedition was carried on by frank h. cushing and j.w. fewkes. it was largely because of her efforts that the montana industrial school was established, and maintained for about ten years. her chief work, however, was in the promotion of the study of american history on the part of young persons. when the old south meeting-house was threatened with destruction, she contributed $ , towards its preservation; and by her energy and perseverance it was devoted to the interests of historical study. the old south lectures for young people were organized in , soon after was begun the publication of the old south leaflets, a series of historical prizes was provided for, the old south historical society was organized, and historical pilgrimages were established. all this work was placed in charge of mr. edwin d. mead; and the new england magazine, of which he was the editor, gave interpretation to these various educational efforts. mrs. hemenway devoted her life to such works as these. it is impossible to enumerate here all her noble undertakings; but they were many. "mrs. hemenway was a woman whose interests and sympathies were as broad as the world," says edwin d. mead, "but she was a great patriot; and she was pre-eminently that. she had a reverent pride in our position of leadership in the history and movement of modern democracy; and she had a consuming zeal to keep the nation strong and worthy of its best traditions, and to kindle this zeal among the young people of the nation. with all her great enthusiasms, she was an amazingly practical and definite woman. she wasted no time nor strength in vague generalities, either of speech or action. others might long for the time when the kingdom of god should cover the earth as the waters cover the sea, and she longed for it; but, while others longed, she devoted herself to doing what she could to bring that corner of god's world in which she was set into conformity with the laws of god,--and this by every means in her power, by teaching poor girls how to make better clothes and cook better dinners and make better homes, by teaching people to value health and respect and train their bodies and love better music and better pictures and be interested in more important things. others might long for the parliament of man and the federation of the world, and so did she; but while others longed, she devoted herself to doing what she could to make this nation, for which she was particularly responsible, fitter for the federation when it comes. the good state for which she worked was a good massachusetts; and her chief interest, while others talked municipal reform, was to make a better boston."[ ] [sidenote: popular education and public libraries.] the interest of unitarians in popular education and the general diffusion of knowledge may be further indicated by a few illustrations. one of these is the lowell institute in boston, founded by john lowell, son of francis cabot lowell, and cousin of james russell lowell. he was a boston merchant, became an extensive traveller, and died in bombay, in , at the age of thirty-four. in his will he left one-half his fortune for the promotion of popular education through lectures, and in other ways. john amory lowell became the trustee of this fund, nearly $ , ; and in december, , the lowell institute began its work with a lecture by edward everett, which gave a biographical account of john lowell, and a statement of the purposes of the institute. since that time the lowell institute has given to the people of boston, free of charge, from fifty to one hundred lectures each winter. the topics treated have taken a wide range, and the lecturers have included many of the ablest men in this and other countries. the work of the lowell institute has also included free lectures for advanced students given in connection with the massachusetts institute of technology, science lectures to the teachers of boston, and a free drawing school. in louis agassiz came to this country to lecture before the lowell institute. the result was that he became permanently connected with harvard university, and transferred his scientific work to this country. this was accomplished by means of the gift of abbott lawrence, who founded the lawrence scientific school in . although the lowell institute was founded by a unitarian, and although it has always been largely managed by unitarians, it has been wholly unsectarian in its work. many of its lecturers have been of that body, but only because they were men of science or of literary attainments. in peter cooper founded the cooper union in new york for the advancement of science and art, to promote "instruction in branches of knowledge by which men and women earn their daily bread; in laws of health and improvement of the sanitary conditions of families as well as individuals; in social and political science, whereby communities and nations advance in virtue, wealth, and power; and finally in matters which affect the eye, the ear, and the imagination, and furnish a basis for recreation to the working classes." he erected a large building, and established therein the cooper institute, with its reading-room, library, lectures, schools, and other facilities for bringing the means of education within reach of those who could not otherwise obtain them. peter cooper was an earnest unitarian in his opinions, attending the church of dr. bellows; but he was wholly without sectarian bias. in a letter addressed to the delegates to the evangelical alliance, at its session held in new york in , he expressed the catholicity and the humanitarian spirit of his religion. "i look to see the day," he wrote, "when the teachers of christianity will rise above all the cramping power and influence of conflicting creeds and systems of human device, when they will beseech mankind by all the mercies of god to be reconciled to the government of love, the only government that can ever bring the kingdom of heaven into the hearts of mankind either here or hereafter." about there was opened in dublin, n.h., under the auspices of rev. levi w. leonard, minister of the unitarian church in that village, the first library in the country that was free to all the inhabitants of a town or city. in the adjoining town of peterboro, in , under the leadership of rev. abiel abbot, also the unitarian minister, a library was established by vote of the town. this library was maintained by the town itself, being the first in the country supported from the tax rates of a municipality. in the work of these unitarian ministers may be found the beginnings of the present interest in the establishment and growth of free public libraries. in the founding and endowment of libraries, unitarians have taken an active part. what they have done in this direction may be illustrated by the gift of enoch pratt of one and a quarter million dollars to the public library in baltimore. concerning the time when jared sparks was the minister of the unitarian church in baltimore, professor herbert b. adams has said: "some of the most generous and public-spirited people of baltimore were connected with the first independent church. afterwards, men who were to be most helpful in the upbuilding of baltimore's greatest institutions--the peabody institute, the pratt library, and the johns hopkins university--were associated with the unitarian society."[ ] professor barrett wendell speaks of george ticknor as "the chief founder of the chief public library in the united states."[ ] ticknor undoubtedly did more than anybody else to make the boston public library the great institution it has become, not only in giving it his own collection of books, but also in its inception and in its organization. the best working library in the country, that of the boston athenaeum, also owes a very large debt to the early unitarians, with whom it originated, and by whom it was largely maintained in its early days. [sidenote: mayo's southern ministry of education.] one of the most important contributions to the work of education has been that of rev. amory d. mayo, known as the "ministry of education in the south." after settlements over churches in gloucester, cleveland, albany, cincinnati, and springfield, mr. mayo began his southern work in . he had an extensive preparation for his southern labors, having served on the school boards of cincinnati and springfield for fifteen years, lectured extensively on educational subjects, and been a frequent contributor to educational periodicals. he has written a history of common schools, which is published by the national bureau of education, prepared several of the circulars of information of that bureau, and printed a great number of educational pamphlets and addresses. "one of the most helpful agencies in the work of free and universal education in the south, for the last twenty years," says dr. j.l.m. curry in a personal letter, "has been the ministry of a.d. mayo. his intelligent zeal, his instructive addresses, his tireless energy, have made him a potent factor in this great work; and any history of what the unitarian denomination has done would be very imperfect which did not make proper and grateful recognition of his valuable services." [ ] christian examiner, xlvii. ; mrs. e.b. lee, memoirs of the buckminsters, . [ ] memoir of buckminster, introductory to his sermons, published in , xxxii. [ ] the pentateuch and its relation to the jewish and christian dispensation. by andrews norton. edited by john james tayler, london, . this was the note, with introduction. [ ] boston unitarianism, . [ ] hengstenberg's christology, christian examiner, july, , xvi. . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] ibid., . [ ] our liberal movement in theology, . [ ] the authorship of the fourth gospel and other critical essays selected from the published papers of ezra abbot, edited, with preface, by professor j.h. thayer. [ ] the divinity school of harvard university: its history, courses of study, aims, and advantages, published by the university, . [ ] the divinity school as it is, harvard graduates' magazine, june, . [ ] b.a. hinsdale, horace mann and the common school revival in the united states, . [ ] b.a. hinsdale, horace mann and the common school revival in the united states, . [ ] henry barnard, normal schools, . [ ] b.a. hinsdale, horace mann, . [ ] quoted by j.p. gordy, rise and growth of the normal school idea in the united states, circular of information of the bureau of education, , . [ ] ibid., . [ ] s.j. may, memoir of cyrus peirce, barnard's american journal of education, december, . [ ] g.a. hubbell, horace mann in ohio: a study of the application of his public school ideals to college administration, no. iv. of vol. vii., columbia university contributions to philosophy, psychology, and education, . [ ] mary mann, life of horace mann, ; henry barnard, normal schools, . [ ] memorial volume, . [ ] edwin d. mead, the old south work, ; also memorial sermon, by charles g. ames, . [ ] life and writings of jared sparks, i. . [ ] a literary history of america, . xix. unitarianism and literature. the history of american literature is intimately connected with the history of unitarianism in this country. the influences that caused the growth of unitarianism were those, to a large extent, that produced american literature. it was not merely harvard college that had this effect, as has been often asserted; for the other colleges did not become the centres of literary activity. it was more distinctly the freedom, the breadth of intellectual interest, and the sympathy with what was human and natural developed by the unitarian movement that were favorable to the growth of literature. yet from the beginning of the eighteenth century harvard fostered the spirit of inquiry, and helped to set the mind free from the theological and classical predispositions that had checked its natural growth. a taste for literature was encouraged, theology took on a broad and humanitarian character, and there was a growing appreciation of art and poetry. harvard college helped to bring men into contact with european thought, and thus opened to them fresh and stimulating sources of intellectual interest. during the last quarter of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth new england was largely devoted to commercial enterprises. every coast town of any size from newport to belfast was concerned with ship-building and with trade to foreign ports. such towns as boston and salem traded with china, india, and many other parts of the world. not only was wealth largely increased by this commercial activity, but the influence upon life and thought was very great. the mind was emancipated, and religion grew more liberal and humane, as the result of this contact with foreign lands. along the whole coast, within the limits named, there was an abandonment of puritanism and a growth into a genial and humanitarian interpretation of christianity. in new york city somewhat the same results were produced, at least on social and intellectual life, though with less immediate effect upon religion. it was in these regions, in which commercial contact with the great outside world set the mind free and awakened the imagination, that american literature was born. [sidenote: influence of unitarian environment.] the influence of unitarian culture and literary tastes is shown by the considerable number of literary men who were the sons of unitarian ministers. ralph waldo emerson was the son of william emerson, the minister of the first church in boston at the beginning of the nineteenth century. george bancroft was the son of aaron bancroft, the first unitarian minister in worcester, and the first president of the american unitarian association. to charles lowell, of the west church in boston, were born james russell lowell and robert t.s. lowell. the father of francis parkman was of the same name, and was for many years the minister of the new north church in boston. richard hildreth was the son of hosea hildreth, unitarian minister in gloucester. octavius brooks frothingham was the son of nathaniel l. frothingham, minister of the first church in boston. joseph allen, father of joseph henry allen and william francis allen, was the minister in northboro for many years. of literary workers now living william everett is the son of edward everett, charles eliot norton of andrews norton, and william wells newell of william newell, minister of the first church in cambridge for many years. this influence is shown in the large number of literary men who studied at the harvard divinity school and began their career as unitarian ministers. it may be partly accounted for by the fact that at the beginning of the nineteenth century literature offered but a precarious opportunity to men of talent and genius. the respect then accorded to ministers, the wide influence they were able to exert, and the many intellectual opportunities offered by the profession, naturally attracted many young men. during the first part of the nineteenth century no other profession was so attractive, and enthusiasm for it was large amongst the students of harvard college. as literary openings began to present themselves, many of these men found other occupations, partly because their tastes were intellectual rather than theological, and partly because the radical ferment made the pulpit no longer acceptable. such a man as edward everett would never have entered the pulpit, had it not been socially and intellectually most attractive at the time when he began his career. in the instance of samuel a. eliot, who took the full course in the divinity school, but did not preach, being afterward mayor of boston and member of congress the influences at work were probably much the same. george bancroft is another instance of a graduate of the divinity school who did not enter the pulpit, but, beginning his career as a teacher, devoted his life to literature and diplomacy. with such men as christopher p. cranch, artist and poet; george p. bradford, teacher, thinker, and friend of literary men; h.g.o. blake, editor of thoreau's journals; j.l. sibley, librarian; john albee, poet and essayist; and william cushing, bibliographer, the cause operating was probably the same,--the discovery that the chosen profession was not acceptable or that some other was preferable. another group of men, including john g. palfrey, jared sparks, william ware, horatio alger, james k. hosmer, edward rowland sill and william wells newell, who occupied unitarian pulpits for brief periods, were drawn into literary occupations as more congenial to their tastes. the same influence doubtless served to withdraw emerson, george ripley, john s. dwight, thomas w. higginson, moncure d. conway, and francis e. abbot, from the pulpit; but with these men there was also a break with traditional christianity. [sidenote: literary tendencies.] the early unitarian movement in new england was literary and religious rather than theological. the men who have been most influential in determining the course of unitarian development, such as charming, dewey, parker, and hedge, not to include emerson, who has been a greater affirmative leader than either of the others, were first of all preachers, and their published works were originally given to the world from the pulpit. they made no effort to produce a unitarian system of theology; and it would have been quite in opposition to the genius of the movement, had they entered upon such a task. with the advent of the unitarian movement, for the first time in the history of the american pulpit did the sermon become a literary product. channing and his coworkers, especially buckminster and everett, departed widely from the pulpit traditions of new england, ceased to quote texts, abandoned theological exposition, refrained from the exhortatory method, and addressed men and women in literary language about the actual interests of daily life. their preaching was not metaphysical, and it was not declamatory. the illustrations used were human rather than biblical, a preference was given to what was intellectual rather than to what was emotional, and the effect was instruction rather than conversion. it resulted in faithful living, good citizenship, fidelity to duty, love of the neighbor, and an earnest helpfulness toward the poor and unfortunate. [sidenote: literary tastes of unitarian ministers.] in studying any considerable list of unitarian ministers, and taking note of their personal tastes and their avocations, it will be seen that a large number of them were lovers of literature, and ardently devoted much of their time to literary pursuits. not only was there a decidedly literary flavor about their preaching, but they were frequent contributors to the christian examiner and the north american review; and they wrote poems, novels, books of travel, essays, and histories. they were conspicuous in historical and scientific societies, in promoting scientific investigations, in advancing archaeological researches, in every kind of learned inquiry. their intellectual interests were so catholic and so vigorous that they were not contented with parish and pulpit, and in some cases it would seem that the avocation was as important as the vocation itself. dr. channing would be named as the man who has done most to give direction to the currents of unitarian thought on theological problems, but he was also conspicuously a philanthropist and reformer. he was less a theologian, in the technical sense, than one who taught men to live in the spirit. his spiritual insight, humanitarian sympathies, and imaginative fellowship with all forms of human experience gave his writings a literary charm and power of a high order. he was a great religious teacher and inspirer, a preacher of unsurpassed gifts of spiritual interpretation, and a prophet of the truer religious life. the unitarian leaders who were influenced by the transcendental movement, of which the most prominent were parker, hedge, clarke, and c.c. everett, interpreted theology in the broadest spirit. parker was essentially a preacher and reformer. it was the one conspicuous aim of his life to liberate religion from the intellectual thraldom of the past, and to bring it into the open air of the world, where it might be informed of daily experience and gain for itself a rightful opportunity. he was therefore literary, imaginative, ethical, practical. he wrote for the dial, and established the massachusetts review, he was one of the most widely heard of popular lecturers, and he was a leader in the most radical of the reforms prominent in his day. parker made all wisdom subservient to his religion, treated a wide range of subjects in his pulpit, and brought religion into immediate contact with human life. frederic h. hedge did more than any other man to give unitarianism a consistent philosophy and theology. his reason in religion and ways of the spirit have had a profound influence in shaping the thought of the denomination, and have led all american unitarians to accept his view of the universality of incarnation and the consubstantiality of man and god. he was wise as an interpreter, and by no means wanting in originality, a brilliant essayist, a philosophical historian, and a student of high themes. his prose writers of germany, hours with the german classics, primeval world of hebrew tradition, and atheism in philosophy show the range of his interests and his ability as a thinker. james freeman clarke may be selected as a typical unitarian minister, who wrote poetry, was more than once an editor, often appeared on the lecture platform, was a frequent contributor to the leading periodicals, wrote several works of biography and history, gave himself zealously to the advocacy of the noblest reforms, and produced many volumes of sermons that have in an unusual degree the merit of directness, literary grace, suggestiveness, and spiritual warmth and insight. his theological writings have been widely read by unitarians and those not of that fellowship. his self-culture has been largely circulated as a manual of practical ethics. his ten great religions and its companion volume opened the way in this country for the recognition of the comparative study of religious developments. not content with so wide a range of studies, he wrote thomas didymus, an historical romance concerned with new testament characters, how to find the stars, and exotics, a volume of poetical translation. he was a maker of many books, and all of them were well made. his theology was all the more humane, and his preaching was all the more effective, because he was interested in many subjects and had a real mastery of them. charles carroll everett was a philosophical thinker and theologian, and the younger generation of unitarian ministers has been largely influenced by him. his theological work was done in the lecture-room, but it was of first-rate importance. he was a profound thinker, a vigorous writer, and an inspiring teacher. he was an able theologian, philosophical in thought, but deeply spiritual in insight. his work on the science of thought shows the depth and vigor of his thinking; but his volumes on the gospel of paul, religions before christianity, poetry, comedy, and duty, suggest the breadth of his inquiries and the richness of his philosophical investigations. in his position as the dean of the harvard divinity school he accomplished his best work, and there his great ability as theologian and philosophical thinker made itself amply manifest. another group of men largely influenced by the transcendental movement included david a. wasson, john weiss, samuel johnson, samuel longfellow, cyrus a. bartol, octavius k frothingham, and william j. potter. here we see the literary tendency showing itself distinctly and to much advantage. the first four of these men wrote exquisite hymns and spiritual lyrics, and all of them were contributors to periodical literature or writers of books. weiss was a literary critic of no mean merit in his lectures on greek and shakespearean subjects; and his volumes on american religion and immortal life were purely literary in their method. however deficient were johnson's books on the religions of india, china, and persia, from the point, of view of the science of religion, they have not yet been surpassed as interpretations of the inner spirit of oriental religions. bartol was a master of an incisive literary method in the pulpit, that gives to his radical problems, the rising faith, and principles and portraits a scintillating power all their own, with epigram and flash of wit on every page. frothingham published many a volume of sermons; but his biographies of parker, gerrit smith, wasson, johnson, ripley, channing, and his volume on the history of transcendentalism in new england, as well as his boston unitarianism, and recollections and impressions, indicate that his literary interests were quite as active as his theological. the literary tastes of unitarian ministers are indicated by the large number of them who have written poetry that passes beyond the limits of mediocrity. the names of john pierpont, andrews norton, samuel gilman, nathaniel l. frothingham, the younger henry ware, w.b.o. peabody, william henry furness, william newell, william parsons lunt, frederic h. hedge, james f. clarke, theodore parker, chandler robbins, edmund h. sears, charles t. brooks, robert c. waterston, thomas hill, and others, have been lovingly commemorated in alfred p. putnam's singers and songs of the liberal faith. hymns of nearly all these men are in common use in many congregations, and some of their work has found a place in every hymnal. no one can read the sermons of thomas starr king without feeling their literary grace and finish of style, as well as their intellectual vigor. his lectures marked his literary interest, which shows itself in his christianity and humanity and his substance and show. especially does it appear in his delightful book on the white hills, their legends, landscape, and poetry. in his day, henry giles was widely known as a lecturer; and his numerous volumes of literary interpretation and criticism, especially his human life in shakespeare, were read with appreciation. in his district school as it was, and my religious experience at my native home, warren burton described in simple but effective prose a kind of life that has long since passed away. his educational lectures and books helped on the cause of public school education, a subject in which he was greatly interested. unitarian ministers have also made many contributions to local and general history. the history of king's chapel by francis w.p. greenwood may be mentioned as a specimen of the former kind of work; but greenwood also published several volumes of sermons, as well as biographical and literary volumes. a history of the second church in boston, with lives of increase and cotton mather, was published by chandler robbins. the theological history of unitarianism was ably discussed by george e. ellis in a half-century of the unitarian controversy. he devoted much attention to the history of new england, gave many lectures and addresses on subjects connected therewith, published biographies of anne hutchinson, william penn, count rumford, jared sparks, and charles w. upham. his volumes on the red man and the white man in north america, the puritan theocracy, and others, show his historical ability and his large grasp of his subjects. joseph henry allen published an historical sketch of the unitarian movement since the reformation, in the american church history series. in our liberal movement in theology, and its sequel, he critically and appreciatively treated of the history of unitarianism in new england, and of the men who were most important in its development. his taste for historical studies appeared in his christian history in its three great periods, a work of admirable critical judgment, sobriety of statement, and concise presentation of the essential facts. alvan lamson produced a book of critical value in the church of the first three centuries, which treats of the origin of the trinitarian beliefs during that period. a work of a similar character was done by frederic huidekoper, in whose books were included the results of many years of minute research, and of critical investigation into the origins of christianity. books of a widely different nature were written by artemas b. muzzey in his personal recollection of the men in the battle of lexington, and reminiscences of men of the revolution and their families. he published several volumes of sermons, as well as a number of educational works. somewhat of a theologian and an ardent student and expounder of philosophy, william r. alger has made himself widely known by his books on the genius of solitude, friendships of women, and the school of life. his fine literary judgments, his artistic appreciations, and his richness of sentiment and imagination show themselves in these attractive volumes. he has also published a life of edwin forrest, with a critical history of the dramatic art. his critical history of the doctrine of a future life is a work of ripe scholarship and great literary merit, and is everywhere recognized as an authority. [sidenote: unitarians as historians.] in the chapter on historians, in his american literature, professor charles f. richardson enumerates seventeen writers, twelve of whom were unitarians. it was in cambridge and boston, amongst the graduates of harvard college, that american historical writing began, and that it attained its greatest successes. the same causes that had given the unitarians pre-eminence in other directions made them especially so in this, where wide learning and sound criticism were of importance. wealth, leisure, intellectual emancipation, sympathetic interest in all that is human, combined with scholarship and plodding industry, gave the historians an unusual equipment for their tasks. it may be justly said that historical writing in this country began with jeremy belknap, the predecessor of dr. channing in the federal street church. when settled in dover, he wrote his history of new hampshire; and after his removal to boston he produced a biography of watts and two volumes of american biographies. he first voiced the historical interest that was awakened by the establishment of national independence, and the desire to know of the past of the american people. his chief service to historical studies, however, was in the formation of the massachusetts historical society. hannah adams was not only a unitarian, but the first woman in this country to enter upon a literary career. her view of religious opinions, first issued in , afterwards changed to a dictionary of religions, was the earliest work attempting to give an account of all the religions of the world. it was followed by her history of new england, and by her history of the jews. she also took part in the religious controversies of the day, her contest with dr. jedediah morse being one of the minor phases of the struggle between the unitarians and the orthodox congregationalists; and her evidences of christianity, as well as her letters on the gospels, were written from the unitarian point of view. her books had no literary value, but in their time they helped to foster the growing interest in american subjects. alexander young, minister of the new south church in boston, rendered valuable service to historical investigations by his chronicles of the pilgrim fathers of the colony of plymouth and his chronicles of the first planters of the colony of massachusetts bay, works that were scholarly, accurate, and judicious. perhaps his most important service was the editing of the library of old english prose writers, in nine volumes, which appeared from to , and included such works as sidney's defence of poesie and sir thomas browne's urn burial. of his historical works, o.b. frothingham has justly said that "they showed extensive and accurate knowledge, extraordinary zeal in research, singular impartiality of judgment, great activity of mind, a strong inclination towards ethical as distinguished from speculative subjects, a passionate love of books and elegant letters."[ ] of the greater historians, bancroft, prescott, motley, hildreth, sparks, palfrey, ticknor, parkman, higginson, parton, and fiske were unitarians. three of these men were sons of unitarian ministers, and four of them prepared for that profession or entered upon its duties. it is not desirable that any attempt should be made here to estimate their historical labors, for their position and their achievements are well known. it would be interesting to give an account of the unitarian connections and sympathies of these writers, but the materials are not at hand in the case of most of them. one or two illustrations will suffice for them all, indicating their religious tastes and preferences. in prescott made a careful examination of the evidences for belief in christianity, and his biographer says that "the conclusions at which he arrived were, that the narratives of the gospels were authentic; and that, even if christianity were not a divine revelation, no system of morals was so likely to fit him for happiness here and hereafter. but he did not find in the gospels or in any part of the new testament the doctrines commonly accounted orthodox, and he deliberately recorded his rejection of them." at a later time he stated his creed in these words: "to do well and act justly, to fear and to love god, and to love our neighbor as ourselves--in these is the essence of religion. to do this is the safest, our only safe course. for what we can believe we are not responsible, supposing we examine candidly and patiently. for what we do we shall indeed be accountable. the doctrines of the saviour unfold the whole code of morals by which our conduct should be regulated."[ ] prescott was a regular attendant at the first church in boston. in his biography of george ticknor, george s. hilliard says that "the strong religious impressions which mr. ticknor received in early years deepened as his character matured into personal convictions, the confirmed and ruling principles of his life. he had been brought up in the doctrines of calvinistic orthodoxy, but later serious reflection led him to reject those doctrines; and soon after his return from europe he joined dr. channing's church, of which he continued through life a faithful member. he was a sincere liberal christian, and his convictions were firm, but they were held without bigotry, and he never allowed them to interfere with kindliness and courtesy." it may be added that ticknor was an active member of the church with which he was connected, that in he took charge of a class of boys in the sunday-school, which he kept for eight years. in and the next year he gave a course of instruction in the history and contents of the bible to a class of young girls, for which he prepared himself carefully.[ ] the influence exerted by the historians in teaching love of country and a true patriotism may be accounted as very large. that men thoroughly grounded in principles of religious liberty, in high ideals of justice and humanity, in the broadest spirit of toleration and freedom of opinion, should have written our histories, is of no small importance in the formation of american character. that they have made many unitarians we cannot suppose, but that their influence has been large in the development of a true spirit of nationality we have a right to think. they have indicated concretely the effects of bigotry and intolerance, and they have not failed to point out the defects in the practices of the puritans. in so far as they have had to deal with religious subjects, they have taught the true unitarian idea of liberty of conscience and freedom of opinion. they have wisely helped to make it possible for many religions to live kindly side by side, and to give every creed the right of utterance. these ideals had been developed before our historians began to write, but these men have helped to make them the inheritance of the whole nation. all the more effective has been their teaching that it has grown out of the events of our history, and has not been the voice of a merely personal opinion. but we owe much to them that they have seen the true meaning of our history, and that they have uttered it with clearness of interpretation and with vigorous moral emphasis. [sidenote: scientific unitarians.] a considerable number of the leading men of science have been unitarians. notable among the mathematicians were nathaniel bowditch, benjamin peirce, and thomas hill, who was president of antioch college and of harvard university. among the astronomers have been benjamin gould, maria mitchell, asaph hall, and edward c. picketing. of maria mitchell it was said that she "was entirely ignorant of the peculiar phrases and customs of rigid sectarians." her biographer says she "never joined any church, but for years before she left nantucket she attended the unitarian church, and her sympathies, as long as she lived, were with that denomination, especially with the more liberally inclined portion."[ ] james jackson, the first physician of the massachusetts general hospital, should be named in this connection. joseph lovering, the physicist, and jeffries wyman, the comparative anatomist, are also to be included. and here belongs louis agassiz, who has had more influence than any other man in developing an interest in science among the people generally. he gave to scientific investigations the largest importance for scientific men themselves. at the same time he was a religious man and a theist. "in religion," says his biographer, "agassiz very liberal and tolerant, and respected the views and convictions of every one. in his youth and early manhood, agassiz was undoubtedly a materialist, or, more exactly, a sceptic; but in time, and little by little, his studies led him to belief in a divine creative power. he was more in sympathy with unitarianism than with any other christian denomination."[ ] [sidenote: unitarian essayists.] a considerable number of essayists, lecturers, and general writers have been unitarians. among these have been edwin p. whipple, george ripley, mrs. ednah d. cheney, john s. dwight, professor charles eliot norton, henry t. tuckerman, james t. fields, and professor francis j. child. these writers represent several phases of unitarian opinion, but they belong to this fellowship by birthright or intellectual sympathies. in the same company may be placed henry d. thoreau and john burroughs, not because they had any direct connection with unitarianism, but because the religious convictions they expressed are such as most unitarians accept. to the unitarian fellowship belong margaret fuller, lydia maria child, caroline m. kirkland, grace greenwood (mrs. lippincott), and julia ward howe. all the early associations of margaret fuller were with unitarians; and her brother, arthur fuller, became a unitarian minister. in her maturer life she was with the transcendentalists, finding in rev. w.h. channing and emerson her spiritual teachers. writing of her debt to emerson, she said, "his influence has been more beneficial to me than that of any american; and from him i first learned what is meant by an inward life."[ ] she was a pronounced individualist, an intense lover of spiritual liberty, a friend of those who live in the spirit. this may be seen in what she called her credo, a sentence or two from which will indicate her type of thought. "i will not loathe sects, persuasions, systems," she writes, "though i cannot abide in them one moment; for i see that by most men they are still needed." "ages may not produce one worthy to loose the shoes of the prophet of nazareth; yet there will surely be another manifestation of this word which was in the beginning. the very greatness of this manifestation demands a greater. we have had a messiah to teach and reconcile. let us now have a man to live out all the symbolical forms of human life, with the calm beauty of a greek god, with the deep consciousness of moses, with the holy love and purity of jesus."[ ] [sidenote: unitarian novelists.] among the novelists have been several who were unitarian ministers, including sylvester judd, william ware, thomas w. higginson, and edward everett hale. judd's margaret was of the very essence of transcendentalism, besides being an excellent interpretation of some of the phases of new england character. ware's historical novels were popular in their day, and are now worth going back to by modern readers, and especially by those who do not insist upon having their romances hot from the press. catherine m. sedgwick is another novelist worth returning to by modern readers, and especially by those who would know of new england life in the early part of the nineteenth century. she became an ardent unitarian, and her biography gives interesting glimpses of the early struggles of that faith in york city. other unitarian women novelists were lydia maria child, grace greenwood, helen hunt jackson, louisa m. alcott, and harriet prescott spofford. in naming john t. trowbridge, bayard taylor, bret harte, william d. howells, and nathaniel hawthorne as unitarians, no merely sectarian aim is in view. in the common use of the word, hawthorne was not a religious man; for he rarely attended church, and he had no interest in ecclesiastical formalities. no man who has written in this country, however, was more deeply influenced than he by those spiritual ideas and traditions which may be properly called unitarian. the same may be said of howells, who is not a unitarian in any denominational sense; but his religious interests and convictions bring him into sympathy with the movement represented by unitarianism. it may be said of the most popular novels of edward everett hale, such as ten times one is ten, in his name, his level best, that they are the best possible interpretations of the unitarian spirit; for it is not merely a certain conception of god that characterizes unitarianism, nor yet a particular theological attitude. it is the wish to make religion real, practical, altruistic. [sidenote: unitarian artists and poets.] unitarianism has been as friendly to poetry and the other arts as it has been to philosophy and science. in its early days it fostered the artistic careers of washington allston, the painter, and charles bulfinch, the architect. it has also nurtured the sculptors, william wetmore story, who was also poet and essayist; harriet hosmer, whose career shows what a woman can accomplish in opening new opportunities for her sex; larkin g. mead and daniel c. french. to these must be added the actors fanny kemble and charlotte cushman. it is as one of the earliest of our poets that charles sprague is to be mentioned, and one or two of his poems are deservedly remembered. jones very was one of the best of the transcendental poets, and a few of his religious poems have not been surpassed. the younger william ellery channing and edward r. sill belong to the same school, and deservedly keep their places with those who admire what is choice in thought and individual in artistic workmanship. as a biographer of o.b. frothingham and as a member of his congregation, it may be proper to add here the name of edmund c. stedman. among our greater poets, bryant, longfellow, emerson, holmes, lowell, stoddard, and bayard taylor were unitarians. as being essentially of the same way of thinking and believing, whittier and whitman might also be so classed. though whittier was a friend by education and by conviction, he was of the liberal school that places religion above sect and interprets dogmas in the light of human needs and affections. if he had been born and bred a unitarian, he could not have more sympathetically interpreted the unitarian faith than he has in his poems. whitman had in him the heart of transcendentalism, and he was informed of its inmost spirit. to the more radical unitarians his pleas for liberty, his intense individualism, and his idealistic conceptions of nature and man would be acceptable, and, it may be, enthusiastically approved. william cullen bryant early became a unitarian; and he listened to the preaching of follen, dewey, osgood, and bellows. "a devoted lover of religious liberty," bellows said of him, "he was an equal lover of religion itself--not in any precise, dogmatic form, but in its righteousness, reverence, and charity. he was not a dogmatist, but preferred practical piety and working virtue to all modes of faith."[ ] it would be difficult to give a better definition of unitarianism itself; and it was the large humanity of it, and its generous outlook upon the lives of individuals and nations, that made of bryant a faithful unitarian. henry w. longfellow was educated as a unitarian, his father having been one of the first vice-presidents of the unitarian association,--a position he held for many years. stephen longfellow was an intimate friend of dr. channing in his college years, and he followed the advance of his classmate in the growth of his liberal faith. "it was in the doctrine and the spirit of the early unitarianism that henry longfellow was nurtured at church and at home," says his brother. "and there is no reason to suppose that he ever found these insufficient, or that he ever essentially departed from them. of his genuine religious feeling his writings, give ample testimony. his nature was at heart devout; his ideas of life, of death, and of what lies beyond, were essentially cheerful, hopeful, optimistic. he did not care to talk much on theological points; but he believed in the supremacy of good in the world and in the universe."[ ] although oliver wendell holmes was educated in the older forms of religious beliefs, he became one of the most devoted of unitarians. his rejection of calvinism is marked by his intense aversion to it, shown upon many a page of his prose and poetry. no other prominent unitarian was so aggressive against the doctrines of the older time. he was a regular attendant at king's chapel upon the preaching of dr. f.w.p. greenwood, dr. ephraim peabody, and rev. h.w. foote; but, when he was in pittsfield, for a number of years he went to the episcopal church, and at beverly farms in his later years, during the summer, he attended a baptist church. he was, therefore, a conservative unitarian, but with a generous recognition of the good in other religious bodies. at the unitarian festival of dr. holmes was the presiding officer, and in his address he gave a statement of the unitarian faith that clearly defines his own religious position:-- we believe in vital religion, or the religion of life, as contrasted with that of trust in hierarchies, establishments, and traditional formulae, settled by the votes of wavering majorities in old councils and convocations. we believe in evangelical religion, or the religion of glad tidings, in distinction from the schemes that make our planet the ante-chamber of the mansions of eternal woe to the vast majority of all the men, women, and children that have lived and suffered upon its surface. we believe that every age must judge the scriptures by its own light; and we mean, by god's grace, to exercise that privilege, without asking permission of pope or bishop, or any other human tribunal. we believe that sin is the much-abused step-daughter of ignorance, and this not only from our own observation, but on the authority of him whose last prayer on earth was that the perpetrators of the greatest crime on record might be forgiven, for they knew not what they were doing. we believe, beyond all other beliefs, in the fatherly relation of the deity to all his creatures; and, wherever there is a conflict of scriptural or theological doctrines, we hold this to be the article of faith that stands supreme above all others. and, lastly, we know that, whether we agree precisely in these or any other articles of belief, we can meet in christian charity and fellowship, in that we all agree in the love of our race, and the worship of a common father, as taught us by the master whom we profess to follow.[ ] educated as a unitarian, james russell lowell felt none of the animosity toward calvinism that was characteristic of holmes; but his poetry everywhere indicates the liberality and nobleness of his religious convictions. that he was not sectarian, that he felt no active interest in dogmatic theology as such, is only saying that he was a genuine unitarian. writing in , lowell said, "i am an infidel to the christianity of to-day."[ ] in a letter to longfellow written in , he made a more explicit statement of his attitude: "christ has declared war against the christianity of the world, and it must down. there is no help for it. the church, that great bulwark of our practical paganism, must be reformed from foundation to weathercock."[ ] these passages indicate his dissatisfaction with an external religion and with dogmatic theology. on the other hand, his letters and his poems prove that he was strongly grounded in the faith of the spirit. in that faith he lived and died; and, if in later years he gave recognition to some of the higher claims of the older types of christianity, it was a generous concession to their rational qualities and their practical results, and in no degree an acceptance of their teachings. the definite form of lowell's faith he expressed when he wrote, "i will never enter a church from which a prayer goes up for the prosperous only, or for the unfortunate among the oppressors, and not for the oppressed and fallen; as if god had ordained our pride of caste and our distinctions of color, and as if christ had forgotten those that are in bonds."[ ] emerson left the pulpit, and he withdrew from outward conformity to the church; but that there came a time when he no longer felt an interest in religion or that he even ceased to be a christian, after his own manner of interpretation, there is no reason to assume. his radicalism was in the direction of a deeper and truer religion, a religion of the spirit. he rejected the faith that is founded on the letter, on historical evidences, that is a body without a soul. he was not the less a unitarian because he ceased to be one outwardly, for he carried forward the unitarian principles to their legitimate conclusion. the newer unitarianism owes to him more than to any other man, and of him more than of any other man the older unitarianism can boast that he was its product. such a survey as this indicates how great has been the influence of unitarianism upon american literature. there can be no question that it has been one of the greatest formative forces in its development. "almost everybody," says professor barrett wendell, "who attained literary distinction in new england during the nineteenth century was either a unitarian or closely associated with unitarian influences,"[ ] more even than that may be said, for it is the unitarian writers who have most truly interpreted american institutions and american ideals. [ ] boston unitarianism, . [ ] george ticknor, life of william hickling prescott, , . [ ] george s. hillard, life, letters, and journals of george ticknor, . [ ] phoebe mitchell kendall, life, letters, and journals of maria mitchell, . [ ] jules marcou, life of agassiz, ii. . [ ] memoirs, i. . [ ] memoirs, ii. . [ ] john bigelow, life of bryant, , . [ ] samuel longfellow, life of h.w. longfellow, i. [ ] quarterly journal, vi. , july, . [ ] biography of james russell lowell, by h.e. scudder, i. . [ ] ibid., . [ ] biography of james russell lowell, by h.e. scudder, i. , quoted from conversations on some of the old poets. [ ] a literary history of america, . xx. the future of unitarianism. the early unitarians in this country did not desire to form a new sect. they wished to remain congregationalists, and to continue unbroken the fellowship that had existed from the beginning of new england. when they were compelled to separate from the older churches, they refrained from organizing a strictly defined religious body, and have called theirs a "movement." the words "denomination" and "sect" have been repellent to them; and they have attempted, not only to avoid their use, but to escape from that which they represent. they have wished to establish a broad, free fellowship, that would draw together all liberal thinkers and movements into one wide and inclusive religious body. the unitarian body accepted in theory from the first the principles of liberty, reason, and free inquiry. these were fully established, however, only as the result of discussion, agitation, and much friction. theodore parker was subjected to severe criticism, emerson was regarded with distrust, and the free religious association was organized as a protest and for the sake of a freer fellowship. in fact, however, parker was never disfellowshipped; and from the first many unitarians regarded emerson as the teacher of a higher type of spiritual religion. through this period of controversy, when there was much of bitter feeling engendered, no one was expelled from the unitarian body for opinion's sake. all stayed in who did not choose to go out, there being no trials for, heresy. the result of this method has been that the unitarian body is now one of the most united and harmonious in christendom. the free spirit has abundantly justified itself. when it was found that every one could think for himself, express freely his own beliefs, and live in accordance with his own convictions, controversy came to an end. when heresy was no longer sought for, heresy ceased to have an existence. the result has not been discord and distrust, but peace, harmony, and a more perfect fellowship. in the unitarian body from the first there has been a free spirit of inquiry. criticism has had a free course. the bible has been subjected to the most searching investigation, as have all the foundations of religion. as a result, no religious body shows, a more rational interest in the bible or a more confident trust in its great spiritual teachings. the early unitarians anticipated that unitarianism would soon become the popular form of religion accepted in this country. thomas jefferson thought that all young men of his time would die unitarians. others were afraid that unitarianism would become sectarian in its methods as soon as it became popular, which they anticipated would occur in a brief period.[ ] the cause of the slow growth of unitarianism is to be found in the fact that it has been too modern in its spirit, too removed from the currents of popular belief, to find ready acceptance on the part of those who are largely influenced by traditional beliefs. the religion of the great majority of persons is determined by tradition or social heredity, by what they are taught in childhood or hear commonly repeated around them. only persons who are naturally independent and self-reliant can overcome the difficulties in the way of embracing a form of religion which carries them outside of the established tradition. for these reasons it is not surprising that as yet there has not been a rapid growth of organized unitarianism. in fact, unitarianism has made little progress outside of new england, and those regions to which new england traditions have been carried by those who migrated westward. the early promise for the growth of unitarianism in the south, from to , failed because there was no background of tradition for its encouragement and support. individuals could think their way into the unitarian faith, but their influence proved ineffective when all around them the old tradition prevailed as stubborn conviction. even the influence of a literature pervaded with unitarianism proved ineffective in securing any rapid spread of the new faith, except as it has found its way into the common christian tradition by a process of spiritual infiltration. the result has been that unitarianism has grown slowly, because it has been obliged to create new traditions, to form a new habit of thought, and to make free inquiry a common motive and purpose. in a word, unitarianism has been a heresy; and therefore there has been no open door for it. most heretical sects have been narrow in spirit, bigoted in temper, and intensely sectarian in method. their isolation from the great currents of the world's life acts on them intellectually and spiritually as the process of in-and-in breeding does upon animals: it intensifies their peculiarities and defects. a process of atrophy or degeneration takes place; and they grow from generation to generation more isolated, sectarian, and peculiar. unitarianism has escaped this tendency because it has accepted the modern spirit and because to a large degree its adherents have been educated and progressive persons. its principles of liberty, reason, and free inquiry, have brought its followers into touch with those forces that are making most rapidly for the development of mankind. unitarians have been conspicuously capable of individual initiative; and yet their culture has been large enough to give them a conservative loyalty to the past and to the profounder and more spiritual phases of the christian tradition. while strongly individualistic and heretical they have been sturdily faithful to christianity, seeking to revive its earlier and more simple life. a chief value of unitarianism in the past has been that it has pioneered the way for the development of the modern spirit within the limits of christianity. the churches from which it came out have followed it far on the way it has travelled. its most liberal advocates of the first generation were more conservative than many of the leaders are to-day in the older churches. its period of criticism, controversy, and agitation is being reproduced in many another religious body of the present time. the debates about miracles, the theory of the supernatural, the authenticity of scripture, the nature of christ, and other problems that are now agitating most of the progressive protestant denominations, are almost precisely those that exercised unitarians years ago. the only final solution of these problems, that will give peace and harmony, is that of free inquiry and rational interpretation, which unitarians have finally accepted. if other religious bodies would profit by this experience and by the unitarian method for the solution of these problems, it would be greatly to their advantage. the unitarian churches have been few in number, and they have suffered from isolation and provincialism. these defects of the earlier period have now in part passed away, new traditions have been created, a cosmopolitan spirit has been developed, and unitarianism has become a world movement. this was conspicuously indicated at the seventy-fifth anniversary of the organization of the american unitarian association, and in the formation of the international council of unitarian and other liberal religious thinkers and workers. it was then shown that unitarianism has found expression in many parts of the world, that it answers to an intellectual and spiritual need of the time, and that it is capable of interpreting the religious convictions of persons belonging to many phases of human development and culture. a broader, more philosophical, and humaner tradition is being formed, that will in time become a wide-reaching influence for the development of a religious life that will be at once more scientific and more spiritual in its nature than anything the past has produced. the promise of unitarianism for the future does not consist in its becoming a sect and in its striving for the development of merely denominational interests, but in its cultivation of the deeper spiritual life and in its cosmopolitan sympathy with all phases of religious growth. its mission is one with philanthropy, charity, and altruism. its attitude should be that of free inquiry, loyalty to the spirit of philosophy and science, and fidelity to the largest results of human progress. it should always represent justice, righteousness, and personal integrity. that promise is not to be found in the rapid multiplication of its churches or in its devotion to propagandist aims, but in its loyalty to the free spirit and in its exemplification of the worth and beauty of the religion of humanity. as a sect, it will fail; but as a movement towards a larger faith, a purer life, and a more inclusive fellowship, the future is on its side. while recognizing the unitarian as a great pioneer movement in religion, it should be seen that its strong individualism has been a cause of its slow growth. until recently the unitarian body has been less an organic phase of the religious life of the time than a group of isolated churches held together only by the spontaneous bonds of fellowship and good will. such a body can have little effective force in any effort at missionary propagandism or in making its spirit dominant in the religious life of the country. as heredity and variation are but two phases of organic growth, so are tradition and individual initiative but two phases of social progress. in both processes--organic growth and social progress--the primary force is the conservative one, that maintains what the past has secured. if individualism is necessary to healthy growth, associative action is essential to any growth whatever of the social body. in so far as individual perfection can be attained, it cannot be by seeking it as an end in itself: it can be reached only by means of that which conduces to general social progress. it may be questioned whether there is any large future for unitarianism unless all excessive individualism is modified and controlled. such individualism is in opposition to the altruistic and associative spirit of the present time. liberty is not an end in itself, but its value is to be found in the opportunity it gives for a natural and fitting association of individuals with each other. freedom of religious inquiry is but an instrument for securing spiritual growth, not merely for the individual, but for all mankind. so long as liberty of thought and spiritual freedom remain the means of individual gratification, they are ineffective as spiritual forces. they must be given a wider heritage in the life of mankind before they can accomplish their legitimate results in securing for men freedom from the external bonds of traditionalism. even reason is but an instrument for securing truth, and not truth itself. rightly understood, authority in the church is but the principle of social action, respect for what mankind has gained of spiritual power through its centuries of development. authority is therefore as necessary as freedom, and the two must be reconciled in order that progress may take place. when so understood and so limited, authority becomes essential to all growth in freedom and individuality. what above all else is needed in religion is social action on the part of freedom-loving men and women, who, in the strength of their individuality, co-operate for the attainment, not of their own personal good, but the advancement of mankind. this is what unitarianism has striven for, and what it has gained in some measure. it has sought to make philanthropy the test of piety, and to make liberty a means of social fidelity. free inquiry cannot mean liberty to think as one pleases, but only to think the truth, and to recognize with submissive spirit the absolute conditions and the limitations of the truth. though religion is life and not a creed, it none the less compels the individual to loyalty of social action; and that means nothing more and nothing less than faithfulness to what will make for the common good, and not primarily what will minister to one's own personal development, intellectually and spiritually. the future of unitarianism will depend on its ability further to reconcile, individualism with associative action, the spirit of free inquiry with the larger human tradition. its advantage cannot be found in the abandonment of christianity, which has been the source and sustaining power of its life, but in the development of the christian tradition by the processes of modern thought. the real promise of unitarianism is in identifying itself with the altruistic spirit of the age, and in becoming the spiritual interpreter of the social aspirations of mankind. in order to this result it must not only withdraw from its extreme individualism, but bring its liberty into organic relations with its spirit of social fidelity. it will then welcome the fact that freedom and authority are identical in their deeper meanings. it will discover that service is more important than culture, and that culture is of value to the end that service may become more effective. then it will cheerfully recognize the truth that the social obligation is as important as the individual right, and that the two make the rounded whole of human action. [ ] see pp. , . appendix. a. formation of the local conferences. the local conferences came into existence in the following order: wisconsin and minnesota quarterly conference, organized at sheboygan, wis., october , ; new york central conference of liberal christians, rochester, november , ; conference of unitarian and other christian churches of the middle and southern states, wilmington, del., november , ; norfolk conference of unitarian and other christian churches, dedham, mass., november , ; new york and hudson river local conference, new york, december , ; essex conference of liberal christian churches, salem, mass., december , ; lake erie conference of unitarian and other christian societies, meadville, penn., december , ; worcester county conference of congregational (unitarian) and other christian societies, worcester, mass., december , ; south middlesex conference of congregational unitarian and other christian societies, cambridgeport, mass., december , ; suffolk conference of unitarian and other christian churches, boston, december , ; north middlesex conference of unitarian congregational and other christian churches, littleton, mass., december , . the champlain liberal christian conference, montpelier, vt., january , ; the connecticut valley conference of congregational unitarian and other christian churches, greenfield, mass., january , ; the plymouth and bay conference, hingham, mass., february , ; the ohio valley conference of unitarian and other christian churches, louisville, ky., february , ; the channing conference, providence, r.i., april , ; liberal christian conference of western maine, brunswick, me., october , . the local conference of liberal christians of the missouri valley, weston, mo., march , ; the chicago conference of unitarian churches, chicago, december , ; western illinois and iowa conference of unitarian and other christian churches, sheffield, ill., january , ; cape cod conference of unitarian congregational and other liberal christian churches, barnstable, mass., november , ; conference of liberal christians of the missouri valley, kansas city, mo., may , ; michigan conference of unitarian and other christian churches, jackson, october , ; the fraternity of illinois liberal christian societies, bloomington, november , ; iowa association of unitarian and other independent churches, burlington, june , ; indiana conference of unitarian and independent religious societies, hobart, october , ; ohio state conference of unitarian and other liberal societies, cincinnati, may, . kansas unitarian conference, december , ; nebraska unitarian association, omaha, november , ; the southern conference of unitarian and other christian churches, atlanta, ga., april , ; the new york conference of unitarian churches superseded the new york and hudson river conference at a session held in new york, april , ; pacific unitarian conference, san francisco, november , ; the illinois conference of unitarian and other independent societies superseded the illinois fraternity in ; minnesota unitarian conference, st. paul, november , ; hancock conference of unitarian and other christian churches, bar harbor, me., august , ; missouri valley unitarian conference superseded the kansas unitarian conference, december , . rocky mountain conference of unitarian and other liberal christian churches, denver, col., may , ; the unitarian conference of the middle states and canada, brooklyn, n.y., november , , superseded new york state conference; central states conference of unitarian churches, cincinnati, december , , superseded the ohio state conference; pacific northwest conference of unitarian, liberal christian, and independent churches, puyallup, wash., august , ; southern california conference of unitarian and other liberal christian churches, santa ana, october . four of the early conferences, the new york central, champlain, western maine, and missouri valley, were not distinctly unitarian. these were union organizations, in which universalists, and perhaps other denominations, were associated with unitarians. the new york central conference refused to send delegates to the national conference on account of its union character. in other conferences, such as the connecticut valley and the norfolk, universalists took part in their organization, and were for a number of years connected with them. most of the conferences organized from to were within state limits; but those organized subsequently to were more distinctly district conferences, and included several states. several of the conferences have been reorganized in order to bring them into harmony with the prevailing theory of state or district limits at the time when such action took place. a few of the conferences had only a name to live, and they soon passed out of existence. in the local, as in the national conference, two purposes contended for expression, the one looking to the uniting of all liberal denominations in one general organization, and the other to the promotion of distinctly unitarian interests. in the national conference the denominational purpose controlled the aims kept most clearly in view; but the other purpose found expression in the addition of "other christian churches" to the name, though only in the most limited way did such churches connect themselves with the conference. the local conferences made like provision for those not wishing to call themselves distinctly unitarian. such desire for co-operation, however, was in a large degree rendered ineffective by the fact that the primary aim had in view in the creation of the local conferences was the increase of the funds of the american unitarian association. b. unitarian newspapers and magazines. there was a very considerable activity from to in the publication of unitarian periodicals, and probably the energies of the denomination found a larger expression in that direction than in any other. in january, , was begun in boston the liberal preacher, a monthly publication of sermons by living ministers, conducted by the cheshire association of ministers, with rev. thomas r. sullivan, of keene, n.h., as the editor. it was continued for eight or ten years, and with considerable success. with november, , rev. william ware began the publication in new york city of the unitarian, a quarterly magazine, of which the last number appeared february , . the unitarian monitor was begun at dover, n.h., october , , and was continued until october , . it was a fortnightly of four three-column pages, and was well conducted. it was under the editorial management of rev. samuel k. lothrop, then the minister in dover. the unitarian christian, edited by rev. stephen g. bulfinch, was published quarterly in augusta, ga., for a year or two. in rev. samuel j. may published the liberal christian at brooklyn, conn., as a fortnightly county paper of eight small quarto pages. he followed it by the christian monitor and common people's adviser, which was begun in april, , its object being "to promote the free discussion of all subjects connected with happiness and holiness." the unitarian, conducted by rev. bernard whitman, then settled in waltham, mass., was published in cambridge and boston during the year , and came to its end because of the death of whitman in the last month of the year. it was a monthly magazine of a distinctly missionary character. of a more permanent character was the unitarian advocate, the first number of which was issued in boston, january, . it was a small mo of sixty pages, monthly, the editor being rev. edmund q. sewall. he continued in that capacity to the end of , when it was "conducted by an association of gentlemen." the purpose was to make a popular magazine at a moderate price. it came to an end in december, . with january , , was issued in boston the first number of the boston observer and religious intelligencer, a weekly of eight three-column pages, edited by rev. george ripley. it was continued for only six months, when it was joined to the christian register, which took its name as a sub-title for a time. its motto, "liberty, holiness, love," was also borrowed by that paper. the western messenger was begun in cincinnati, june, , with rev. ephraim peabody as the editor. it was a monthly of ninety-six pages, and was ably edited. owing to the illness of mr. peabody, it was removed to louisville after the ninth number; and rev. james freeman clarke became the editor, with rev. w.h. channing and rev. j.h. perkins as assistants for a time. it was published by the western unitarian association, and was discontinued with the number for may, . among the contributors were emerson, margaret fuller, william henry channing, christopher p. cranch, william g. eliot, who aided in giving it a high literary character. for a number of years the american unitarian association made an annual appropriation to aid in its publication. the monthly miscellany of religion and letters was begun in boston with april, . it was a mo of forty-eight pages, monthly. the editor was rev. ezra s. gannett, by whom it was "designed to furnish religious reading for the people, treat unitarian opinions in their practical bearings, and show their power to produce holiness of life; and by weight of contents to come between the christian register and the christian examiner." it was continued until the end of , when it was absorbed by the latter periodical. with the first of january, , was begun the monthly religious magazine, to meet the needs of those who found the christian examiner too scholarly. the first editor, was rev. frederic d. huntington, who was succeeded by rev. edmund h. sears, rev. james w. thompson, rev. rufus ellis, and rev. john h. morison. the last issue was that of february, . a large weekly was begun in boston, january , , called the christian world, of which rev. george g. channing was the publisher and managing editor. he was assisted by rev. james freeman clarke and hon. john a. andrew, afterward governor of massachusetts, as editors or editorial contributors. the special aims of the paper were "to awaken a deeper religious interest in all the great philanthropic and benevolent enterprises of the day." it was continued until december , . george g. channing was a brother of dr. channing, and was settled over two or three parishes. the paper was ably conducted, and while unitarian was not distinctly denominational. the christian inquirer was started in new york, october , , and was a weekly of four six-column pages. it was managed by the new york unitarian association; and it was largely under the control of rev. henry w. bellows, who in was assisted by rev. samuel osgood, rev. james f. clarke, and rev. frederic h. hedge. in was begun the publication of the unitarian annual register in boston by crosby & nichols, with rev. abiel a. livermore, then settled in keene, n.h., as the editor. in the work came under the control of the american unitarian association, and as the year book of the denomination it was edited by the secretary or his assistant. from to the year book was issued as a part of the december number of the monthly journal of the american unitarian association. the bible christian was begun in at toronto by rev. john cordner, the minister there, and was continued as a semi-monthly for a brief period. the unitarian and foreign religious miscellany was published in boston during , with rev. george e. ellis as the editor. it was a monthly magazine devoted to the explanation and defence of unitarian christianity; and its contents were mostly selected from the english unitarian periodicals, especially the prospective review, the monthly reformer, bible christian, the unitarian, and the inquirer. during this period the christian examiner had its largest influence upon the denomination, and came to an end. its scholarship and its liberality made it of interest to only a limited constituency, and the publisher was compelled to discontinue it at the end of from lack of adequate support. it was edited from the beginning by the ablest men. rev. james walker and rev. francis w.p. greenwood became the editors in , rev. william ware taking the place of dr. walker in . from to rev. ezra s. gannett and rev. alvan lamson were the editors, and they were succeeded by rev. george putnam and rev. george e. ellis. in july, , rev. frederic h. hedge and rev. edward e. hale became the editors, and continued until . then the editorship was assumed by rev. thomas b. fox, who was for several years its owner and publisher; and he was assisted as editor by rev. joseph h. allen. the magazine was purchased by mr. james miller in , who removed it to new york. dr. henry w. bellows became the editor, and mr. allen continued as assistant, until it was discontinued with the december number, . one of the purposes which found expression after the awakening of was the establishment of a large popular weekly religious journal that should reach all classes of liberals throughout the country. the christian inquirer was changed into the liberal christian with the number for december , ; and under this name it appeared in a larger and more vigorous form. dr. bellows was the editor, and contributors were sought from all classes of liberal christians. the effort made to establish an able undenominational journal, of a broad and progressive but distinctly liberal type, was energetic; but the time was not ready for it. with december , , the paper became the inquirer, which was continued to the close of . there was also planned in a monthly journal that should be everywhere acceptable in the homes of liberals of every kind. in january, , appeared the old and new, a large monthly magazine, combining popular and scholarly features. the editors were dr. edward e. hale and mr. frederic b. perkins. in its pages were first published dr. hale's ten times ten, and also many of the chapters of dr. james martineau's seat of authority in religion. it was discontinued with the number for december, . the monthly religious magazine was discontinued with the february issue of ; and the next month appeared the unitarian review and religious magazine, edited by rev. charles lowe. when lowe died, in june, , he was succeeded by rev. henry h. barber and rev. james de normandie. in dr. j.h. allen became the editor,--a position he held until the magazine was discontinued, in december, . in march, , was begun in chicago the publication of the pamphlet mission, a semi-monthly issue of sermons for missionary circulation, with a dozen pages of news added in a supplement. in september the name was changed to unity; and this publication grew into a small fortnightly journal, representing the interests of the western unitarian conference. a few years later it became a weekly; and it has continued as the representative of the more radical unitarian opinions, though in it became the special organ of the liberal congress. the chief editorial management has been in the hands of rev. jenkin ll. jones. the unitarian was begun in chicago by rev. brooke herford and rev. jabez t. sunderland with january, , as the organ of the more conservative members of the western conference. in june, , this monthly magazine was removed to ann arbor, mr. sunderland becoming the managing editor; and in the office of publication was removed to boston, and rev. frederic b. mott became the assistant editor. in the magazine was merged into the christian register. in the rising faith was published at manchester, n.h., as a monthly, and continued for two or three years. in august, , the guidon appeared in san francisco; and in november, , it became the pacific unitarian, a monthly representing the interests of the unitarian churches on the pacific coast. mr. charles a. murdock has been the editor. the southern unitarian was begun at atlanta, ga., january, ; and it was published for five years as a monthly by the southern conference. in december, , was begun at davenport, ia., with rev. arthur m. judy as editor, a monthly parish paper, called old and new. other parishes joined in its publication, and in it became the organ of the iowa unitarian association. in it was published in chicago, with rev. a.w. gould as the editor, in behalf of the interests of the western conference. in september, , its publication was resumed in davenport by mr. judy; and a year later it became again the organ of the iowa association. the new world, a quarterly review of religion, ethics, and theology, was begun in boston, march, , and was discontinued with the december number for . its editors were dr. c.c. everett, dr. c.h. toy, dr. orello cone, with rev. n.p. gilman as managing editor. the church exchange began in june, , and was published as a monthly at portland, in the interest of the maine conference of unitarian churches, with rev. john c. perkins as editor. in - it was published at farmington, and in - mr. h.p. white was the editor. since it has been published in portland, with mr. perkins as editor. the above list of periodicals is not complete. more detailed information is desirable, and that the list may be made, full and accurate to date. index. _the foot-notes and appendix have been included in the index with the text._ abbot, abiel (beverly), , , , , . abbot, abiel (peterboro), . abbot, ezra, , . abbot, francis ellingwood, - , , , , , . abolitionists, . adam, , . adam, william, - . adams, hannah, , . adams, herbert w., , . adams, john, , , . , , . adams, john quincy, , . adams, phineas, . african methodist episcopal church, , . agassiz, louis, , , . albee, john, . alcott, amos bronson, , , , . alcott, louisa m., , , . alger, william rounseville, , , , , . allen, joseph, , , , , , . allen, joseph henry, , , , , , , , . allison, william b., , . allston, washington, , . allyn, john, , . american literature, , , , , . "american unitarianism," , , - . ames, charles gordon, , . ames, fisher, . ames, oliver, . amory, john c., . andover theological school, . andrew, john albion, , , , , , , . angell, george t., . animals, humane treatment of, , . anonymous association, . anthology club, . anthology, monthly, , , . anthony, henry b., , . anthony, susan b., . antinomianism, . antioch college, , , , , . anti-slavery, , , , - . appleton, nathan, . arianism, , , , , , , , , . arminianism, , , , , - , , , , , , , , , , , . arminius, . artists, . association of benevolent societies, . association of young men, - , . autumnal conventions, - , . auxiliaries of american unitarian association, . ayer, adams, . ballou, hosea, . baltimore, - . bancroft, aaron, , , , , , , , , . bancroft, george, , , , . baptists, , , , , . barnard, charles f., , , , , , . barnard, thomas, . barrett, samuel, , , , , . barry, joseph, . bartol, cyrus augustus, , , , , , . batchelor, george, , , . beecher, henry ward, . beecher, lyman, . belknap, jeremy, , , . bellamy, joseph, , , , . bellows, henry whitney, , , , , - , - , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . belsham, thomas, , , . benevolent fraternity of churches, , , , . bentley, william, , , . bergh, henry, . berry street conference, , , . bible, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . bible societies, , , . bigelow, andrew, . birthright church, , . bixby, james t., , . blackwell, antoinette brown, . blackwell, henry b., . blake, h.g.o., . bond, edward p., . bond, george, , . bond, henry f., , . book distribution, , , , , . boston, , , , , , , , , , - , . boston observer, the, . boston provident association, , . boutwell, george s., , . bowditch, henry i., . bowditch, nathaniel, , , . bowditch, william i., . bowdoin, james, , . bowles & dearborn, . bowles, leonard c., . brackett, j.q.a., . bradford, alden, , , , , , . bradford, george p., . bradlee, caleb d., . bradley, amy, , . brattle street church, , , , , , , , , , , . breck, robert, . briant, lemuel, , . bridgman, laura, . briggs, charles, , , , . briggs, george w., , , . brigham, charles h., , , , , . british and foreign unitarian association, , , . brooks, charles, , . brooks, charles t., , , , , . brooks fund, . brown, howard n., , . bryant, william cullen, , , , , , , . buckminster, j.s., , , , , . bulfinch, charles, . bulfinch, stephen g., , , , , , , . burleigh, celia c., , . burleigh, william h., . burnap, george w., . burnside, ambrose e., . burroughs, john, . burton, warren, , , , . bushnell, horace, . calcutta, , , , . calhoun, john c., , . calvinism, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . carpenter, lant, . carpenter, mary, . cary, george l., . "catholic christians," , , . catholicism, , , , . chadwick, john white, , , , , , . chaney, george l., . channing, george g., , . channing, william ellery, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , - , , , , , , , . channing, william ellery, poet, . channing, william henry, , , , , , , , , , , , . chapin, henry, . chapman, maria w., , . charity work, , , - , - , . charleston, s.c., . chauncy, charles, second president harvard college, . chauncy, charles, minister first church in boston, , , , , , - , , , . cheerful letter exchange, . cheney, ednah d., , , , , . chicago, , . child, david lee, . child, lydia maria, , , . children's mission, , - . chillingworth, william, , , , , , . choate, joseph h., . christ, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . christian connection, , , , , , . christian examiner, the, , , , , , . christian inquirer, the, , . christian monitor, the, . christian register, the, - , , , , , , , , , , , , . christian union, boston, young men's, , , , . christian unions, , . christian world, the, , , . christianity, - , , , , , , , , , , , , , - , , , , . christians, , , , , , , , , , , . church, , , , , , , , , , . church and state, , , , , , - , , , - , - . church building loan fund, . church membership, - , , , . church of the disciples, , . civil service reform, - . civil war, , - , , . clark university, . clarke, james freeman, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . clarke, samuel, , - , , , . clarke, sarah freeman, . clifford, john h., . codding, ichabod, , . codman, john, . college town missions, , . collyer, robert, , , , . colporters, , . commerce, . committee on fellowship, , . conant, augustus h., , , , . conference, berry street, , , . confirmation, , . congregational independence, , . congregationalism, , , , , , , , , , . contributions to american unitarian association, , , , , , , , , , , . convention, autumnal, - , . conversion, , , , , . conway, moncure d., , . cooper institute, , . cooper, peter, , , . cordner, john, , . cornell university, . corporate idea of church, , , - , . country week, . covenants, church, . cranch, christopher, p., , . cranch, william, , . creeds, , , , , , , . crocker, lucretia, , , . crosby, nichols & co., . crosby, william, . cudworth, warren h., . curtis, benjamin r., . curtis, george ticknor, . curtis, george william, , , , , - , . cutter, george w., . dall, caroline healey, , , , , , . dall, charles, h.a., , - , . dane, nathan, , , . davis, john, . dedham, , , , , . deism, . democratic tendencies, , , , , , , . depositaries, , , . depravity of man, , , , , . devotional library, . dewey, orville, , , , , , , , , , . dexter, henry m., . dexter, samuel, , . dickens, charles, . dillingham, pitt, . disciple, the christian, - . dix, dorothea, , , - . dole, charles f., , . douthit, jasper l., . doyle, j.a., . dunster, henry, . dwight, edmund, , . dwight, john s., , , , . eaton, dorman b., , . education, , , , - , , , , - , , . education in south, - , , . education of indians, - . edwards, jonathan, - , . effinger, j.r., . eliot, charles w., , , , . eliot, rev. samuel a., , . eliot, samuel a., , , , . eliot, thomas d., , . eliot, william g., , , , , , , , , . ellis, george e., , , , , . ellis, rufus, , , . ellis, sallie, , . emerson, george b., , . emerson, ralph waldo, , , , , , , , , , , , , . emerson, william, , , . emlyn, thomas, , . emmons, nathaniel, . equality, , . evangelical missionary society, , , . everett, charles carroll, , , , - , . everett, edward, , , , , , , , , , , , , . everett, william, . exchange of pulpits, . farley, frederic a., , , . fearing, albert, , . federal (now arlington) street church, , , , , , , , . fellowship, unitarian, , , , - , , . fellowship with other religious bodies, - , . felton, cornelius c., . fields, james t., , . fillmore, millard, , . first church of boston, , . fiske, john, , , . flagg, j.f., , . flower mission, . follen, charles, , . follen, eliza lee, , . folsom, nathaniel, , . forbes, john murray, . forbush, t.b., . forman, j.g., , , . forster, anthony, . fox, george w., , , - . fox, thomas b., , , . francis, convers, , , , , . francke, kuno, . franklin, benjamin, , , . fraternity of churches, benevolent, , , , . freedman's bureau, , . freedom of thought, , , , , , , , - , , , , , , , , , . freeman, james, , , , , , , , . free religion, , , . free religious association, , - , , , . french, daniel c., . friend of peace, . friends, . frothingham, nathaniel l., , , , , . frothingham, octavius b., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . fuller, margaret, , , , , . furness, william henry, , , , , , , , . galvin, edward i., , . gannett, ezra stiles, , , , - , , , , , , , , - , , , . gannett, william c., - , , , . garrison, william lloyd, , , , . gay, ebenezer, - , . general repositary, the, , . giddings, joshua r., . gierke, otto, . giles, henry, , . gilman, samuel, , , . god, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . goodell, william, . gore, christopher, . gould, allen w., , , . gould, benjamin, . grant, moses, , , , , . graves, mary h., . gray, frederic t., , , , , , , , , , . great awakening, , , . greene, benjamin h., , . greenhalge, frederic t., . greenwood, francis w.p., , , , , , , . greenwood, grace (mrs. lippincott), , . hale, edward everett, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . hale, george s., . hale, john p., , . hale, lucretia p., , , . half-way covenant, , , , . hall, asaph, . hall, edward brooks, , , , , . hall, nathaniel, , . hall, nathaniel, the younger, . hamlin, hannibal, . hampton institute, , . hancock, john, . hancock sunday-school, , , . harte, bret, . harvard college, , , , , , , , , , - , . harvard divinity school, - , , , , , , , , , , . hawthorne, nathaniel, , . haynes, george h., . hazlitt, rev. william, , - . hedge, frederic h., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . hemenway, augustus, . hemenway, mary, - . hepworth, george h., , . herford, brooke, , , . heywood, john h., , , . higginson, stephen, , . higginson, thomas wentworth, , , , , , , , . higher criticism, - . hildreth, richard, , . hill, thomas, , , , , . historians, - . hoar, ebenezer rockwood, , , , . hoar, george frisbie, , , , . holland, frederick west, , , . hollis professorship, , , . holmes, oliver wendell, - . hooker, thomas, , . hopkins, samuel, . horton, edward a., . hosmer, frederick l., , , . hosmer, george w., , , , , . hosmer, harriet, . hosmer, james kendall, , , . howard, simeon, , . howard sunday-school, , , . howe, julia ward, , , , , , , . howe, samuel g., , - , . howells, william d., . huidekoper, frederic, , , . huidekoper, harm jan, - . hunt, john, , . hunting, sylvan s., , . huntington, frederic d., , , . hymns of unitarians, , . idealism, . independents, . index, the, , . india, , , , . individualism, - , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , - . insane, care of, - . international council, , . intuition, , , . jackson, charles, , . jackson, helen hunt, . jackson, james, . japan, - . japanese unitarian association, - . jefferson, thomas, , - , . jenckes, thomas a., . johnson, samuel, , , , , , . jones, jenkin lloyd, , , , , . judd, sylvester, , , , , , . julian, george w., , . kanda, saichiro, , . kendall, james, . kentucky, . khasi hills, , . kidder, henry p., , , , . kindergarten, , . king's chapel, , , , , , . king, starr, , , , , . kirkland, caroline, , . kirkland, john t., , , , , , , , . knapp, arthur m., . knapp, frederick n., . kneeland, john, . ladies' commission on sunday-school books, - . lafargue, paul, . lamson, alvan, , , , . latitudinarianism, , . lawrence, abbott, , . lawrence, amos, , , . leland stanford, jr., university, . leonard, levi w., . liberal christian, the, . liberal preacher, the, . liberalism, , , , , , , , - , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . liberator, the, . liberty, , , , . libraries, , , . lincoln, abraham, , . lincoln, calvin, , . lincoln, levi, . lindsey, theophilus, , . little, robert, . liturgy, , . livermore, abiel abbot, , , , , , . livermore, leonard j., . livermore, mary a., , . local conferences, - , , . locke, john, , , , , . long, john d., , . longfellow, henry w., , . longfellow, samuel, , , , , , , . longfellow, stephen, , . lord's supper, , . loring, charles g., . loring, ellis gray, , . lothrop, samuel k., , , , , , , . lovering, joseph, . low, a.a., . lowe, charles, , , , , , , , , , , , , . lowell, charles, , , , , , , , , , . lowell, francis cabot, , . lowell institute, , . lowell, james russell, , , , . lowell, john, , . lowell, john amory, , . lunt, william parsons, . maccauley, clay, , . mccrary, george w., , . maine conference of unitarian churches, . mann, horace. , , , , - . mann, mrs. horace, , . marshall, john, , . marshall, j.b.f., , . martineau, james, , .. mason, l.b., , . massachusetts congregational charitable society, . massachusetts convention of congregational ministers, . may, abby williams, , , . may, col. joseph, , , . may, rev. joseph, . may, samuel, - , . may, samuel j., , , , , , , , , , , , , , . mayhew, experience, , . mayhew, jonathan, , , , , , - , , , . mayo, amory d., , , , . mead, edwin d., . mead, larkin g., . meadville theological school, , , , - . methodism, , . miles, henry a., , , , . miller, samuel f., , . milton, john, , , , , , , . ministry at large, - . miracles, , , , , . missions, domestic, , , , - , , , , - , . mitchell, maria, . montana industrial school, , , . monthly journal of american unitarian association, , , . monthly miscellany, the, . monthly religious magazine, . morehouse, daniel w., . morison, john h., , , , , . morrill, justin s., . morse, jedediah, , , . motley, john lothrop, . mott, lucretia, , . mumford, thomas j., , , , . munroe, james, & co., . muzzey, artemas m., , , , , , . national conference: origin, - ; syracuse session, ; change in constitution, ; hepworth's amendment, ; protests against dropping names from year book, ; formation of local conferences, - ; revision of constitution, in , ; adjustment of conference and association, ; temperance resolutions, ; women represented, ; organ proposed, . new divinity, . new hampshire unitarian association, . new york, , , , . new york convention, - . newell, frederick r., , , . newell, william, , , . newell, william wells, , . nichols, ichabod, , , . nitti, f.s., . north american review, , . northampton, , , , . norton, andrews, , - , , , , , , , , , , , , , . norton, charles, eliot, , , , . novelists, , . noyes, george rapall, , , , , , , . nute, ephraim, , . old and new, . old south historical work, - . oriental religions, . orton, edward, . osgood, samuel, , , , , . "other christian churches," , , . otis, harrison gray, , . oxnard, thomas, . palfrey, cazneau, , . palfrey, john g., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . panoplist, the, , . parish, , . parker, isaac, , . parker, theodore, - , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . parkman, francis, historian, . parkman, john, , . parkman, rev. francis, , , , , , , , . parsons, theophilus, , , , , . parton, james, . peabody, andrew p., , , , , , , , , , . peabody, elizabeth p., , , , . peabody, ephraim, , , , , , . peabody, francis g., . peabody, w.b.o., , . peace movement, - . peace societies, , . peirce, benjamin, . perkins institute for the blind, , , . perkins, thomas h., , , . phillips, jonathan, , , . phillips, stephen c., . pickering, edward c., . pickering, john, . pickering, timothy, , . pierce, cyrus, , , . pierce, john, , , , , . pierpont, john, , , , , , , , , , . pillsbury, parker, , . piper, george f., . pitts street chapel, , , . plymouth, , , . poets, - . poor, care of, , , , , , . porter, eliphalet, . portland, , . post-office mission, , . potter, william j., , , , , , . pratt, enoch, , , . pray, lewis g., . prescott, william hickling, , , , . priestley, joseph, , , , , , . primitive christianity, , , , . prince, john, , , . prison reform, , , , . protestantism, , , , , , , , . publishing fund society, , , . publishing interests, , , , , , , . puritanism, , , , , , . puritans, , . putnam, alfred p., , . putnam, george, , , . pynchon, william, , . quarterly journal of american unitarian association, . quincy, edmund, . quincy, josiah, , , , , , , , . radical, the, . radicalism, , , , , , , , . rammohun roy, . rantoul, robert, , , . rationalism, , , , , , , , , , , . reason, , , - , , , , . reed, david, , , , , , . reforms, , . revelation, , , , , , , , . reynolds, grindall, , , . ripley, ezra, , , . ripley, george, , , , , . ripley, samuel. , . robbins, chandler, , , . roberts, william, , . robinson, george d., . robinson, john, , . roman catholic church, , , . saco, . safford, mary a., . st. louis, , , , , . salem, , , , , , , , , , . saltonstall, leverett, , , , . saltonstall, sir richard, , . san francisco, , , . sanborn, frank b., , . sanitary commission, , - , , . sargent, john t., , , . savage, minot j., , . scandlin, william g., , , . scientists, , . scudder, eliza, . sears, edmund h., , , , , . sectarianism, , , , , , , , . sedgwick, catherine m., , , . sewall, edmund q., . sewall, samuel e., , , . shaw, lemuel, , . shaw, robert gould, . sherman, john, , . shippen, rush r., , , . shute, daniel, , , . sill, edward rowland, , . sin, original, . singh, hajom kissor, , . sloan, w.m., . smith, gerrit, , , . smith, mary p. wells, , . socialism in the church, , , , , , . society for promoting christian knowledge, piety, and charity, , , . society for promoting theological education, , . society for propagating the gospel, . society to encourage home studies, , . socinianism, , , . solemn review of custom of war, , . sparks, jared, , , , , , , , , , , , . spaulding, henry g., . spirit of the pilgrims, the, . spofford harriet prescott, . sprague, charles, , . stanton, elizabeth cady, . staples, carlton a., , , , . staples, nahor a., , , . stearns, oliver, , , . stebbins, horatio, . stebbins, rufus, p., , , , , , , , , . stedman, edmund c., . stetson, caleb, , , . stevenson, hannah e., , . stoddard, richard henry, . stoddard, solomon, , , , , . stone, lucy, - . stone, thomas t., , , . story, joseph, , , , , , , , , , , . story, william wetmore, . stowe, harriet beecher, . strong, caleb, . sullivan, james, . sullivan, richard, , . sullivan, thomas e., , . sumner, charles, , , , , , . sunday-school papers, , - , , . sunday-schools, , , - ; origin of, ; boston society, ; growth of, ; first publications, ; local societies, ; paper, ; national society, ; awakening interest, ; george f. piper as secretary, ; henry g. spaulding, ; edward a. horton, ; western society, ; unity clubs, ; religious union, ; ladies' commission, , . sunderland, jabez t., , - , . talbot, thomas, . tappan, lewis, , , . taylor, bayard, , . taylor, edward t., "father taylor," , . taylor, jeremy, , , , , . taylor, john, of norwich, . temperance reform, , , , - . thacher, samuel c., , , , , . thayer, nathaniel, . theatre preaching, , . theological library, . thomas, moses g., . thompson, james w., , , . thoreau, henry d., , . ticknor, anna e., , . ticknor, george, , , , , , . tilden, william p., . tileston, thomas, . tillotson, john, , , , . toleration, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . toy, crawford h., , . tracts, - , , , , . tracts, distribution of, , , , . transcendentalism, , , , , , . trinity, , , , , , , , , , , , , . trowbridge, john t., . tucker, john, . tuckerman, henry t., , . tuckerman, joseph, , , , , - , , , , , , , , , , , , . tudor, william, . tullock, john, . tuskegee institute, . unitarian advocate, . unitarian association, american, ; discussion in anonymous association, ; meeting at house of josiah quincy, ; gannett's statement of purpose, ; printed report of committee, ; meeting in federal street church, ; discussion as to advisability of organizing, ; announcement at berry street conference, ; organization, ; officers, ; name selected, ; work of first year, ; first annual meeting, ; missionary tour of moses g. thomas, ; effort to absorb other societies, ; report of directors, ; attitude of churches, ; receipts, ; presidents, ; secretaries, ; missionary agents, ; incorporation, ; tracts, ; depositaries, ; book and pamphlet society, ; distribution of books, ; colporters, ; missionary work in new england, ; work in south and west, ; tour of secretary, ; contributions for domestic missions, ; work of first quarter-century, ; influence of radicalism, ; indifference of churches, ; officers, ; quarterly and monthly journal, ; tracts and books, ; theological library, ; devotional library, ; publishing firm, ; missionary activities, ; association and western conference, ; work during civil war, ; results of fifteen years, ; meeting to consider interests of association, ; vote to raise $ , , ; success, ; convention in new; york, ; organization of national conference, ; work planned, ; new life in association, ; contributions, ; new theological position, ; organization of free religious association, ; attempts at reconciliation, ; demand for creed, ; year book controversy, ; attitude of unitarians, ; missionary work, ; charles lowe as secretary, ; fires in chicago and boston, ; work in west, ; college town missions, ; theatre preaching, ; organization of local conferences, ; fellowship and fraternity, ; results of denominational awakening, ; western issue, ; constitution of , ; fellowship with universalists, ; officers, ; adoption of representation, ; co-operation of association and national conference, ; building loan fund, ; unitarian building, ; seventy-fifth anniversary, ; ministry at large, ; aid to sunday school society, ; fellowship with foreign unitarians, ; relations with british association, ; dall in india, ; work in japan, ; educational work in south, , ; educational work for indians, ; attitude towards slavery, ; formation of international council, . unitarian association, british and foreign, , , . unitarian beliefs, , , , , , , , , - , , , , - , , , , , , , , , , , , . unitarian book and pamphlet society, , . unitarian church association of maine, , . unitarian hymnology, , . unitarian miscellany, the, - . unitarian monitor, the, . unitarian name, , , , , , , . unitarian review, . unitarian temperance society, , , . unitarian, the ( ), . unitarian, the ( ), , . unitarianism, american, , , , , - , , , , , , , , , , , , , - , , , , , , , - , , , , , , - . unity, , . unity clubs, - . unity of god, , . universalism, - , , , , , , , , . universality of religion, , . vane, sir henry, , . very, jones, , , , . walcutt, robert f., , . walker, james, , , , , , - , , , , , , , , . walker, james p., , , , , . walker, williston, , . walter, cornelia w., . war, , - . ware, dr. henry, , , , , . ware, henry, the younger, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . ware, dr. john, . ware, john f. w, , , . ware, william, , , , , , , . warren street chapel, , , . washington, , , , . washington, george, , . washington university, , . wasson, david a., , , , , . waterston, robert c., , . webster, daniel, , , , . webster, samuel, . weeden, william b., . weiss, john, , , , , . weld, angelina grimké, , . weld, theodore d., , . wells, john, , . wendell, barrett, , . wendte, charles w., , , , . west, samuel, , , . west, unitarianism in the, - , . western conference, - , , , , - , , , . "western issue," - . western messenger, the, , . western ministers, , . western unitarian association, . wheaton, henry, , . whipple, edwin p., . white, andrew d., . whitefield, george, , , . whitman, bernard, , . whitman, jason, , , . whitman, walter, . whitney, leonard, , . whittier, john g., , . wigglesworth, dr., . wigglesworth, thomas, . wilkes, eliza tupper, . willard, samuel, , . williams, john e., . williams, roger, , , . willson, edmund b., , , . winkley, samuel h., . wise, john, - . wolcott, j.h., . wolcott, roger, . women, , , , - , , , , - , - , , . women's alliance, - . women's auxiliary, . women's western unitarian conference, , . woodbury, augustus, . worcester, , , . worcester association of ministers, , . worcester, noah, , - , , , , , , , . wright, carroll d., , . wyman, jeffries, , . yale college, . year book of american unitarian association, , . young, alexander, , , , , . young people's religious union, . speeches, addresses, and occasional sermons, by theodore parker, minister of the twenty-eighth congregational church in boston. in three volumes. vol. iii. boston: horace b. fuller, (successor to walker, fuller, and company,) , washington street. . entered according to act of congress, in the year , by theodore parker, in the clerk's office of the district court of the district of massachusetts. contents of volume iii. i. a speech at a meeting of the citizens of boston in faneuil hall, march , , to consider the speech of mr. webster page ii. a speech at the new england anti-slavery convention in boston, may , iii. a discourse occasioned by the death of the late president taylor.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, july , iv. the function and place of conscience, in relation to the laws of men; a sermon for the times.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, september , v. the state of the nation, considered in a sermon for thanksgiving day.--preached at the melodeon, november , vi. the chief sins of the people.--a sermon delivered at the melodeon, on fast day, april , vii. the three chief safeguards of society, considered in a sermon at the melodeon, on sunday, july , viii. the position and duties of the american scholar.--an address delivered at waterville, august , i. speech at a meeting of the citizens of boston, in faneuil hall, march , , to consider the speech of mr. webster. mr. president and fellow citizens: it is an important occasion which has brought us together. a great crisis has occurred in the affairs of the united states. there is a great question now before the people. in any european country west of russia and east of spain, it would produce a revolution, and be settled with gunpowder. it narrowly concerns the material welfare of the nation. the decision that is made will help millions of human beings into life, or will hinder and prevent millions from being born. it will help or hinder the advance of the nation in wealth for a long time to come. it is a question which involves the honor of the people. your honor and my honor are concerned in this matter, which is presently to be passed upon by the people of the united states. more than all this, it concerns the morality of the people. we are presently to do a right deed, or to inflict a great wrong on others and on ourselves, and thereby entail an evil upon this continent which will blight and curse it for many an age. it is a great question, comprising many smaller ones:--shall we extend and foster slavery, or shall we extend and foster freedom? slavery, with its consequences, material, political, intellectual, moral; or freedom, with the consequences thereof? a question so important seldom comes to be decided before any generation of men. this age is full of great questions, but this of freedom is the chief. it is the same question which in other forms comes up in europe. this is presently to be decided here in the united states by the servants of the people, i mean, by the congress of the nation; in the name of the people; for the people, if justly decided; against them, if unjustly. if it were to be left to-morrow to the naked votes of the majority, i should have no fear. but the public servants of the people may decide otherwise. the political parties, as such, are not to pass judgment. it is not a question between whigs and democrats; old party distinctions, once so sacred and rigidly observed, here vanish out of sight. the party of slavery or the party of freedom is to swallow up all the other parties. questions about tariffs and banks can hardly get a hearing. on the approach of a battle, men do not talk of the weather. four great men in the senate of the united states have given us their decision; the four most eminent in the party politics of the nation--two great whigs, two great democrats. the shibboleth of their party is forgotten by each; there is a strange unanimity in their decision. the herod of free trade and the pilate of protection are "made friends," when freedom is to be crucified. all four decide adverse to freedom; in favor of slavery; against the people. their decisions are such as you might look for in the politicians of austria and russia. many smaller ones have spoken on this side or on that. last of all, but greatest, the most illustrious of the four, so far as great gifts of the understanding are concerned, a son of new england, long known, and often and deservedly honored, has given his decision. we waited long for his words; we held our peace in his silence; we listened for his counsel. here it is; adverse to freedom beyond the fears of his friends, and the hopes even of his foes. he has done wrong things before, cowardly things more than once; but this, the wrongest and most cowardly of them all: we did not look for it. no great man in america has had his faults or his failings so leniently dealt with; private scandal we will not credit, public shame we have tried to excuse, or, if inexcusable, to forget. we have all of us been proud to go forward and honor his noble deeds, his noble efforts, even his noble words. i wish we could take a mantle big and black enough, and go backward and cover up the shame of the great man who has fallen in the midst of us, and hide him till his honor and his conscience shall return. but no, it cannot be; his deed is done in the face of the world, and nothing can hide it. we have come together to-night in faneuil hall, to talk the matter over, in our new england way; to look each other in the face; to say a few words of warning, a few of counsel, perhaps something which may serve for guidance. we are not met here to-night to "calculate the value of the union," but to calculate the worth of freedom and the rights of man; to calculate the value of the wilmot proviso. let us be cool and careful, not violent, not rash; true and firm, not hasty or timid. important matters have brought our fathers here many times before now. before the revolution, they came here to talk about the molasses act, or the sugar act, or the stamp act, the boston port bill, and the long list of grievances which stirred up their manly stomachs to the revolution; afterwards, they met to consult about the embargo, and the seizure of the chesapeake, and many other matters. not long ago, only five years since, we came here to protest against the annexation of texas. but before the revolution or after it, meetings have seldom been called in faneuil hall on such solemn occasions as this. not only is there a great public wrong contemplated, as in the annexation of texas, but the character and conduct of a great public servant of the people come up to be looked after. this present conduct of mr. webster is a thing to be solemnly considered. a similar thing once happened before. in , a senator from massachusetts was disposed to accept a measure the president had advised, because he had "recommended" it "on his high responsibility." "i would _not consider_," said the senator, "i would _not deliberate_, i would _act_."[ ] he did so; and with little deliberation, with small counsel, as men thought at the time, he voted for the embargo, and the embargo came. this was a measure which doomed eight hundred thousand tons of shipping to rot at the wharf. it touched the pockets of new england and all the north. it affected the daily meals of millions of men. there was indignation, deep and loud indignation; but it was political in its nature and personal in its form; the obnoxious measure was purely political, not obviously immoral and unjust. but, long as john quincy adams lived, much as he did in his latter years for mankind, he never wholly wiped off the stain which his conduct then brought upon him. yet it may be that he was honest in his vote; it may have been an error of judgment, and nothing more; nay, there are men who think it was no error at all, but a piece of political wisdom. a senator of massachusetts has now committed a fault far greater than was ever charged upon mr. adams by his most inveterate political foes. it does not directly affect the shipping of new england and the north: i wish it did. it does not immediately concern our daily bread; if it were so, the contemplated wrong would receive a speedy adjustment. but it concerns the liberty of millions of men yet unborn. let us look at the matter carefully. here is a profile of our national action on the subject now before the people. in , we agreed to import no more slaves after that year, and never finally repealed this act of agreement. in , we declared that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in , we formed the confederacy, with no provision for the surrender of fugitive slaves. in , we shut out slavery from the northwest territory for ever, by the celebrated proviso of mr. jefferson. in , the constitution was formed, with its compromises and guarantees. in , the importation of slaves was forbidden. but, in , we annexed louisiana, and slavery along with it. in , we annexed florida, with more slavery. in , we legally established slavery in the territory west of the mississippi, south of deg. min. in , we annexed texas, with three hundred and twenty-five thousand five hundred and twenty square miles, as a slave state. in , we acquired, by conquest and by treaty, the vast territory of california and new mexico, containing five hundred and twenty-six thousand and seventy-eight square miles. of this, two hundred and four thousand three hundred and eighty-three square miles are south of the slave line--south of deg. min. here is territory enough to make more than thirty slave states of the size of massachusetts. at the present day, it is proposed to have some further action on the matter of slavery. connected with this subject, four great questions come up to be decided:-- . shall four new slave states at any time be made out of texas? this is not a question which is to be decided at present, yet it is one of great present importance, and furnishes an excellent test of the moral character and political conduct of politicians at this moment. the other questions are of immediate and pressing concern. here they are:-- . shall slavery be prohibited in california? . shall slavery be prohibited in new mexico? . what laws shall be passed relative to fugitive slaves? mr. webster, in this speech, defines his position in regard to each of these four questions. . in regard to the new states to be made hereafter out of texas, he gives us his opinion, in language well studied, and even with an excess of caution. let us look at it, and the resolution which annexed texas. that declares that "new states ... not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of texas ... may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. and such states ... shall be admitted with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire." i will not stop to consider the constitutionality of the joint resolution which annexed texas. mr. webster's opinion on that subject is well known. but the resolution does two things: . it confers a power, the power to make four new states on certain conditions; a qualified power, restricted by the terms of the act. d. it imposes an obligation, namely, the obligation to leave it to the people of the new state to keep slaves or not, when the state is admitted. the words _may be_, etc., indicate the conferring of a power: the words _shall be_, etc., the imposing of an obligation. but as the power is a qualified power, so is the obligation a qualified obligation; the _shall be_ is dependent on the _may be_, as much as the _may be_ on the _shall_. admitting in argument what mr. webster has denied, that congress had the constitutional right to annex texas by joint resolution, and also that the resolution of one congress binds the future congress, it is plain congress may admit new states from texas, on those conditions, or refuse to admit them. this is plain, by any fair construction of the language. the resolution does not say, they _shall_ be formed, only "_may_ be formed," and "shall be entitled to admission, under the provisions of the federal constitution"--not in spite of those provisions. the provisions of the constitution, in relation to the formation and admission of new states, are well known, and sufficiently clear. congress is no more bound to admit a new slave state formed out of texas, than out of kentucky. but mr. webster seems to say that congress is bound to make four new states out of texas, when there is sufficient population to warrant the measure, and a desire for it in the states themselves, and to admit them with a constitution allowing slavery. he says, "its guaranty is, that new states shall be made out of it,... and that such states ... may come in as slave states," etc. quite the contrary. it is only said they "_may be_ formed," and admitted "under the provisions of the constitution." the _shall be_ does not relate to the fact of admission. then he says, there is "a solemn pledge," "that if she shall be divided into states, those states may come in as slave states." but there is no "solemn pledge" that they _shall come_ in at all. i make a "solemn pledge" to john doe, that if ever i give him any land, it shall be a thousand acres in the meadows on connecticut river; but it does not follow from this that i am bound to give john doe any land at all. this solemn pledge is worth nothing, if congress says to new states, you shall not come in with your slave constitution. to make this "stipulation with texas" binding, it ought to have provided that "new states ... shall be formed out of the territory thereof ... such states shall be entitled to admission, in spite of the provisions of the constitution." even then it would be of no value; for as there can be no moral obligation to do an immoral deed, so there can be no constitutional obligation to do an unconstitutional deed. so much for the first question. you see that mr. webster proposes to do what we never stipulated to do, what is not "so nominated in the bond." he wrests the resolution against freedom, and for the furtherance of the slave power! and . mr. webster has given his answer to the second and third questions, which may be considered as a single question, shall slavery be legally forbidden by congress in california and new mexico? mr. webster is opposed to the prohibition by congress. here are his words: "now, as to california and new mexico, i hold slavery to be excluded from those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in texas. i mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law of the formation of the earth."... "i will say further, that if a resolution or a law were now before us to provide a territorial government for new mexico, i would not vote to put any prohibition into it whatever. the use of such a prohibition would be idle, as it respects any effect it would have upon the territory: and i would not take pains to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor to reënact the will of god." "the gentlemen who belong to the southern states would think it a taunt, an indignity; they would think it an act taking away from them what they regard as a proper equality of privilege" ... "a plain theoretic wrong," "more or less derogatory to their character and their rights." "african slavery," he tells us, "cannot exist there." it could once exist in massachusetts and new hampshire. very little of this territory lies north of mason and dixon's line, the northern limit of maryland; none above the parallel of forty-two degrees; none of it extends fifty miles above the northern limit of virginia; two hundred and four thousand three hundred and fifty-three square miles of it lie south of the line of the missouri compromise, south of ° ´. almost all of it is in the latitude of virginia and the carolinas. if slavery can exist on the west coast of the atlantic, i see not why it cannot on the east of the pacific, and all the way between. there is no reason why it cannot. it will, unless we forbid it by positive laws, laws which no man can misunderstand. why, in , it was thought necessary to forbid slavery in the northwest territory, which extends from the ohio river to the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude. not exclude slavery from california and new mexico, because it can never exist there! why, it was there once, and mexico abolished it by positive law. abolished, did i say! we are not so sure of that; i mean, not sure that the senate of the united states is sure of it. not a month before mr. webster made this very speech, on the th and th of last february, mr. davis, the senator from mississippi, maintained that slavery is not abolished in california and new mexico. he denies that the acts abolishing slavery in mexico were made by competent powers; denies that they have the force of law. but even if they have, he tells us, "suppose it be conceded that by law it was abolished--could that law be perpetual? could it extend to the territory after it became the property of the united states? did we admit territory from mexico, subject to the constitution and laws of mexico? did we pay fifteen million dollars for jurisdiction over california and new mexico, that it might be held subordinate to the laws of mexico?" the commissioners of mexico, he tells us, did not think that "we were to be bound by the edicts and statutes of mexico." they pressed this point in the negotiation, "the continuation of their law for the exclusion of slavery;" and mr. trist told them he could not make a treaty on that condition; if they would "offer him the land covered a foot thick with pure gold, upon the single condition that slavery should be excluded therefrom, i could not entertain the offer for a moment." does not mr. webster know this? he knows it too well. but mr. davis goes further. he does not think slavery is excluded by legislation stronger than a joint resolution. this is his language: "i believe it is essential, on account of the climate, productions, soil, and the peculiar character of cultivation, that we shall, during its first settlement, have that slavery [african slavery] in a part, at least, of california and new mexico." now on questions of "a law of nature and physical geography," the senator from mississippi is as good authority as the senator from massachusetts, and a good deal nearer to the facts of the case. in the house of representatives, mr. clingman, of north carolina, amongst others, wants new mexico for slave soil. pass the wilmot proviso over this territory, and the question is settled, disposed of for ever. omit to pass it, and slavery will go there, and you may get it out if you can. once there, it will be said that the "compromises of the constitution" are on its side, and we have no jurisdiction over the slavery which we have established there. hear what mr. foote said of a similar matter on the th of june, , in his place in the senate: "gentlemen have said this is not a practical question, that slaves will never be taken to oregon. with all deference to their opinion, i differ with them totally. i believe, if permitted, slaves would be carried there, and that slavery would continue, at least, as long as in maryland or virginia. ['the whole of oregon' is north of forty-two degrees.] the pacific coast is totally different in temperature from the atlantic. it is far milder.... green peas are eaten in the oregon city at christmas. where is the corresponding climate to be found on this side the continent? where we sit--near the thirty-ninth? no, sir; but to the south of us." "the latitude of georgia gives, on the pacific, a tropical climate." "the prohibition of slavery in the laws of oregon was adopted for the express purpose of excluding slaves." "a few had been brought in; further importations were expected; and it was with a view to put a stop to them, that the prohibitory act was passed." now, mr. foote of mississippi--"hangman foote," as he has been called--understands the laws of the formation of the earth as well as the distinguished senator from massachusetts. why, the inhabitants of that part of the northwest territory, which now forms the states of indiana and illinois, repeatedly asked congress to allow them to introduce slaves north of the ohio; and but for the ordinance of ' , that territory would now be covered with the mildew of slavery! but i have not yet adduced all the testimony of mr. foote. last year, on the d of february, , he declared: "no one acquainted with the vast mineral resources of california and new mexico, and who is aware of the peculiar adaptedness of slave labor to the development of mineral treasures, can doubt for a moment, that were slaves introduced into california and new mexico, being employed in the mining operations there in progress, their labor would result in the acquisition of pecuniary profits not heretofore realized by the most successful cotton or sugar planter of this country?" does not mr. webster know this? perhaps he did not hear mr. foote's speech last year; perhaps he has a short memory, and has forgotten it. then let us remind the nation of what its senator forgets. not know this--forget it? who will credit such a statement? mr. webster is not an obscure clergyman, busy with far different things, but the foremost politician of the united states. but why do i mention the speeches of mr. foote, a year ago? here is something hardly dry from the printing-press. here is an advertisement from the "mississippian" of march th, , the very day of that speech. the "mississippian" is published at the city of jackson, in mississippi. "california, "the southern slave colony. "citizens of the slave states, desirous of emigrating to california with their slave property, are requested to send their names, number of slaves, and period of contemplated departure, to the address of 'southern slave colony,' jackson, miss.... "it is the desire of the friends of this enterprise to settle in the richest mining and agricultural portions of california, and to have the uninterrupted enjoyment of slave property. it is estimated that, by the first of may next, the members of this slave colony will amount to about five thousand, and the slaves to about ten thousand. the mode of effecting organization, &c., will be privately transmitted to actual members. "jackson (miss.), feb. , . "dtf. what does mr. webster say in view of all this? "if a proposition were now here for a government for new mexico, and it was moved to insert a provision for the prohibition of slavery, i would not vote for it." why not vote for it? there is a specious pretence, which is publicly proclaimed, but there is a real reason for it which is not mentioned! in the face of all these facts, mr. webster says that these men would wish "to protect the everlasting snows of canada from the pest of slavery by the same overspreading wing of an act of congress." exactly so. if we ever annex labrador--if we "re-annex" greenland, and kamskatka, i would extend the wilmot proviso there, and exclude slavery forever and forever. but mr. webster would not "reaffirm an ordinance of nature," nor "reënact the will of god." i would. i would reaffirm nothing else, enact nothing else. what is justice but the "ordinance of nature?" what is right but "the will of god?" when you make a law, "thou shalt not kill," what do you but "reënact the will of god?" when you make laws for the security of the "unalienable rights" of man, and protect for every man the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are you not re-affirming an ordinance of nature? not reënact the will of god? why, i would enact nothing else. the will of god is a theological term; it means truth and justice, in common speech. what is the theological opposite to "the will of god?" it is "the will of the devil." one of the two you must enact--either the will of god, or of the devil. the two are the only theological categories for such matters. _aut deus aut diabolus._ there is no other alternative, "choose you which you will serve." so much for the second and third questions. let us now come to the last thing to be considered. what laws shall be enacted relative to fugitive slaves? let us look at mr. webster's opinion on this point. the constitution provides--you all know that too well--that every person "held to service or labor in one state,... escaping into another, shall be delivered up." by whom shall he be delivered up? there are only three parties to whom this phrase can possibly apply. they are, . individual men and women; or, . the local authorities of the states concerned; or, . the federal government itself. it has sometimes been contended that the constitution imposes an obligation on you, and me, and every other man, to deliver up fugitive slaves. but there are no laws or decisions that favor that construction. mr. webster takes the next scheme, and says, "i always thought that the constitution addressed itself to the legislatures of the states, or to the states themselves." "it seems to me that the import of the passage is, that the state itself ... shall cause him [the fugitive] to be delivered up. that is my judgment." but the supreme court, some years ago, decided otherwise, that "the business of seeing that these fugitives are delivered up resides in the power of congress and the national judicature." so the matter stands now. but it is proposed to make more stringent laws relative to the return of fugitive slaves. so continues mr. webster--"my friend at the head of the judiciary committee has a bill on the subject now before the senate, with some amendments to it, which i propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent." everybody knows the act of congress of , relative to the surrender of fugitive slaves, and the decision of the supreme court in the "prigg case," . but everybody does not know the bill of mr. webster's "friend at the head of the judiciary committee." there is a bill providing "for the more effectual execution of the third clause of the second section of the fourth article of the constitution of the united states." it is as follows:-- _"be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the united states of america, in congress assembled_, that when a person held to service or labor, in any state or territory of the united states, under the laws of such state or territory, shall escape into any other of the said states or territories, the person to whom such service or labor may be due, his or her agent, or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from service or labor, and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the united states, or before any commissioner or clerk of such courts, or marshal thereof, or before any postmaster of the united states, or collector of the customs of the united states, residing or being within such state wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made; and, upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge, commissioner, clerk, postmaster, or collector, as the case may be, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by any person authorized to administer an oath under the laws of the united states, or of any state, that the person so seized or arrested, under the laws of the state or territory, from which he or she fled, owes service or labor to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge, commissioner, clerk, marshal, postmaster, or collector, to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, which certificate shall be a sufficient warrant for taking and removing such fugitive from service or labor to the state or territory from which he or she fled. "sec. . _and be it further enacted_, that when a person held to service or labor, as mentioned in the first section of this act, shall escape from such service or labor, therein mentioned, the person to whom such service or labor may be due, his or her agent or attorney, may apply to any one of the officers of the united states named in said section, other than a marshal of the united states, for a warrant to seize and arrest such fugitive; and upon affidavit being made before such officer (each of whom, for the purposes of this act, is hereby authorized to administer an oath or affirmation), by such claimant, his or her agent, that such person does, under the laws of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labor to such claimant, it shall be and is hereby made the duty of such officer, to and before whom such application and affidavits are made to issue his warrant to any marshal of any of the courts of the united states, to seize and arrest such alleged fugitive, and to bring him or her forthwith, or on a day to be named in such warrant, before the officer issuing such warrant, or either of the other officers mentioned in said first section, except the marshal to whom the said warrant is directed, which said warrant or authority, the said marshal is hereby authorized and directed in all things to obey. "sec. . _and be it further enacted_, that upon affidavit made as aforesaid, by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney, after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to apprehend that such fugitive will be rescued by force from his or their possession, before he can be taken beyond the limits of the state in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty of the officer making the arrest, to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to remove him to the state whence he fled, and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent or attorney. and to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required to employ so many persons as he may deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in his service, so long as circumstances may require. the said officer and his assistants, while so employed, to receive the same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses as are now allowed by law, for transportation of criminals, to be certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury of the united states: _provided_, that before such charges are incurred, the claimant, his agent, or attorney, shall secure to said officer payment of the same, and in case no actual force be opposed, then they shall be paid by such claimant, his agent or attorney. "sec. . _and be it further enacted_, when a warrant shall have been issued by any of the officers under the second section of this act, and there shall be no marshal or deputy marshal within ten miles of the place where such warrant is issued, it shall be the duty of the officer issuing the same, at the request of the claimant, his agent, or attorney, to appoint some fit and discreet person, who shall be willing to act as marshal, for the purpose of executing said warrant; and such persons so appointed shall, to the extent of executing such warrant, and detaining and transporting the fugitive named therein, have all the power and the authority, and he, with his assistants, entitled to the same compensation and expenses, provided in this act, in cases where the services are performed by the marshals of the courts. "sec. . _and be it further enacted_, that any person who shall knowingly and wilfully obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent, or attorney, or any person or persons assisting him, her or them, in so serving or arresting such fugitive from service or labor, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent, or attorney, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given or declared, or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor, to escape from such claimant, his agent, or attorney, or shall harbor or conceal such person, after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor, as aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of one thousand dollars, which penalty may be recovered by, and for the benefit of, such claimant, by action of debt in any court proper to try the same, saving, moreover, to the person claiming such labor or service, his right of action for, on account of, the said injuries, or either of them. "sec. . _and be it further enacted_, that when such person is seized and arrested, under and by virtue of the said warrant, by such marshal, and is brought before either of the officers aforesaid, other than said marshal, it shall be the duty of such officer to proceed in the case of such person, in the same way that he is directed and authorized to do, when such person is seized and arrested by the person claiming him, or by his or her agent, or attorney, and is brought before such officer or attorney, under the provisions of the first section of this act." this is the bill known as "mason's bill," introduced by mr. butler of south carolina, on the th of january last. this is the bill which mr. webster proposes to support, "with all its provisions to the fullest extent." it is a bill of abominations, but there are "some amendments to it," which modify the bill a little. look at them. here they are. the first provides in addition to the fine of one thousand dollars for aiding and abetting the escape of a fugitive, for harboring and concealing him, that the offender "shall also be imprisoned twelve months." the second amendment is as follows--"and in no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such fugitive be admitted in evidence." these are mr. mason's amendments, offered on the twenty-third of last january. this is the bill, "with some amendments," which mr. webster says, "i propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent." mr. seward's bill was also before the senate--a bill granting the fugitive slave a trial by jury in the state where he is found, to determine whether or not he is a slave. mr. webster says not a word about this bill. he does not propose to support it. suppose the bill of mr. webster's friend shall pass congress, what will the action of it be? a slave-hunter comes here to boston, he seizes any dark-looking man that is unknown and friendless, he has him before the postmaster, the collector of customs, or some clerk or marshal of some united states court, and makes oath that the dark man is his slave. the slave-hunter is allowed his oath. the fugitive is not allowed his testimony. the man born free as you and i, on the false oath of a slave-hunter, or the purchased affidavit of some one, is surrendered to a southern state, to bondage life-long and irremediable. will you say, the postmaster, the collector, the clerks and marshals in boston would not act in such matters? they have no option; it is their official business to do so. but they would not decide against the unalienable rights of man--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that may be, or may not be. the slave-hunter may have his "fugitive" before the collector of boston, or the postmaster of truro, if he sees fit. if they, remembering their old testament, refuse to "bewray him that wandereth," the slave-hunter may bring on his officer with him from georgia or florida; he may bring the custom-house officer from mobile or wilmington, some little petty postmaster from a town you never heard of in south carolina or texas, and have any dark man in boston up before that "magistrate," and on his decision have the fugitive carried off to louisiana or arkansas, to bondage for ever. the bill provides that the trial may be had before any such officer, "residing or being" in the state where the fugitive is found! there were three fugitives at my house the other night. ellen craft was one of them. you all know ellen craft is a slave; she, with her husband, fled from georgia to philadelphia, and is here before us now. she is not so dark as mr. webster himself, if any of you think freedom is to be dealt out in proportion to the whiteness of the skin. if mason's bill passes, i might have some miserable postmaster from texas or the district of columbia, some purchased agent of messrs. bruin & hill, the great slave-dealers of the capitol, have him here in boston, take ellen craft before the caitiff, and on his decision hurry her off to bondage as cheerless, as hopeless, and as irremediable as the grave! let me interest you in a scene which might happen. suppose a poor fugitive, wrongfully held as a slave--let it be ellen craft--has escaped from savannah in some northern ship. no one knows of her presence on board; she has lain with the cargo in the hold of the vessel. harder things have happened. men have journeyed hundreds of miles bent double in a box half the size of a coffin, journeying towards freedom. suppose the ship comes up to long wharf, at the foot of state street. bulk is broken to remove the cargo; the woman escapes, emaciated with hunger, feeble from long confinement in a ship's hold, sick with the tossing of the heedless sea, and still further etiolated and blanched with the mingling emotions of hope and fear. she escapes to land. but her pursuer, more remorseless than the sea, has been here beforehand; laid his case before the official he has brought with him, or purchased here, and claims his slave. she runs for her life, fear adding wings. imagine the scene--the flight, the hot pursuit through state street, merchants' row--your magistrates in hot pursuit. to make the irony of nature still more complete, let us suppose this shall take place on some of the memorable days in the history of america--on the th of april, when our fathers first laid down their lives "in the sacred cause of god and their country;" on the th of june, the d of december, or on any of the sacramental days in the long sad history of our struggle for our own freedom! suppose the weary fugitive takes refuge in faneuil hall, and here, in the old cradle of liberty, in the midst of its associations, under that eye of samuel adams, the bloodhounds seize their prey! imagine mr. webster and mr. winthrop looking on, cheering the slave-hunter, intercepting the fugitive fleeing for her life. would not that be a pretty spectacle? propose to support that bill to the fullest extent, with all its provisions! ridiculous talk! does mr. webster suppose that such a law could be executed in boston? that the people of massachusetts will ever return a single fugitive slave, under such an act as that? then he knows his constituents very little, and proves that he needs "instruction."[ ] "slavery is a moral and religious blessing," says somebody in the present congress. but it seems some thirty thousand slaves have been blind to the benefits--moral and religious benefits--which it confers, and have fled to the free states. mr. clingman estimates the value of all the fugitive slaves in the north at $ , , . delaware loses $ , in a year in this way; her riches taking to themselves not wings, but legs. maryland lost $ , in six months. i fear mr. mason's bill and mr. webster's speech will not do much to protect that sort of "property" from this kind of loss. such action is prevented "by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in texas." such are mr. webster's opinions on these four great questions. now, there are two ways of accounting for this speech, or, at least, two ways of looking at it. one is, to regard it as the work of a statesman seeking to avert some great evil from the whole nation. this is the way mr. webster would have us look at it, i suppose. his friends tell us it is a statesmanlike speech--very statesmanlike. he himself says _vera pro gratis_[ ]--true words in preference to words merely pleasing. _etsi meum ingenium non moneret necessitas cogit_--albeit my own humor should not prompt the counsel, necessity compels it. the necessity so cogent is the attempt to dissolve the union, in case the wilmot proviso should be extended over the new territory. does any man seriously believe that mr. webster really fears a dissolution of this union undertaken and accomplished on this plea, and by the southern states? i will not insult the foremost understanding of this continent by supposing he deems it possible. no, we cannot take this view of his conduct. the other way is to regard it as the work of a politician, seeking something beside the permanent good of a great nation. the lease of the presidency is to be disposed of for the next four years by a sort of auction. it is in the hands of certain political brokers, who "operate" in presidential and other political stock. the majority of those brokers are slaveholders or pro-slavery men; they must be conciliated, or they will "not understand the nod" of the candidate--i mean of the man who bids for the lease. all the illustrious men in the national politics have an eye on the transaction, but sometimes the bid has been taken for persons whose chance at the sale seemed very poor. general cass made his bid some time ago. i think his offer is recorded in the famous "nicholson letter." he was a northern man, and bid non-intervention--the unconstitutionality of any intervention with slavery in the new territory. mr. clay made his bid, for old kentucky "never tires," the same old bid that he has often made--a compromise. mr. calhoun did as he has always done. i will not say he made any bid at all; he was too sick for that, too sick for any thought of the presidency. perhaps at this moment the angel of death is dealing with that famed and remarkable man. nay, he may already have gone where "the servant is free from his master, and the weary are at rest;" have gone home to his god, who is the father of the great politician and the feeblest-minded slave. if it be so, let us follow him only with pity for his errors, and the prayer that his soul may be at rest. he has fought manfully in an unmanly cause. he seemed sincerely in the wrong, and spite of the badness of the cause to which he devoted his best energies, you cannot but respect the man. last of all, mr. webster makes his bid for the lease of "that bad eminence," the presidency. he bids higher than the others, of course, as coming later; bids non-intervention, four new slave states in texas, mason's bill for capturing fugitive slaves, and denunciation of all the anti-slavery movements of the north, public and private. that is what he bids, looking to the southern side of the board of political brokers. then he nods northward, and says, the wilmot proviso is my "thunder;" then timidly glances to the south and adds, but i will never use it. i think this is the only reasonable way in which we can estimate this speech--as a bid for the presidency. i will not insult that mighty intellect by supposing that he, in his private heart, regards it in any other light. mr. calhoun might well be content with that, and say "organize the territories on the principle of that gentleman, and give us a free scope and sufficient time to get in--we ask nothing but that, and we never will ask it." such are the four great questions before us; such mr. webster's answers thereunto; such the two ways of looking at his speech. he decides in advance against freedom in texas, against freedom in california, against freedom in new mexico, against freedom in the united states, by his gratuitous offer of support to mr. mason's bill. his great eloquence, his great understanding, his great name, give weight to all his words. pains are industriously taken to make it appear that his opinions are the opinions of boston. is it so? [cries of no, no.] that was rather a feeble cry. perhaps it is the opinion of the prevailing party in boston. [no, no.] but i put it to you, is it the opinion of massachusetts? [loud cries of no, no, no.] well, so i say, no; it is not the opinion of massachusetts. * * * * * before now, servants of the people and leaders of the people have proved false to their employers, and betrayed their trust. amongst all political men who have been weighed in the balance, and found wanting, with whom shall i compare him? not with john quincy adams, who, in , voted for the embargo. it may have been the mistake of an honest intention, though i confess i cannot think so yet. at any rate, laying an embargo, which he probably thought would last but a few months, was a small thing compared with the refusal to restrict slavery, willingness to enact laws to the disadvantage of mankind, and the voluntary support of mason's iniquitous bill. besides, mr. adams lived a long life; if he erred, or if he sinned in this matter, he afterwards fought most valiantly for the rights of man. shall i compare mr. webster with thomas wentworth, the great earl of strafford, a man "whose doubtful character and memorable end have made him the most conspicuous character of a reign so fertile in recollections?" he, like webster, was a man of large powers, and once devoted them to noble uses. did wentworth defend the "petition of right?" so did webster many times defend the great cause of liberty. but it was written of strafford, that "in his self-interested and ambitious mind," patriotism "was the seed sown among thorns!" "if we reflect upon this man's cold-blooded apostasy on the first lure to his ambition, and on his splendid abilities, which enhanced the guilt of that desertion, we must feel some indignation at those who have palliated all his iniquities, and embalmed his memory with the attributes of patriot heroism. great he surely was, since that epithet can never be denied without paradox to so much comprehension of mind, such ardor and energy, such courage and eloquence, those commanding qualities of soul, which, impressed upon his dark and stern countenance, struck his contemporaries with mingled awe and hate ... but it may be reckoned a sufficient ground for distrusting any one's attachment to the english constitution, that he reveres the name of strafford." his measures for stifling liberty in england, which he and his contemporaries significantly called "thorough" in the reign of charles i., were not more atrocious, than the measures which daniel webster proposes himself, or proposes to support "to the fullest extent." but strafford paid the forfeit--tasting the sharp and bitter edge of the remorseless axe. let his awful shade pass by. i mourn at the parallel between him and the mighty son of our own new england. would god it were not thus! for a sadder parallel, i shall turn off from the sour features of that great british politician, and find another man in our own fair land. this name carries us back to "the times that tried men's souls," when also there were souls that could not stand the rack. it calls me back to "the famous year of ' ;" to the little american army in the highlands of new york; to the time when the torch of american liberty which now sends its blaze far up to heaven, at the same time lighting the northern lakes and the mexique bay, tinging with welcome radiance the eastern and the western sea, was a feeble flame flickering about a thin and hungry wick, and one hand was raised to quench in darkness, and put out forever, that feeble and uncertain flame. gentlemen, i hate to speak thus. i honor the majestic talents of this great man. i hate to couple his name with that other, which few americans care to pronounce. but i know no deed in american history, done by a son of new england, to which i can compare this, but the act of benedict arnold! shame that i should say this of any man; but his own motto shall be mine--vera pro gratis--and i am not responsible for what he has made the truth; certainly, _meum ingenium non moneret, necessitas cogit_! i would speak with all possible tenderness of any man, of every man; of such an one, so honored, and so able, with the respect i feel for superior powers. i would often question my sense of justice, before i dared to pronounce an adverse conclusion. but the wrong is palpable, the injustice is open as the day. i must remember, here are twenty millions, whose material welfare his counsel defeats; whose honor his counsel stains; whose political, intellectual, moral growth he is using all his mighty powers to hinder and keep back. "_vera pro gratis. necessitas cogit. vellem, equidem, vobis placere, sed multo malo vos salvos esse, qualicunque erga me animo futuri estis._" let me take a word of warning and of counsel from the same author; yes, from the same imaginary speech of quintus capitolinis, whence mr. webster has drawn his motto:--_ante portas est bellum: si inde non pellitur, jam intra mænia erit, et arcem et capitolium scandet, et in domos vestras vos persequetur._ the war [against the extension of slavery, not against the volscians, in this case] is before your very doors: if not driven thence, it will be within your walls [namely, it will be in california and new mexico]; it will ascend the citadel and the capitol [to wit, it will be in the house of representatives and the senate]; and it will follow you into your very homes [that is, the curse of slavery will corrupt the morals of the nation]. _sedemus desides domi, mulierum ritu inter nos altercantes; præsenti pace læti, nec cernentes_ ex otio illo brevi multiplex bellum rediturum. we [the famous senators of the united states] sit idle at home, wrangling amongst ourselves like women [to see who shall get the lease of the presidency], glad of the present truce [meaning that which is brought about by a compromise], not perceiving that for this brief cessation of trouble, a manifold war will follow [that is, the "horrid internecine war" which will come here, as it has been elsewhere, if justice be too long delayed]! it is a great question before us, concerning the existence of millions of men. to many men in politics, it is merely a question of party rivalry; a question of in and out, and nothing more. to many men in cities, it is a question of commerce, like the establishment of a bank, or the building of one railroad more or less. but to serious men, who love man and love their god, this is a question of morals, a question of religion, to be settled with no regard to party rivalry, none to fleeting interests of to-day, but to be settled under the awful eye of conscience, and by the just law of god. shall we shut up slavery or extend it? it is for us to answer. will you deal with the question now, or leave it to your children, when the evil is ten times greater? in , there was not a slave in georgia; now, two hundred and eighty thousand. in , in all the united states, but two hundred thousand; now, three millions. in , let mr. webster's counsels be followed, there will be thirty millions. thirty millions! will it then be easier for your children to set limits to this crime against human nature, than now for you? our fathers made a political, and a commercial, and a moral error--shall we repeat it? they did a wrong; shall we extend and multiply the wrong? was it an error in our fathers; not barely a wrong--was it a sin? no, not in them; they knew it not. but what in them to establish was only an error, in us to extend or to foster is a sin! perpetuate slavery, we cannot do it. nothing will save it. it is girt about by a ring of fire which daily grows narrower, and sends terrible sparkles into the very centre of the shameful thing. "joint resolutions" cannot save it; annexations cannot save it--not if we re-annex all the west indies; delinquent representatives cannot save it; uninstructed senators, refusing instructions, cannot save it, no, not with all their logic, all their eloquence, which smites as an earthquake smites the sea. no, slavery cannot be saved; by no compromise, no non-intervention, no mason's bill in the senate. it cannot be saved in this age of the world until you nullify every ordinance of nature, until you repeal the will of god, and dissolve the union he has made between righteousness and the welfare of a people. then, when you displace god from the throne of the world, and instead of his eternal justice, reënact the will of the devil, then you may keep slavery; keep it forever, keep it in peace. not till then. the question is, not if slavery is to cease, and soon to cease, but shall it end as it ended in massachusetts, in new hampshire, in pennsylvania, in new york; or shall it end as in st. domingo? follow the counsel of mr. webster--it will end in fire and blood. god forgive us for our cowardice, if we let it come to this, that three millions or thirty millions of degraded human beings, degraded by us, must wade through slaughter to their unalienable rights. mr. webster has spoken noble words--at plymouth, standing on the altar-stone of new england; at bunker hill, the spot so early reddened with the blood of our fathers. but at this hour, when we looked for great counsel, when we forgot the paltry things which he has often done, and said, "now he will rouse his noble soul, and be the man his early speeches once bespoke," who dared to fear that olympian head would bow so low, so deeply kiss the ground? try it morally, try it intellectually, try it by the statesman's test, world-wide justice; nay, try it by the politician's basest test, the personal expediency of to-day--it is a speech "not fit to be made," and when made, not fit to be confirmed. "we see dimly in the distance what is small and what is great, slow of faith how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate; but the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din, list the ominous stern whisper from the delphic cave within-- 'they enslave their children's children, who make compromise with sin.'" footnotes: [ ] mr. john quincy adams. [ ] alas, a single year taught me the folly of this confidence in boston! see no. vi. of this volume. [ ] motto of mr. webster's speech. ii. speech at the new england anti-slavery convention in boston, may , . mr. president,--if we look hastily at the present aspect of american affairs, there is much to discourage a man who believes in the progress of his race. in this republic, with the declaration of independence for its political creed, neither of the great political parties is hostile to the existence of slavery. that institution has the continual support of both the whig and democratic parties. there are now four eminent men in the senate of the united states, all of them friends of slavery. two of these are from the north, both natives of new england; but they surpass their southern rivals in the zeal with which they defend that institution, and in the concessions which they demand of the friends of justice at the north. these four men are all competitors for the presidency. not one of them is the friend of freedom; he that is apparently least its foe, is mr. benton, the senator from missouri. mr. clay, of kentucky, is less effectually the advocate of slavery than mr. webster, of massachusetts. mr. webster himself has said, "there is no north," and, to prove it experimentally, stands there as one mighty instance of his own rule. in the senate of the united states, only seward and chase and hale can be relied on as hostile to slavery. in the house, there are root and giddings, and wilmot and mann, and a few others. "but what are these among so many?" see "how it strikes a stranger." here is an extract from the letter of a distinguished and learned man,[ ] sent out here by the king of sweden to examine our public schools: "i have just returned from washington, where i have been witnessing the singular spectacle of this free and enlightened nation being buried in sorrow, on account of the death of that great advocate of slavery, mr. calhoun. mr. webster's speech seems to have made a very strong impression upon the people of the south, as i have heard it repeated almost as a lesson of the catechism by every person i have met within the slave territory. it seems now to be an established belief, that slavery is not a _malum necessarium_, still less an evil difficult to get rid of, but desirable soon to get rid of. no, far from that; it seems to be considered as quite a natural, most happy, and essentially christian institution!" not satisfied with keeping an institution which the more christian religion of the mohammedan bey of tunis has rejected as a "sin against god," we seek to extend it, to perpetuate it, even on soil which the half-civilized mexicans made clear from its pollutions. the great organs of the party politics of the land are in favor of the extension; the great political men of the land seek to extend it; the leading men in the large mercantile towns of the north--in boston, new york, and philadelphia--are also in favor of extending slavery. all this is plain. but, sir, as i come up here to this convention year after year, i find some signs of encouragement. even in the present state of things, the star of hope appears, and we may safely and reasonably say, "now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed" in anti-slavery. let us look a little at the condition of america at this moment, to see what there is to help or what to hinder us. first, i will speak of the present crisis in our affairs; then of the political parties amongst us; then of the manner in which this crisis is met; next of the foes of freedom; and last, of its friends. i will speak with all coolness, and try to speak short. by the middle of anniversary week, men get a little heated; i am sure i shall be cool, and i think i may also be dull. there must be unity of action in a nation, as well as in a man, or there cannot be harmony and welfare. as a man "cannot serve two masters" antagonistic and diametrically opposed to one another, as god and mammon, no more can a nation serve two opposite principles at the same time. now, there are two opposite and conflicting principles recognized in the political action of america: at this moment, they contend for the mastery, each striving to destroy the other. there is what i call the american idea. i so name it, because it seems to me to lie at the basis of all our truly original, distinctive and american institutions. it is itself a complex idea, composed of three subordinate and more simple ideas, namely: the idea that all men have unalienable rights; that in respect thereof, all men are created equal; and that government is to be established and sustained for the purpose of giving every man an opportunity for the enjoyment and development of all these unalienable rights. this idea demands, as the proximate organization thereof, a democracy, that is, a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people; of course, a government after the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging law of god; for shortness' sake, i will call it the idea of freedom. that is one idea; and the other is, that one man has a right to hold another man in thraldom, not for the slave's good, but for the master's convenience; not on account of any wrong the slave has done or intended, but solely for the benefit of the master. this idea is not peculiarly american. for shortness' sake, i will call this the idea of slavery. it demands for its proximate organization, an aristocracy, that is, a government of all the people by a part of the people--the masters; for a part of the people--the masters; against a part of the people--the slaves; a government contrary to the principles of eternal justice, contrary to the unchanging law of god. these two ideas are hostile, irreconcilably hostile, and can no more be compromised and made to coalesce in the life of this nation, than the worship of the real god and the worship of the imaginary devil can be combined and made to coalesce in the life of a single man. an attempt has been made to reconcile and unite the two. the slavery clauses of the constitution of the united states is one monument of this attempt; the results of this attempt--you see what they are, not order, but confusion. * * * * * we cannot have any settled and lasting harmony until one or the other of these ideas is cast out of the councils of the nation: so there must be war between them before there can be peace. hitherto, the nation has not been clearly aware of the existence of these two adverse principles; or, if aware of their existence, has thought little of their irreconcilable diversity. at the present time, this fact is brought home to our consciousness with great clearness. on the one hand, the friends of freedom set forth the idea of freedom, clearly and distinctly, demanding liberty for each man. this has been done as never before. even in the senate of the united states it has been done, and repeatedly during the present session of congress. on the other hand, the enemies of freedom set forth the idea of slavery as this has not been done in other countries for a long time. slavery has not been so lauded in any legislative body for many a year, as in the american senate in . some of the discussions remind one of the spirit which prevailed in the roman senate, a. d. , when about four hundred slaves were crucified, because their master, pedanius secundus, a man of consular dignity, was found murdered in his bed. i mean to say, the same disregard of the welfare of the slaves, the same willingness to sacrifice them--if not their lives, which are not now in peril, at least their welfare, to the convenience of their masters. anybody can read the story in tacitus,[ ] and it is worth reading, and instructive, too, at these times. here are some of the statements relative to slavery made in the thirty-first congress of the united states. hearken to the testimony of the hon. mr. badger, of north carolina: "it is clear that this institution [slavery] not only was not disapproved of, but was expressly recognized, approved, and its continuance sanctioned by the divine lawgiver of the jews." "whether an evil or not, it is not a sin; it is not a violation of the divine law. "what treatment did it receive from the founder of the gospel dispensation? it was approved, first negatively, because, in the whole new testament, there is not to be found one single word, either spoken by the saviour, or by any of the evangelists or apostles, in which that institution is either directly or indirectly condemned; and also affirmatively." this he endeavors to show, by quoting the passages from st. paul, usually quoted for that purpose. nothing would be easier than for st. paul to have said--'slaves, be obedient to your heathen masters; but i say to you, feeling masters, emancipate your slaves; the law of christ is against that relation, and you are bound, therefore, to set them at liberty.' no such word is spoken. thus far goes the hon. senator badger, of north carolina. mr. brown, of mississippi, goes further yet. he knows what some men think of slavery, and tells them, "very well, think so; but keep your thoughts to yourselves." he is not content with bidding the "freest and most enlightened nation in the world," be silent on this matter: he is not content, with mr. badger, to declare that if an evil, it is not a sin, and to find it upheld in the old testament, and allowed in the new testament; he tells us that he "regards slavery as a great moral, social, political and religious blessing--a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master." thus, the issue is fairly made between the two principles. the contradiction is plain. the battle between the two is open, and in sight of the world. but this is not the first time there has been a quarrel between the idea of slavery and the idea of freedom in america. the quarrel has lasted, with an occasional truce, for more than sixty years. in six battles, slavery has been victorious over freedom. . in the adoption of the constitution supporting slavery. . in the acquisition of louisiana, as slave territory. . in the acquisition of florida as slave territory. . in making the missouri compromise. . in the annexation of texas as a slave state. . in the mexican war--a war, mean and wicked, even amongst wars. since the revolution, there have been three instances of great national importance, in which freedom has overcome slavery; there have been three victories: . in prohibiting slavery from the northwest territory, before the adoption of the constitution. . in prohibiting the slave-trade in . i mean, in prohibiting the african slave-trade; the american slave-trade is still carried on in the capital of the united states. . the prohibition of slavery in oregon may be regarded as a third victory, though not apparently of so much consequence as the others. now comes another battle, and it remains to be decided whether the idea of slavery or the idea of freedom is to prevail in the territory we have conquered and stolen from mexico. the present strife is to settle that question. now, as before, it is a battle between freedom and slavery; one on which the material and spiritual welfare of millions of men depends; but now the difference between freedom and slavery is more clearly seen than in ; the consequences of each are better understood, and the sin of slavery is felt and acknowledged by a class of persons who had few representatives sixty years ago. it is a much greater triumph for slavery to prevail now, and carry its institutions into new mexico in , than it was to pass the pro-slavery provisions of the constitution in . it will be a greater sin now to extend slavery, than it was to establish it in , when slaves were first brought to virginia. ever since the adoption of the constitution, protected by that shield, mastering the energies of the nation, and fighting with that weapon, slavery has been continually aggressive. the slave-driver has coveted new soil; has claimed it; has had his claim allowed. louisiana, florida, texas, california and new mexico are the results of southern aggression. now the slave-driver reaches out his hand towards cuba, trying to clutch that emerald gem set in the tropic sea. how easy it was to surrender to great britain portions of the oregon territory in a high northern latitude! had it been south of ° ´, it would not have been so easy to settle the oregon question by a compromise. so when we make a compromise there, "the reciprocity must be all on one side." * * * * * let us next look at the position of the political parties with respect to the present crisis. there are now four political parties in the land. . there is the government party, represented by the president, and portions of his cabinet, if not the whole of it. this party does not attempt to meet the question which comes up, but to dodge and avoid it. shall freedom or slavery prevail in the new territory? is the question. the government has no opinion; it will leave the matter to be settled by the people of the territory. this party wishes california to come into the union without slavery, for it is her own desire so to come; and does not wish a territorial government to be formed by congress in new mexico, but to leave the people there to form a state, excluding or establishing slavery as they see fit. the motto of this party is inaction, not intervention. king james i. once proposed a question to the judges of england. they declined to answer it, and the king said, "if ye give no counsel, then why be ye counsellors?" the people of the united states might ask the government, "if ye give us no leading, then why be ye leaders?" this party is not hostile to slavery; not opposed to its extension. * * * * * . then there is the whig party. this party has one distinctive idea; the idea of a tariff for protection; whether for the protection of american labor, or merely american capital, i will not now stop to inquire. the whig party is no more opposed to slavery, or its extension, than the government party itself. however there are two divisions of the whigs, the whig party south, and the whig party north. the two agree in their ideas of protection, and their pro-slavery character. but the whig party south advocates slavery and protection; the whig party north, protection and slavery. in the north there are many whigs who are opposed to slavery, especially to the extension of slavery; there are also many other persons, not of the whig party, opposed to the extension of slavery; therefore in the late electioneering campaign, to secure the votes of these persons, it was necessary for the whig party north to make profession of anti-slavery. this was done accordingly, in a general form, and in special an attempt was made to show that the whig party was opposed to the extension of slavery. hear what senator chase says on this point. i read from his speech in the senate, on march , :-- "on the whig side it was urged, that the candidate of the philadelphia convention was, if not positively favorable to the proviso, at least pledged to leave the matter to congress free from executive influence, and ready to approve it when enacted by that body." general cass had written the celebrated "nicholson letter," in which he declared that congress had no constitutional power to enact the proviso. but so anxious were the democrats of the north to assume an anti-slavery aspect,--continues mr. chase,--that "notwithstanding this letter, many of his friends in the free states persisted in asserting that he would not, if elected, veto the proviso; many also insisted that he regarded slavery as excluded from the territories by the mexican laws still in force; while others maintained that he regarded slavery as an institution of positive law, and congress as constitutionally incompetent to enact such law, and that therefore it was impossible for slavery to get into the territories, whether mexican law was in force or not." this, says mr. chase, was the whig argument:-- "prohibition is essential to the certain exclusion of slavery from the territories. if the democratic candidate shall be elected, prohibition is impossible, for the veto will be used: if the whig candidate shall be elected, prohibition is certain, provided you elect a congress who will carry out your will. vote, therefore, for the whigs." such was the general argument of the whig party. let us see what it was in massachusetts in special. here i have documentary evidence. this is the statement of the whig convention at worcester in , published shortly before the election:-- "we understand the whig party to be committed in favor of the principles contained in the ordinance of , the prohibition of slavery in territory now free, and of its abolition wherever it can be constitutionally effected." they professed to aim at the same thing which the free soil party aimed at, only the work must be done by the old whig organization. free soil cloth must be manufactured, but it must be woven in the old whig mill, with the old whig machinery, and by the old whig weavers. see what the convention says of the democratic party:-- "we understand the democratic party to be pledged to decline any legislation upon the subject of slavery, with a view either to its prohibition or restriction in places where it does not exist, or to its abolition in any of the territories of the united states." there is no ambiguity in that language. men can talk very plain when they will. still there were some that doubted; so the great and famous men of the party came out to convince the doubters that the whigs were the men to save the country from the disgrace of slavery. here let me introduce the testimony of mr. choate. this which follows is from his speech at salem. he tells us the great work is, "the passage of a law to-day that california and new mexico shall remain forever free. that is ... an object of great and transcendent importance:... we should go up to the very limits of the constitution itself ... to defeat the always detested, and forever-to-be detested object of the dark ambition of that candidate of the baltimore convention, who has consented to pledge himself in advance, that he will veto the future law of freedom!" "is there a whig upon this floor who doubts that the strength of the whig party next march will extend freedom to california and new mexico, if by the constitution they are entitled to freedom at all? is there a member of congress that would not vote for freedom?" [_sancta simplicitas! ora pro nobis!_] "is there a single whig constituency, in any free state in this country, that would return any man that would not vote for freedom? do you believe that daniel webster himself could be returned, if there was the least doubt upon this question?" that is plain speech. but, to pass from the special to the particular, hear mr. webster himself. what follows is from his famous speech at marshfield, september, . "general cass (he says) will have the senate; and with the patronage of the government, with the interest that he, as a northern man, can bring to bear, coöperating with every interest that the south can bring to bear, we cry _safety_ before we are out of the woods, if we feel that there is no danger as to these new territories!" "in my judgment, the interests of the country and the feelings of a vast majority of the people require that a president of these united states shall be elected, who will neither use his official influence to promote, nor who feels any disposition in his heart to promote, the further extension of slavery in this country, and the further influence of it in the public councils." speaking of the free soil party and the buffalo platform, he says--"i hold myself to be as good a free soil man as any of the buffalo convention." of the platform he says--"i can stand upon it pretty well." "i beg to know who is to inspire into my breast a more resolute and fixed determination to resist, unyieldingly, the encroachments and advances of the slave power in this country, than has inspired it, ever since the day that i first opened my mouth in the councils of the country." if such language as this would not "deceive the very elect," what was more to the point, it was quite enough to deceive the electors. but now this language is forgotten; forgotten in general by the whig party north; forgotten in special by those who seemed to be the exponents of the whig party in massachusetts; forgotten at any rate by the nine hundred and eighty-seven men who signed the letter to mr. webster; and in particular it is forgotten by mr. webster himself, who now says that it would disgrace his own understanding to vote for the extension of the wilmot proviso over the new territory! there were some men in new england who did not believe the statements of the whig party north in , because they knew the men that uttered the sentiments of the whig party south. the leaders put their thumbs in the eyes of the people, and then said, "do you see any dough in our faces?" "no!" said the people, "not a speck." "then vote our ticket, and never say we are not hostile to slavery so long as you live." at the south, the whig party used language somewhat different. here is a sample from the new orleans bee:-- "general taylor is from birth, association, and conviction, identified with the south and her institutions; being one of the most extensive slaveholders in louisiana--and supported by the slaveholding interest, as opposed to the wilmot proviso, and in favor of securing the privilege to the owners of slaves to remove with them to newly acquired territory." * * * * * . then there is the democratic party. the distinctive idea of the democrats is represented by the word anti-protection, or revenue tariff. this party, as such, is still less opposed to slavery than the whigs; however, there are connected with it, at the north, many men who oppose the extension of slavery. this party is divided into two divisions, the democratic party south, and the democratic party north. they agree in their idea of anti-protection and slavery, differing only in the emphasis which they give to the two words. the democrats of the south say slavery and anti-protection; the democrats north, anti-protection and slavery. thus you see, that while there is a specific difference between democrats and whigs, there is also a generic agreement in the matter of slavery. according to the doctrine of elective affinities, both drop what they have a feeble affinity for, and hold on with what their stronger affinity demands. the whigs and democrats of the south are united in their attachment to slavery, not only mechanically, but by a sort of chemical union. mr. cass's nicholson letter is well known. he says congress has no constitutional right to restrict slavery in the territories. here is the difference between him and general taylor. general taylor does not interfere at all in the matter. if congress puts slavery in, he says, very well! if congress puts slavery out, he says the same, very well! but if congress puts slavery out, general cass would say, no. you shall not put it out. one has the policy of king log, the other that of king serpent. so far as that goes, log is the better king. so much for the democratic party. * * * * * . the free soil party opposes slavery so far as it is possible to do, and yet comply with the constitution of the united states. its idea is declared by its words,--no more slave territory. it does not profess to be an anti-slavery party in general, only an anti-slavery party subject to the constitution. in the present crisis in the congress of the united states, it seems to me the men who represent this idea, though not always professing allegiance to the party, have yet done the nation good and substantial service. i refer more particularly to messrs. chase, seward and hale in the senate, to messrs. root, giddings and mann in the house. those gentlemen swear to keep the constitution; in what sense and with what limitations, i know not. it is for them to settle that matter with their own consciences. i do know this, that these men have spoken very noble words against slavery; heroic words in behalf of freedom. it is not to be supposed that the free soil party, as such, has attained the same convictions as to the sin of slavery, which the anti-slavery party has long arrived at. still they may be as faithful to their convictions as any of the men about this platform. if they have less light to walk by, they have less to be accountable for. for my own part, spite of their short-comings, and of some things which to me seem wrong in the late elections in new england, i cannot help thinking they have done good as individuals, and as a party; it seems to me they have done good both ways. i will honor all manly opposition to slavery, whether it come up to my mark, or does not come near it. i will ask every man to be true to his conscience, and his reason, not to mine. in speaking of the parties, i ought not to omit to say a word or two respecting some of the most prominent men, and their position in reference to this slavery question. it is a little curious, that of all the candidates for the presidency, mr. benton, of missouri, should be the least inclined to support the pretensions of the slave power. but so it is. of mr. cass, nothing more need be said at present; his position is defined and well known. but a word must be said of mr. clay. he comes forward, as usual, with a "compromise." here it is, in the famous "omnibus bill." in one point it is not so good as the government scheme. general taylor, as the organ of the party, recommends the admission of california, as an independent measure. he does not huddle and lump it together with any other matters; and in this respect, his scheme is more favorable to freedom than the other; for mr. clay couples the admission of california with other things. but in two points mr. clay's bill has the superiority over the general's scheme. . it limits the western and northern boundaries of texas, and so reduces the territory of that state, where slavery is now established by law. yet, as i understand it, he takes off from new mexico about seventy thousand square miles, enough to make eight or ten states like massachusetts, and delivers it over to texas to be slave soil; as mr. webster says, out of the power of congress to redeem from that scourge. . it does not maintain that congress has no power to exclude slavery in admitting a new state; whereas, if i understand the president in his message, he considers such an act "an invasion of their rights."[ ] let us pass by mr. clay, and come to the other aspirant for the presidency. at the philadelphia convention, mr. webster, at the most, could only get one half the votes of new england; several of these not given in earnest, but only as a compliment to the great man from the north. now, finding his presidential wares not likely to be bought by new england, he takes them to a wider market; with what success we shall one day see. something has already been said in the newspapers and elsewhere, about mr. webster's speech. no speech ever delivered in america has excited such deep and righteous indignation. i know there are influential men in boston, and in all large towns, who must always have somebody to sustain and applaud. they some time since applauded mr. webster, for reasons very well known, and now continue their applause of him. his late speech pleases them; its worst parts please them most. all that is as was to be expected; men like what they must like. but, in the country, among the sober men of massachusetts and new england, who prize right above the political expediency of to-day, i think mr. webster's speech is read with indignation. i believe no one political act in america, since the treachery of benedict arnold, has excited so much moral indignation, as the conduct of daniel webster. but i pass by his speech, to speak of other things connected with that famous man. one of the most influential pro-slavery newspapers of boston, calls the gentlemen who signed the letter to him, the "retainers" of mr. webster. the word is well chosen and quite descriptive. this word is used in a common, a feudal, and a legal sense. in the common sense, it means one who has complete possession of the thing retained; in the feudal sense, it means a dependent or vassal, who is bound to support his liege lord; in the legal sense, it means the person who hires an attorney to do his business; and the sum given to secure his services, or prevent him from acting for the opposite party, is called a retaining fee. i take it the word "retainers," is used in the legal sense; certainly it is not in the feudal sense, for these gentlemen do not owe allegiance to mr. webster. nor is it in its common sense, for events have shown that they have not a "complete possession" of mr. webster. now, a word about this letter to him. mr. webster's retainers--nine hundred and eighty-seven in number--tell him, "you have pointed out to a whole people the path of duty, have convinced the understanding, and touched the conscience of a nation." "we desire, therefore, to express to you our entire concurrence in the sentiments of your speech, and our heartfelt thanks for the inestimable aid it has afforded towards the preservation and perpetuation of the union." they express their entire concurrence in the sentiments of his speech. in the speech, as published in the edition "revised and corrected by himself," mr. webster declares his intention to support the famous fugitive slave bill, and the amendments thereto, "with all its provisions, to the fullest extent." when the retainers express their "entire concurrence in the sentiments of the speech," they express their entire concurrence in that intention. there is no ambiguity in the language; they make a universal affirmation--(_affirmatio de omni_). now mr. webster comes out, by two agents, and recants this declaration. let me do him no injustice. he shall be heard by his next friend, who wishes to amend the record, a correspondent of the boston courier, of may th:-- "the speech now reads thus:--'my friend at the head of the judiciary committee has a bill on the subject, now before the senate, with some amendments to it, which i propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.' changing the position of the word _which_, and the sentence would read thus:--'my friend at the head of the judiciary committee has a bill on the subject, now before the senate, which, with some amendments to it, i propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.'" "call you that backing your friends?" really, it is too bad, after his retainers have expressed their "entire concurrence in the sentiments of the speech," for him to back out, to deny that he entertained one of the sentiments already approved of and concurred in! can it be possible, we ask, that mr. webster can resort to this device to defend himself, leaving his retainers in the lurch? it does not look like him to do such a thing. but the correspondent of the courier goes on as follows:-- "we are authorized to state, first--that mr. webster did not revise this portion of his speech, with any view to examine its exact accuracy of phrase; and second--that mr. webster, at the time of the delivery of the speech, had in his desk three amendatory sections,... and one of which provides expressly for the right of trial by jury." but who is the person "authorized to state" such a thing? professor stuart informs the public that it "comes from the hand of a man who might claim a near place to mr. webster, in respect to talent, integrity, and patriotism." still, this recantation is so unlike mr. webster, that one would almost doubt the testimony of so great an unknown as is the writer in the courier. but mr. stuart removes all doubt, and says--"i merely add, that mr. webster himself has personally assured me that his speech was in accordance with the correction here made, and that he has now in his desk the amendments to which the corrector refers." so the retainers must bear the honor, or the shame, whichsoever it may be, of volunteering the advocacy of that remarkable bill. when paul was persecuted for righteousness' sake, how easily might "the offence of the cross" have been made to cease, by a mere transposition! had he pursued that plan, he need not have been let down from the wall in a basket: he might have had a dinner given him by forty scribes, at the first hotel in jerusalem, and a doctor of the law to defend him in a pamphlet. but, alas! in mr. webster's case, admitting the transposition is real, the transubstantiation is not thereby effected; the transfer of the _which_ does not alter the character of the sentence to the requisite degree. the bill, which he volunteers to advocate, contains provisions to this effect: that the owner of a fugitive slave may seize his fugitive, and, on the warrant of any "judge, commissioner, clerk, marshal, postmaster, or collector," "residing or being" within the state where the seizure is made, the fugitive, without any trial by jury, shall be delivered up to his master, and carried out of the state. now, this is the bill which mr. webster proposes "to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent." let him transfer his _which_, it does not transubstantiate his statement so that he can consistently introduce a section which "provides expressly for the right of trial by jury." this attempt to evade the plain meaning of a plain statement, is too small a thing for a great man. i make no doubt that mr. webster had in his desk, at the time alleged, a bill designed to secure the trial by jury to fugitive slaves, prepared as it is set forth. but how do you think it came there, and for what purpose? last february mr. webster was intending to make a very different speech; and then, i make no doubt, it was that this bill was prepared, with the design of introducing it! but i see no reason for supposing, that when he made his celebrated speech, he intended to introduce it as an amendment to mr. mason's or butler's bill. it is said that he will present it to the senate. let us wait and see.[ ] but, since the speech at washington, mr. webster has said things at boston, almost as bad. here they are; extracts from his speech at the revere house. i quote from the report in the daily advertiser. "neither you nor i shall see the legislation of the country proceed in the old harmonious way, until the discussions in congress and out of congress upon the subject, to which you have alluded [the subject of slavery], shall be, in some way, suppressed. take that truth home with you--and take it as truth." a very pretty truth that is to take home with us, that "discussion" must be "suppressed!" again, he says:-- "sir, the question is, whether massachusetts will stand to the truth against temptation [that is the question]! whether she will be just against temptation! whether she will defend herself against her own prejudices! she has conquered every thing else in her time; she has conquered this ocean which washes her shore; she has conquered her own sterile soil; she has conquered her stern and inflexible climate; she has fought her way to the universal respect of the world; she has conquered every one's prejudices but her own. the question now is, whether she will conquer her own prejudices!" the trumpet gives no uncertain sound; but before we prepare ourselves for battle, let us see who is the foe. what are the "prejudices" massachusetts is to conquer? the prejudice in favor of the american idea; the prejudice in favor of what our fathers called self-evident truths; that all men "are endowed with certain unalienable rights;" that "all men are created equal," and that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted amongst men." these are the prejudices massachusetts is called on to conquer. there are some men who will do this "with alacrity;" but will massachusetts conquer her prejudices in favor of the "unalienable rights of man?" i think, mr. president, she will first have to forget two hundred years of history. she must efface lexington and bunker hill from her memory, and tear the old rock of plymouth out from her bosom. these are prejudices which massachusetts will not conquer, till the ocean ceases to wash her shore, and granite to harden her hills. massachusetts has conquered a good many things, as mr. webster tells us. i think there are several other things we shall try our hand upon, before we conquer our prejudice in favor of the unalienable rights of man. there is one pleasant thing about this position of mr. webster. he is alarmed at the fire which has been kindled in his rear. he finds "considerable differences of opinion prevail ... on the subject of that speech," and is "grateful to receive ... opinions so decidedly concurring with" his own,--so he tells the citizens of newburyport. he feels obliged to do something to escape the obloquy which naturally comes upon him. so he revises his speech; now supplying an omission, now altering a little; authorizes another great man to transpose his relative pronoun, and anchor it fast to another antecedent; appeals to amendments in the senatorial desk, designed to secure a jury trial for fugitive slaves; derides his opponents, and compares them with the patriots of ancient times. here is his letter to the citizens of newburyport--a very remarkable document. it contains some surprising legal doctrines, which i leave others to pass upon. but in it he explains the fugitive slave law of , which does not "provide for the trial of any question whatever by jury, in the state in which the arrest is made." "at that time," nobody regarded any of the provisions of that bill as "repugnant to religion, liberty, the constitution, or humanity;" and he has "no more objections to the provisions of this law, than was seen to them" by the framers of the law itself. if he sees therein nothing "repugnant to religion, liberty, the constitution, or humanity," then why transpose that relative pronoun, and have an amendment "which provides expressly for the right of trial by jury?" "in order to allay excitement," he answers, "and remove objections." "there are many difficulties, however, attending any such provision [of a jury trial]; and a main one, and perhaps the only insuperable one, has been created by the states themselves, by making it a penal offence in their own officers, to render any aid in apprehending or securing such fugitives, and absolutely refusing the use of their jails for keeping them in custody, till a jury could be impanelled, witnesses summoned, and a regular trial be had." think of that! it is massachusetts, pennsylvania, ohio, and new york, which prohibit the fugitive from getting a trial for his freedom, before a jury of twelve good men and true! but mr. webster goes on: "it is not too much to say, that to these state laws is to be attributed the actual and practical denial of trial by jury in these cases." generally, the cause is thought to precede the effect, but here is a case in which, according to mr. webster, the effect has got the start of the cause, by more than fifty years. the fugitive slave law of congress, which allowed the master to capture the runaway, was passed in ; but the state laws he refers to, to which "is to be attributed the actual and practical denial of trial by jury in these cases," were not passed till after . "to what base uses may we come at last!" mr. webster would never have made such a defence of his pro-slavery conduct, had he not been afraid of the fire in his rear, and thought his retainers not able to put it out. he seems to think this fire is set in the name of religion: so, to help us "conquer our prejudices," he cautions us against the use of religion, and quotes from the private letter of "one of the most distinguished men in england," dated as late as the th of january--"religion is an excellent thing in every matter except in politics: there it seems to make men mad." in this respect, it seems religion is inferior to money, for the proverbs tell us that money "answereth all things;" religion, it seems, "answereth all things," except politics. poor mr. webster! if religion is not good in politics, i suppose irreligion is good there; and, really, it is often enough introduced there. so, if religion "seems to make men mad" in politics, i suppose irreligion makes them sober in politics. but mr. webster, fresh from his transposition of his own relative, explains this: his friend ascribes the evils not to "true and genuine religion," but to "that fantastic notion of religion." so, making the transposition, it would read thus: "that fantastical notion of religion," "is an excellent thing in any matter except politics." alas! mr. webster does not expound his friend's letter, nor his own language, so well as he used to expound the constitution. but he says, "the religion of the new testament is as sure a guide to duty in politics, as in any other concern of life." so, in the name of "conscience and the constitution," professor stuart comes forward to defend mr. webster, "by the religion of the new testament; that religion which is founded on the teachings of jesus and his apostles." how are the mighty fallen! mr. webster makes a "great speech," lending his mighty influence to the support and extension of slavery, with all its attendant consequences, which paralyze the hand of industry, enfeeble the thinking mind, and brutify the conscience which should discern between right and wrong; nine hundred and eighty-seven of his retainers in boston, thank him for reminding them of their duty. but still the fire in his rear is so hot, that he must come on to boston, talk about having discussion suppressed, and ask massachusetts to conquer her prejudices. that is not enough. he must go up to andover, and get a minister to defend him, in the name of "conscience and the constitution," supporting slavery out of the old testament and new testament. "to what mean uses may we not descend!" there is a "short and easy method" with professor stuart, and all other men who defend slavery out of the bible. if the bible defends slavery, it is not so much the better for slavery, but so much the worse for the bible. if mr. stuart and mr. webster do not see that, there are plenty of obscurer men that do. of all the attacks ever made on the bible, by "deists" and "infidels," none would do so much to bring it into disrepute, as to show that it sanctioned american slavery. it is rather a remarkable fact, that an orthodox minister should be on mr. webster's paper, endorsing for the christianity of slavery. let me say a word respecting the position of the representative from boston. i speak only of his position, not of his personal character. let him, and all men, have the benefit of the distinction between their personal character, and official conduct. mr. winthrop is a consistent whig; a representative of the idea of the whig party north, protection and slavery. when he first went into congress, it was distinctly understood that he was not going to meddle with the matter of slavery; the tariff was the thing. all this was consistent. it is to be supposed that a northern whig will put the mills of the north before the black men of the south: and "property before persons," might safely be writ on the banner of the whig party, north or south. mr. winthrop seems a little uneasy in his position. some time ago he complained of a "nest of vipers" in boston, who had broken their own teeth in gnawing a file; meaning the "vipers" in the free soil party, i suppose, whose teeth, however, have a little edge still left on them. he finds it necessary to define his position, and show that he has kept up his communication with the base-line of operations from which he started. this circumstance is a little suspicious. unlike mr. webster, mr. winthrop seems to think religion is a good thing in politics, for in his speech of may th, he says--"i acknowledge my allegiance to the whole constitution of the united states.... and whenever i perceive a plain conflict of jurisdiction and authority between the constitution of my country and the laws of my god, my course is clear. i shall resign my office, whatever it may be, and renounce all connection with public service of any sort." that is fair and manly. he will not hold a position under the constitution of the united states which is inconsistent with the constitution of the universe. but he says--"there are provisions in the constitution [of the united states, he means, not of the universe], which involve us in painful obligations, and from which some of us would rejoice to be relieved; and this [the restoration of fugitive slaves], is one of them. but there is none, none, in my judgment, which involves any conscientious or religious difficulty." so he has no "conscientious or religious" objection to return a fugitive slave. he thinks the constitution of the united states "avoids the idea that there can be property in man," but recognizes "that there may be property in the service or labor of man." but when it is property in the service of man without value received by the servant, and a claim which continues to attach to a man and his children forever, it looks very like the idea of property in man. at any rate, there is only a distinction in the words, no difference in the things. to claim the sum of the accidents, all and several of a thing, is practically to claim the thing. mr. winthrop once voted for the wilmot proviso, in its application to the oregon territory. some persons have honored him for it, and even contended that he also was a free soiler. he wipes off that calumny by declaring, that he attached that proviso to the oregon bill for the purpose of defeating the bill itself. "this proviso was one of the means upon which i mainly relied for the purpose." "there can be little doubt," he says, "that this clause had its influence in arresting the bill in the other end of the capitol," where it was "finally lost." that is his apology for appearing to desire to prevent the extension of slavery. it is worth while to remember this. unlike mr. webster, he thinks slavery may go into new mexico. "we may hesitate to admit that nature has everywhere [in the new territory] settled the question against slavery." still he would not now pass the proviso to exclude slavery. it "would ... unite the south as one man, and if it did not actually rend the union asunder, would create an alienation and irritation in that quarter of the country, which would render the union hardly worth preserving." "is there not ample reason for an abatement of the northern tone, for a forbearance of northern urgency upon this subject, without the imputation of tergiversation and treachery?" here i am reminded of a remarkable sentence in mr. webster's speech at marshfield, in relation to the northern men who helped to annex texas. here it is:-- "for my part, i think that dough-faces is an epithet not sufficiently reproachful. now, i think such persons are dough-faces, dough-heads, and dough-souls, that they are all dough; that the coarsest potter may mould them at pleasure to vessels of honor or dishonor, but most readily to vessels of dishonor." the representative from boston, in the year , has small objection to the extension of slave soil. hearken to his words:-- "i can never put the question of extending slave soil on the same footing with one of directly increasing slavery and multiplying slaves. if a positive issue could ever again be made up for our decision, whether human beings, few or many, of whatever race, complexion or condition, should be freshly subjected to a system of hereditary bondage, and be changed from free men into slaves, i can conceive that no bonds of union, no ties of interest, no cords of sympathy, no consideration of past glory, present welfare, or future grandeur, should be suffered to interfere, for an instant, with our resolute and unceasing resistance to a measure so iniquitous and abominable. there would be a clear, unquestionable moral element in such an issue, which would admit of no compromise, no concession, no forbearance whatever.... a million of swords would leap from their scabbards to assert it, and the union itself would be shivered like a prince rupert's dress in the shock. "but, sir, the question whether the institution of slavery, as it already exists, shall be permitted to extend itself over a hundred or a hundred thousand more square miles than it now occupies, is a different question.... it is not, in my judgment, such an issue that conscientious and religious men may not be free to acquiesce in whatever decision may be arrived at by the constituted authorities of the country.... it is not with a view of cooping up slavery ... within limits too narrow for its natural growth;... it is not for the purpose of girding it round with lines of fire, till its sting, like that of the scorpion, shall be turned upon itself,... that i have ever advocated the principles of the ordinance of ." mr. mann, i think, is still called a whig, but no member of the free soil party has more readily or more ably stood up against the extension of slavery. his noble words stand in marvellous contrast to the discourse of the representative from boston. mr. mann represents the country, and not the "metropolis." his speech last february, and his recent letter to his constituents, are too well known, and too justly prized, to require any commendation here. but i cannot fail to make a remark on a passage in the letter. he says, if we allow mr. clay's compromise to be accepted, "were it not for the horrible consequences which it would involve, a roar of laughter, like a _feu de joie_, would run down the course of the ages." he afterwards says--"should the south succeed in their present attempt upon the territories, they will impatiently await the retirement of general taylor from the executive chair to add the 'state of cuba' ... to this noble triumph." one is a little inclined to start such a laugh himself at the idea of the south waiting for that event before they undertake that plan! mr. mann says: "if no moral or religious obligation existed against holding slaves, would not many of those opulent and respectable gentlemen who signed the letter of thanks to mr. webster, and hundreds of others, indeed, instead of applying to intelligence offices for domestics, go at once to the auction room, and buy a man or a woman with as little hesitancy or compunction as they now send to brighton for beeves?" this remark has drawn on him some censures not at all merited. there are men enough in boston, who have no objection to slavery. i know such men, who would have been glad if slavery had been continued here. are boston merchants unwilling to take mortgages on plantations and negroes? do northern men not acquire negroes by marrying wealthy women at the south, and keep the negroes as slaves? if the truth could be known, i think it would appear that dr. palfrey had lost more reputation in boston than he gained, by emancipating the human beings which fell to his lot. but here is a story which i take from the boston republican. it is worth preserving as a monument of the morals of boston in , and may be worth preserving at the end of the century:-- "a year or two since, a bright-looking mulatto youth, about twenty years of age, and whose complexion was not much, if any, darker than that of the great 'expounder of the constitution,' entered the counting-room, on some errand for his master, a kentuckian, who was making a visit here. a merchant on one of our principal wharves, who came in and spoke to him, remarked to the writer that he once owned this 'boy' and his mother, and sold them for several hundred dollars. upon my expressing astonishment to him that he could thus deal in human flesh, he remarked that 'when you are among the romans, you must do as the romans do.' i know of others of my northern acquaintances, and good whigs too, who have owned slaves at the south, and who, if public opinion warranted it, would be as likely, i presume, to buy and sell them at the north." i have yet to learn that the controlling men of this city have any considerable aversion to domestic slavery.[ ] mr. mann's zeal in behalf of freedom, and against the extension of slavery, has drawn upon him the indignation of mr. webster, who is grieved to see him so ignorant of american law. but mr. mann is able to do his own fighting. * * * * * so much for the political parties and their relation to the matters at issue at this moment. still, there is some reason to hope that the attempt to extend slavery, made in the face of the world, and supported by such talent, will yet fail; that it will bring only shame on the men who aim to extend and perpetuate so foul a blight. the fact that mr. webster's retainers must come to the rescue of their attorney; that himself must write letters to defend himself, and must even obtain the services of a clergyman to help him--this shows the fear that is felt from the anti-slavery spirit of the north. depend upon it, a politician is pretty far gone when he sends for the minister, and he thinks his credit failing when he gets a clergyman on his paper to indorse for the christian character of american slavery. here i ought to speak of the party not politicians, who contend against slavery not only beyond the limits of the constitution, but within those limits; who are opposed not only to the extension, but to the continuance of slavery; who declare that they will keep no compromises which conflict with the eternal laws of god,--of the anti-slavery party. mr. president, if i were speaking to whigs, to democrats, or to free soil men, perhaps i might say what i think of this party, of their conduct, and their motives; but, sir, i pass it by, with the single remark, that i think the future will find this party where they have always been found. i have before now attempted to point out the faults of this party, and before these men; that work i will not now attempt a second time, and this is not the audience before which i choose to chant its praises. * * * * * there are several forces which oppose the anti-slavery movement at this day. here are some of the most important. the demagogues of the parties are all or nearly all against it. by demagogue i mean the man who undertakes to lead the people for his own advantage, to the harm and loss of the people themselves. all of this class of men, or most of them, now support slavery--not, as i suppose, because they have any special friendship for it, but because they think it will serve their turn. some noble men in politics are still friends of the slave. the demagogues of the churches must come next. i am not inclined to attribute so much original power to the churches as some men do. i look on them as indications of public opinion, and not sources thereof--not the wind, but only the vane which shows which way it blows. once the clergy were the masters of the people, and the authors of public opinion to a great degree; now they are chiefly the servants of the people, and follow public opinion, and but seldom aspire to lead it, except in matters of their own craft, such as the technicalities of a sect, or the form of a ritual. they may lead public opinion in regard to the "posture in prayer," to the "form of baptism," and the like. in important matters which concern the welfare of the nation, the clergy have none or very little weight. still, as representatives of public opinion, we really find most of the clergy, of all denominations, arrayed against the cause of eternal justice. i pass over this matter briefly, because it is hardly necessary for me to give any opinion on the subject. but i am glad to add, that in all denominations here in new england, and perhaps in all the north, there are noble men, who apply the principles of justice to this question of the nation, and bear a manly testimony in the midst of bad examples. some of the theological newspapers have shown a hostility to slavery and an attachment to the cause of liberty which few men expected; which were quite unknown in those quarters before. to do full justice to men in the sects who speak against this great and popular sin of the nation, we ought to remember that it is harder for a minister than for almost any other man to become a reformer. it is very plain that it is not thought to belong to the calling of a minister, especially in a large town, to oppose the actual and popular sins of his time. so when i see a minister yielding to the public opinion which favors unrighteousness, and passing by, in silence and on the other side, causes which need and deserve his labors and his prayers, i remember what he is hired for, and paid for,--to represent the popular form of religion; if that be idolatry, to represent that. but when i see a minister oppose a real sin which is popular, i cannot but feel a great admiration for the man. we have lately seen some examples of this. yet, on the other side, there are some very sad examples of the opposite. here comes forward a man of high standing in the new england churches, a man who has done real service in promoting a liberal study of matters connected with religion, and defends slavery out of what he deems the "infallible word of god,"--the old testament and new testament. well, if christianity supports american slavery, so much the worse for christianity, that is all. perhaps i ought not to say, _if_ christianity supports slavery. we all know it does not, never did, and never can. but if paul was an apologist for slavery, so much the worse for paul. if calvinism or catholicism supports slavery, so much the worse for them, not so much the better for slavery! i can easily understand the conduct of the leaders of the new york mob: considering the character of the men, their ignorance and general position, i can easily suppose they may have thought they were doing right in disturbing the meetings there. considering the apathy of the public authorities, and the attempt, openly made by some men,--unluckily of influence in that city,--to excite others to violence, i have a good deal of charity for rynders and his gang. but it is not so easy to excuse the conspicuous ecclesiastical defenders of slavery. they cannot plead their ignorance. let them alone, to make the best defence they can. the toryism of america is also against us. i call that man a tory, who prefers the accidents of man to the substance of manhood. i mean one who prefers the possessions and property of mankind to man himself, to reason and to justice. of this toryism we have much in america, much in new england, much in boston. in this town, i cannot but think the prevailing influence is still a tory influence. it is this which is the support of the demagogues of the state and the church. toryism exists in all lands. in some, there is a good deal of excuse to be made for it. i can understand the toryism of the duke of medina sidonia, and of such men. if a man has been born to great wealth and power, derived from ancestors for many centuries held in admiration and in awe; if he has been bred to account himself a superior being, and to be treated accordingly, i can easily understand the toryism of such a man, and find some excuse for it. i can understand the tory literature of other nations. the toryism of the "london quarterly," of "blackwood," is easily accounted for, and forgiven. it is, besides, sometimes adorned with wit, and often set off by much learning. it is respectable toryism. but the toryism of men who only know they had a grandfather by inference, not by positive testimony; who inherited nothing but their bare limbs; who began their career as tradesmen or mechanics,--mechanics in divinity or law as well as in trade,--and get their bread by any of the useful and honorable callings of life--that such men, getting rich, or lifting their heads out of the obscurity they were once in, should become tories, in a land, too, where institutions are founded on the idea of freedom and equity and natural justice--that is another thing. the toryism of american journals, with little scholarship, with no wit, and wisdom in homoeopathic doses; the toryism of a man who started from nothing, the architect of his own fortune; the toryism of a republican, of a yankee, the toryism of a snob,--it is toryism reduced to its lowest denomination, made vulgar and contemptible; it is the little end of the tail of toryism. let us loathe the unclean thing in the depth of our soul, but let us pity the poor tory; for he, also, in common with the negro slave, is "a man and a brother." then the spirit of trade is often against us. mr. mann, in his letter, speaks of the opposition made to wilberforce by the "guinea merchants" of liverpool, in his attempts to put an end to the slave-trade. the corporation of liverpool spent over ten thousand pounds in defence of a traffic, "the worst the sun ever shone upon." this would seem to be a reflection upon some of the merchants of boston. it seems, from a statement in the atlas, that mr. mann did not intend his remarks to apply to boston, but to new york and philadelphia, where mass meetings of merchants had been held, to sustain mr. clay's compromise resolutions. although mr. mann did not apply his remarks to boston, i fear they will apply here as well as to our sister cities. i have yet to learn that the letter of mr. webster's retainers was any less well adapted to continue and extend slavery, than the resolutions passed at new york and philadelphia. i wish the insinuations of mr. mann did not apply here. one of the signers of the letter to mr. webster incautiously betrayed, i think, the open secret of the retainers when he said--"i don't care a damn how many slave states they annex!" this is a secret, because not avowed; open, because generally known, or at least believed, to be the sentiment of a strong party in massachusetts. i am glad to have it also expressed; now the issue is joined, and we do not fight in the dark. it has long been suspected that some inhabitants of boston were engaged in the slave-trade. not long since, the brig "lucy anne," of boston, was captured on the coast of africa, with five hundred and forty-seven slaves on board. this vessel was built at thomaston in ; repaired at boston in , and now hails from this port. she was commanded by one "captain otis," and is owned by one "salem charles." this, i suppose, is a fictitious name, for certainly it would not be respectable in boston to extend slavery in this way. even mr. winthrop is opposed to that, and thinks "a million swords would leap from their scabbards to oppose it." but it may be that there are men in boston who do not think it any worse to steal men who were born free, and have grown up free in africa, and make slaves of them, than to steal such as are born free in america, before they are grown up. if we have the old testament decidedly sustaining slavery, and the new testament never forbidding it; if, as we are often told, neither jesus nor his early followers ever said a word against slavery; if scarcely a christian minister in boston ever preaches against this national sin; if the representative from boston has no religious scruples against returning a fugitive slave, or extending slavery over a "hundred or a hundred thousand square miles" of new territory; if the great senator from massachusetts refuses to vote for the wilmot proviso, or reaffirm an ordinance of nature, and reënact the will of god; if he calls on us to return fugitive slaves "with alacrity," and demands of massachusetts that she shall conquer her prejudices; if nine hundred and eighty-seven men in this vicinity, of lawful age,[ ] are thankful to him for enlightening them as to their duty, and a professor of theology comes forward to sanction american slavery in the name of religion--why, i think mr. "salem charles," with his "captain otis," may not be the worst man in the world, after all! let us pity him also, as "a man and a brother." * * * * * such is the crisis in our affairs; such the special issue in the general question between freedom and slavery; such the position of parties and of great men in relation to this question; such the foes to freedom in america. on our side, there are great and powerful allies. the american idea is with us; the spirit of the majority of men in the north, when they are not blindfolded and muzzled by the demagogues of state and church. the religion of the land, also, is on our side; the irreligion, the idolatry, the infidelity thereof, all of that is opposed to us. religion is love of god and love of man: surely, all of that, under any form, catholic or quaker, is in favor of the unalienable rights of man. we know that we are right; we are sure to prevail. but in times present and future, as in times past, we need heroism, self-denial, a continual watchfulness, and an industry which never tires. let us not be deceived about the real question at issue. it is not merely whether we shall return fugitive slaves without trial by jury. we will not return them with trial by jury! neither "with alacrity," nor "with the solemnity of judicial proceedings!" it is not merely whether slavery shall be extended or not. by and by there will be a political party with a wider basis than the free soil party, who will declare that the nation itself must put an end to slavery in the nation; and if the constitution of the united states will not allow it, there is another constitution that will. then the title, defender and expounder of the constitution of the united states, will give way to this,--"defender and expounder of the constitution of the universe," and we shall reaffirm the ordinance of nature, and reënact the will of god. you may not live to see it, mr. president, nor i live to see it; but it is written on the iron leaf that it must come; come, too, before long. then the speech of mr. webster, and the defence thereof by mr. stuart, the letter of the retainers and the letters of the retained, will be a curiosity; the conduct of the whigs and democrats an amazement, and the peculiar institution a proverb amongst all the nations of the earth. in the turmoil of party politics, and of personal controversy, let us not forget continually to move the previous question, whether freedom or slavery is to prevail in america. there is no attribute of god which is not on our side; because, in this matter, we are on the side of god. mr. president: i began by congratulating you on the favorable signs of the times. one of the most favorable is the determination of the south to use the powers of government to extend slavery. at this day, we exhibit a fact worse than christendom has elsewhere to disclose; the fact that one sixth part of our population are mere property; not men, but things. england has a proletary population, the lowest in europe; we have three million of proletaries lower than the "pauper laborers" of england, which the whig protectionists hold up to us in terror. the south wishes to increase the number of slaves, to spread this blot, this blight and baneful scourge of civilization over new territory. hot-headed men of the south declare that, unless it is done, they will divide the union; famous men of the north "cave in," and verify their own statements about "dough-faces" and "dough-souls." all this is preaching anti-slavery to the thinking men of the north; to the sober men of all parties, who prefer conscience to cotton. the present session of congress has done much to overturn slavery. "whom the gods destroy they first make mad." footnotes: [ ] mr. silgeström. [ ] annal. lib. xiv. cap. , _et seq._ [ ] executive documents: house of representatives, no. , p. . [ ] since the delivery of the above, mr. webster has introduced his bill, providing a trial by jury for fugitive slaves. if i understand it, mr. webster does not offer it as a substitute for the judiciary bill on the subject, does not introduce it as an amendment to that or to any thing else. nay, he does not formally introduce it--only lays it before the senate, with the desire that it may be printed! the effect it is designed to produce, it is very easy to see. the retainers can now say--see! mr. webster himself wishes to provide a trial by jury for fugitives! some of the provisions of the bill are remarkable, but they need not be dwelt on here. [ ] while this is passing through the press, i learn that several wealthy citizens of boston are at this moment owners of several hundreds of slaves. i think they would lose reputation among their fellows if they should set them free. [ ] it has since appeared that several of those persons were at the time, and still are, holders of slaves. their conduct need excite no surprise. iii. a discourse occasioned by the death of the late president taylor.--preached at the melodeon, july , . last sunday, on a day near the national anniversary, something was said of the relation which the american citizen bears to the state, and of the duties and rights which belong to that relation. since then an event has occurred which suggests another topic of a public nature, and so i invite your attention to a discourse of the general position and duties of an american ruler, and in special of the late president taylor. it is no pleasant task to rise to speak so often on such themes as this, but let us see what warning or guidance we can gather from this occasion. * * * * * in order that a man should be competent to become a complete political ruler and head of the american people, he ought to be distinguished above other men in three particulars. first, he ought to have just political ideas in advance of the people, ideas not yet organized into institutions in the state. then he will be a leader in ideas. next, he ought to have a superior power of organizing those ideas, of putting them into institutions in the state. then he will be a leader in the matter of organizing ideas. then he ought to have a superior power of administering the institutions after they are made. then he will be a leader in the matter of administering institutions. an eminent degree of these three qualities constitutes genius for statesmanship, genius, too, of a very high order. a man who really and efficiently leads in politics must possess some or all of these qualities; without them, or any of them, he can only seem to lead. he and the people both may think he is the leader, and call him so; but he that shall lead others aright, must himself be on the right road and in advance of them. to perform the functions of a leader of men, the man must be eminently just also, true to the everlasting right, the law of god; otherwise he can never possess in the highest degree, or in a competent degree, the power of ideas, of organization, of administration. a man eminently just, and possessing these three qualities is a leader by nature; if he is also put into the conventional position of leader, then he bears the same relation to the people, which the captain of a ship, skilful and competent, would bear to the ship's company who were joint owners with him, and had elected him to his office, expecting that he would serve them as captain while he held the office of captain. the complete and perfect leader must be able to originate just political ideas, to organize them justly, to administer the organization with justice. but these three powers are seldom united in the same man; so, practically, the business of leading, and therefore of ruling, is commonly distributed amongst many persons; not concentrated in one man's hands. i think we have as yet had no statesman in america who has enjoyed each and all of these three talents in an eminent degree. no man is so rich as mankind. any one of them is a great gift, entitling the man to distinction; but the talent for administration is not very rare. it is not difficult to find a man of good administrative ability with no power to invent, none to organize the inventions of other men. how many men can work all day with oxen yoked to a plough; how few could invent a plough or tame wild cattle. it is not hard to find men capable of managing political machinery, of holding the national plough and conducting the national team, when both are in the field, and there is the old furrow to serve as guide. that is all we commonly look for in an american politician. he is to follow the old constitutional furrow, and hold the old plough, and scatter a little democratic or whig seed, furnished by his party, not forgetting to give them the handsel of the crop. that is all we commonly look for in an american politician, leaving it for some bright but obscure man in the mass of the people to discover a new idea, and to devise the mode of its organization. then the politician, perched aloft on his high place and conspicuous, holds the string of the kite which some unknown men have thought out, made up, and hoisted with great labor; he appears to be the great man because he sits and holds the string, administering the kite, and men look up and say, "see there, what a great man he is! is not this the foremost man of the age?" in this way the business of ruling the nation is made a matter of mere routine, not of invention or construction. the ruler is to tend the public mill; not to make it, or to mend it; not to devise new and better mills, not even to improve the old one. we may be thankful if he does not abuse and leave it worse than he found it. he is not to gather the dam, only to shut the gate at the right time, and at the right time open it; to take sufficient toll of all comers, and now and then make a report of the grinding, or of what he sees fit to communicate to the owners of the mill. as it is a part of the written constitution of the land that all money bills shall originate with the house of representatives, so it is a part of the unwritten custom that political ideas in advance of the people shall not originate with the nominal rulers of the nation, but elsewhere. one good thing results from this: we are not much governed, but much let alone. the american form of government has some great merits; this i esteem the greatest; that it lets the people alone so much. in forming ourselves into a state, we agreed with one another not to meddle and make politically with individuals so much as other nations had done. it is a long time since we have had a man of large genius for politics at the head of affairs in america. i think we could not mention more than one who had any genius for just political ideas in advance of the people. skilful administrators we have had in great abundance in politics as in other matters. nature herself seems democratic in her action here, and all our great movements appear to be brought about by natural power diffused amongst many men of talent, not by natural power condensed into a single man of genius. so long as this is the case, the present method of letting alone is the best one. the american nation has marched on without much pioneering on the part of its official rulers, no one of them for a long time being much in advance of the million; and while it is so it is certainly best that the million are very much left to themselves. but if we could have a man as much in advance of the people in all these three qualities, and especially in the chief quality--as the skilful projector of a cotton mill is in advance of the girls who tend the looms, in all that relates to the projection of a cotton mill,--then we should know what it was to have a real leader, a ruler who could be the schoolmaster of the nation, not ruling over our bodies by fear, but in the spirit of love, setting us lessons which we could not have devised, nor even understand without his help; one who preserves all the good of the old, and adds thereto much new good not seen before, and so instructs and helps forward the people. but as the good god has not sent such a man, and he is not to be made by men, only found, nor in the least helped in any of those three qualities by all the praise we can pour on him; so it comes to pass that an ordinary ruler is a person of no very great consequence. his importance is official and not personal, and as only the person dies, not the office, the death of such an one is not commonly an affair of much significance. suppose after mr. tyler or mr. polk had taken the oath of office, he had appointed a common clerk, a man of routine and experience, as his factotum, with power to affix the presidential name to necessary documents, and then had quietly and in silence departed from this life, how much would the nation have lost? a new and just political idea; an organization thereof? no such thing. if the public press had kept the secret, we should not have found out their death till this time. the obscure clerk could tend the mill as well as his famous master who would not be missed. louis xiv. said, "the state! that is i." he was the state. so when the ruler dies, the state is in peril. if the king of prussia, the emperor of russia or austria, or the pope of rome were to die, there would be a revolution, and nobody knows what would come of it; for there the ruler is master of the people, who are subjects, not citizens, and the old master dying, it is not easy to yoke the people to the chariot of a new one. here the people are the state; and though the power of general taylor was practically greater than that of any monarch in europe, save nicholas, william, and ferdinand, yet at his death all the power passes into the hands of his successor, with no noise, no tumult, not even the appearance of a street constable. i think that was a sublime sight--the rule over twenty millions of people, jealous of their rights, silently, by due course of law, passes into the hands of another man at dead of night, and the next morning the nation is just as safe, just as quiet and secure as before, no fear of change perplexing them. that was a sublime sight--one of the fair things which comes of a democracy. here the ruler is servant, and the people master; so the death of a president, like mr. van buren, or any of his successors, harrison or tyler or polk, would really have been a very unimportant event; not so momentous as the death of one of the ablest doctors in boston, for should the physician die, your chance of life is diminished by that fact. if dr. channing had died at the age of forty, before he wrote his best works, his death would have been a greater calamity than that of any or all of the four presidents just named, as soon as their inaugural address was delivered; for dr. channing had some truths to tell, which there was nobody else to deliver at that time. no president since jefferson, i think, has done the nation so much good as the opening of the erie canal in new york, or the chief railroads in massachusetts, or the building up of any one of the half dozen large manufacturing towns in new england. mr. cunard, in establishing his line of atlantic steamers, did more for america than any president for five-and-twenty years. the discovery of the properties of sulphuric ether, the devising of the magnetic telegraph, was of more advantage to this nation, than the service of any president for a long time. i think i could mention a few men in boston, any one of whom has been of more service than four or five presidents; and, accordingly, the death of any one of those would be a greater calamity than the demise of all those presidents the day after election. with us the president is only one spoke in the wheel, and if that is broken we always have a spare spoke on hand, and the wheel is so made that without stopping the mill, the new spoke drops into the place of the old one and no one knows the change till told thereof. if mr. polk had really been the ablest man in the land, a creator and an organizer, his death would have been a public calamity, and the whole nation would have felt it, as boston or new york would feel the loss of one of its ablest manufacturers or merchants, lawyers or doctors. that would deprive us of the services of a man which could not be supplied. we have always spare men of routine, but not spare men of genius. dr. channing has been missed ever since his death, and the churches of boston, poor enough before, are the poorer for his absence. so has john quincy adams, old as he was, been missed in the house of representatives. the enemy of freedom may well rejoice that his voice is still. but who misses general harrison or mr. polk? what interest languishes in consequence of their departure? what idea, what right, lost thereby a defender? if sir robert peel were to die, the british nation would feel the loss. we attach a false importance to the death of a president. great calamities were apprehended at the death of general harrison. but what came? whigs went out of office and democrats went into office. had jefferson died before the declaration of independence, or washington any time after it, or before the termination of his official service, or john adams before the end of the war, that would have been a great calamity; for i know not where we should have found another jefferson, to see so distinctly, and write down so plain the great american idea, or another washington to command an army without money, without provisions, without hats and shoes, as that man did. the death of samuel adams, in , would have been a terrible misfortune to america. but the death of general harrison only made a change in the cabinet, not in the country; it affected the politicians more than the people. we are surrounded in the world with nations ruled by kings, who are the masters of the people; hard masters too! when they die the people mourn, not always very wisely, not always sincerely, but always with ceremony. the mourning for george iv. and william iv. in england, i doubt not, was more splendid and imposing than that for edward the confessor and oliver cromwell; and that for louis xv. outdid that for henry iv. in a monarchy, men always officially mourn their king, whether it be king log, or king snake, or king christian; we follow the example of those states. if some of the men, whose death would be the greatest calamity, should die, the newspapers would not go into mourning; we should not have a day of fasting set apart; no minister would think it "an inscrutable providence;" only a few plain country people would come together and take up the dust, disenchanted of the genius which gave it power over other and animated clay, to lay it down in the ground. there would be no catafalques in the street; but the upper mountain-tops would miss that early sun which kissed their foreheads, while all below the world was wrapped in drowsy mist, and the whole race of man would be losers by the fading out of so much poetry, or truth, or justice, love and faith. * * * * * the office of president of the united states is undeniably one of great importance. if you put in it a great man, one with ability to invent, to organize and to administer, he has a better opportunity to serve mankind than most kings of europe. i know of no position in the world more desirable for a really great man, a man with a genius for statesmanship, a million-minded man, than to take this young, daring, hopeful nation, so full of promise, so ready for work, and lead them forward in the way of political righteousness, giving us ideas, persuading us to build institutions thereof, and make the high thought of a man of genius the common life of a mighty nation, young as yet and capable of taking any lesson of national nobility which the most gifted man can devise; to be the ruler, not over russian serfs, but american freemen, citizens, not subjects; to be the schoolmaster for twenty millions, and they such promising pupils, loving hard lessons; and the men that set them, the most enterprising race of persons in the world, who have already learned something of christianity and the idea of personal freedom,--why that is a noble ambition. i do not wonder that a man of great powers should covet this great position, and feel a noble dissatisfaction and unrest until he found himself there, gravitating towards it as naturally as the mississippi to the ocean. put in it such men as i point to, one with the intellect of a webster, the conscience of a channing, the philanthropy of much humbler men; let him aim at the welfare of the nation and mankind; let him have just political ideas in advance of the nation, and, in virtue thereof, ability to solve the terrible social and political questions of this age; careless of his popularity and reputation, but careful of his conscience and his character, let him devote himself to the work of leading this people, and what an office is that of president of the united states in the middle of the nineteenth century! he would make this nation a society for mutual improvement twenty millions strong; not king log, not king stork, but king good-man, king christian if you will, he would do us a service, dignifying an office which was itself a dignity. but if it be so noble for such a man, working with such an aim, for such an end; when a little man is in that office, with no ideas in advance of the people, and incapable of understanding such as have them; with no ability to organize the political ideas not yet organized, and applied to life; a man of routine; not ruling for the nation, but the ruler of a party and for a party, his ambition only to serve the party; an ordinary man, surrounding himself with other ordinary men; with ordinary habits, ordinary aims, ordinary means, and aiming at the ordinary ends of an adventurer; careless of his conscience and character, but careful of his party-popularity and temporary reputation,--why the office becomes painful to think of; and the officer, his state is not kingly, it is vulgar and mean, and low! so the lighthouse on the rocks of boston harbor, is a pleasant thing to see and to imagine, with its great lamp looking far out to sea, and shining all night long, a star of special providence; seen afar off, when stormy skies shut other stars from sight, it assures the mariner of his whereabouts, guides the whaler and the indiaman safe into port and peace, bringing wealth to the merchant, and a husband to the lingering wife, almost a widow in the cheating sea's delay and her own heart-sickness from hope so long deferred. but take away the great lamp, leaving all else; put in its place a little tallow candle of twenty to the pound, whose thin glitter could not be seen a mile off, spite of the burnished reflectors at its side, and which requires constant picking and trimming to keep the flame alive, and at its best estate flickers with every flutter of the summer wind,--what would the lighthouse be to look upon or to imagine? what a candlestick for what a candle! praise it as much as you will; flatter it in the newspapers; vote it "adequate" and the "tallest beacon in the world;" call it the "pharos of america;" it is all in vain; at the best, it can only attract moths and mosquitoes on a serene night; and when the storm thunders on that sepulchral rock, it is no light at all; and the whaler may be split asunder, and the indiaman go to the grave, and the wealth of the merchant be scattered as playthings for the sea, and the bones of the mariner may blanch the bottom of the deep, for all the aid which that thin dazzle can furnish, spite of its lofty tower and loftier praise! to rule a bank, a factory, or a railroad, when the officer is chosen for business and not charity, to command a packet-ship or a steamboat, you will get a man of real talent in his line of work; one that has some history, who has made his proof-shot, and shown that he has some mettle in him. but to such a pass has the business of ruling a nation arrived, that, of all the sovereigns of christian europe, it is said not more than two, nicholas of russia, and oscar of sweden, would have been distinguished if born in private stations. the most practical and commercial nation in the world, possessing at this moment a power more eminently great than that of the roman empire in its palmy time, has for a ruler a quite ordinary woman, who contributes neither ideas nor organizations, and probably could not administer wisely the affairs of a single shire in the island. in this respect, the highest stations of political life seem to have become as barren as the dead sea. in selecting our rulers in america, it is long since we have had a man of large powers, even of the sort which the majority of men appreciate in a contemporary. i have sometimes thought men were selected who were thought not strong enough to hurt us much, forgetting that a weak man may sometimes hurt us as much more than a strong one would. * * * * * after all this preliminary, let me now say something of the late president taylor, only further premising that i am here to tell the truth about him, so far as i know it, and nothing more or less. i am not responsible for the facts of the case, only for the correct statement thereof. there have been men who were not disposed to do him justice; there were men enough to flatter and overpraise him while alive, and there will probably be enough of such now that he is dead. much official panegyric has there been already, and much more is in prospect. i think i need not be called on for any contribution of that sort. i wish to weigh him in an even balance, neither praising nor blaming without cause. to eulogize is one thing; to deal justly, another and quite different. * * * * * zachary taylor was born on the th of november, , in orange county, virginia. his father, richard taylor, was a soldier during a part of the revolutionary war, had a colonel's commission in , and appears to have been a valuable officer and a worthy man. in he removed to kentucky, where he resided until his death. he was a farmer, a man of property and influence in kentucky, then a new country. he was one of the framers of the constitution of that state; several times in the legislature, and the first collector of the port of louisville, then a port of entry. zachary, the third son, followed the business of farming until he was more than twenty-three years of age. during his childhood he received such an education as you can imagine in a new and wild country like kentucky sixty years ago. however, it is said his father took great pains with his education, and he enjoyed the instruction of a schoolmaster from connecticut, who is still living. hence it is plain the best part of his education must have come, not from the schoolmaster, but from the farm, the woods, and the connection with his parents and their associates. what a man learns at school, even in boston, is but a small part of his education. in general taylor's case, it is probable that things had much more to do with his culture than words. men nursed on greek and latin would probably have called him an uneducated man; with equal justice he might call many a scholar an uneducated man. to speak and write with grammatical accuracy is by no means the best test of education. fondness for a military life is natural in a man born and bred as he was, living in a country where the vicinity of the indians made every man a quaker or a soldier. about , volunteers were raised in the west to oppose the expected movements of aaron burr, a traitor to his country, a bold, bad man, who had been the candidate of the federalists for the presidency; perhaps the worst man we had had in politics up to that time. mr. taylor joined one of the companies of volunteers. in he was appointed lieutenant in the army of the united states, joined the forces, was soon sent to new orleans, was seized with the yellow fever, and returned home. in he was married to miss margaret smith, of maryland. in he was employed in expeditions against the indians in the northwest of the united states. here he was under the command of general harrison. in he was made captain, and had the command of a block-house and stockade called fort harrison, on the wabash river, soon after the declaration of war against england. this place was attacked by a strong body of indians. captain taylor with less than fifty men, defended it with vigor and success. in consequence of his services on that occasion, he was promoted to the rank of brevet major. during the rest of the war, he continued in service on the frontiers, and seems to have done his duty faithfully as a soldier. after the war was over, in , the army was diminished to a peace establishment, and major taylor reduced to the rank of captain. in consequence of this, he withdrew from the army, but, after a few months, returned, and was then, or subsequently, restored to his former rank as major. for several years he was employed in such various military services, in the west and south-west, as must be performed in a time of peace. in he was made lieutenant-colonel. in he became colonel, and in that year, with a command of four hundred men, he served under general atkinson, in the expedition against the sacs and other indians led by the celebrated black hawk. afterwards he was intrusted with the command of fort crawford, where he remained till , when he was ordered to florida, to fight against the seminole indians. it was here that he made use of the bloodhounds to hunt the poor savages from their hiding-places in the woods. you know what mr. pitt once said of the spanish use of this weapon in the sixteenth century, but the animals imported from cuba, where they had been trained to hunt runaway slaves, were of no value when put upon the track of red men. i do not know who originated the scheme of employing the bloodhounds. it has often been ascribed to general taylor, and with good reason, i believe, has it been denied that he was the author of that plan. it was of no great honor to the nation, let who would invent it; and few men will be sorry that it did not turn out well. it was thought colonel taylor displayed a good deal of skill, in contending with the indians in florida, and, accordingly, he was made brevet brigadier-general, in . after finishing the conquest of the indians, he left florida, in . it is said that fighting against the indians is a good school for a soldier. general taylor served long at this work, and served faithfully. in the florida war, his conduct as general is said to have been noble. in , he was made commander of that portion of the american army in the south-west of the united states, and in , removed his family from kentucky to baton rouge, in louisiana, which has since been his home. in he was ordered to texas, and had command of the "army of occupation," and subsequently of the "army of invasion." in the war against mexico, it is thought by competent judges that he displayed a good deal of military skill. he was beloved by his soldiers, and seems to have won their confidence, partly by success, partly by military talent, but also in part by his character, which was frank, honest, just and unpretending. i have heard of no instance in the whole war, in which cruelty is chargeable upon him. several anecdotes are related of his kindliness, generosity, and openness of heart. no doubt they are true. war is a bloody trade; it makes one shudder to think of it in its terrible details; but the soldier is not necessarily a malignant or a cruel man; that bloody and profane command, so well known, uttered in the heat of conflict, when the battle seemed to waver, does not imply any peculiar cruelty or ill-will. it is only one of the accidents of war, which shows more clearly what its substance is. i am no judge of warlike operations and of military skill, and therefore shall not pretend to pass judgment on matters which i know i do not understand; i shall not inquire as to the military value of the laurels he won at resaca de la palma, at monterey, and at buena vista. but, in our judgment, we ought to remember one circumstance: that is, the inferiority of the mexicans. they were beaten, i think, in every considerable battle throughout the whole war; no matter who commanded. general scott landed at vera cruz, captured the city, and the far-famed castle of st. juan d'ulloa, garrisoned by four thousand three hundred and ninety soldiers, and the american loss amounted to thirteen men killed, and sixty-three hurt! general scott took possession of the great port of the nation, with less than twenty thousand soldiers, with only about fifteen thousand troops; marched nearly two hundred miles into the interior, fighting his way, and garrisoning the road behind him, sometimes even subsisting his army in the country which he conquered as he went on; and finally took the capital, a city with nearly two hundred thousand inhabitants, with less than six thousand soldiers. suppose an army of that size were to land at newburyport, with the intention of marching to worcester, not two hundred miles, but only fifty or sixty, how many do you think would ever reach the spot? why, suppose the american men did nothing, there are women enough in massachusetts to throw every soldier into the merrimac! i do not believe that this inferiority of the mexican arises so much from the superior bravery of the americans; almost any male animal will fight on small provocation; your mexican male, as well as your american, on as small provocation, and as desperately. but the american soldier was always well armed, furnished with every thing that modern science makes terrible in war; well clad, well fed, well paid, he went voluntarily to the work. the mexicans were ill armed, ill clad, ill fed, often not paid at all, and sometimes brought to fight against their will. the difference does not end here: the main reliance of the mexican government, the regular soldiers, the presidiales, were men who seemed to have most of the vices of old garrison soldiers, with most of the faults of new recruits; or, as another has said, himself a soldier in the war, "all the vices engendered in a garrison life; all the cowardice which their constant defeats by the indians had created; all the laziness contracted in an idle monotonous existence, and very little military skill." the new levies came unwillingly, and were often only "food for powder." on the american side was a small body of veteran soldiers, low and coarse men--it is the policy of america to have the rank and file of our army in peace composed usually of such--but full of brute courage; accustomed to all sorts of hardships and exposure; under a discipline rigorous and almost perfect; wonted to danger, and weaned from fear; careless of life almost to desperation; full of confidence in their commander, and of contempt for their foe. the volunteers brought with them the characteristic ardor of americans, their confidence of success, their contempt of toil and of danger; familiar with fire-arms from their youth, they soon learned the discipline of the camp. you see what a difference this makes between the two armies; but the chief superiority of the american soldiers was this--they came from a country where there is a complete national unity of action. so the government could trust the army, and the army the government; the soldiers had confidence in their commander, confidence in their country, confidence in their cause; while the mexicans had no national unity of action, the people little confidence in the government, the government as little in the people; the nation but little trust in the army, and the army little in the nation; the soldiers had great fear of the enemy, little faith in their officers, and the officers little in their men. did you ever see a swarm of bees when the queen bee was dead, and moths had invaded the hive? the mexicans were much in the same state. the result was what had readily been foreseen: at the battle of buena vista, on the one side, there were twenty-one thousand five hundred and fifty-three mexicans; on the other, four thousand seven hundred and fifty-nine american soldiers, of which only four hundred and seventy-six were regulars. yet the american loss, in killed, wounded and missing, was but seven hundred and forty-six, while that of the mexican army was nearly two thousand men lost. if the mexicans had done the same proportionate execution, every american would have been killed long before night. all these things ought to be taken into account, in making up our mind about the difficulty of the enterprise. still, after this allowance is made, it must be confessed the american invasion of mexico was a remarkable undertaking, distinguished for its boldness, not to say its rashness, and almost unparalleled in the history of modern wars. it certainly did require great coolness, courage, and prudence, on the part of general taylor, to conduct his part of the expedition. he had those qualities, but it has not yet been proved or shown to be probable, that he had the nobler qualities which make a great general. the kind of warfare he was engaged in, does not bring to light the high qualities of a man like gustavus adolphus, frederick the great, or napoleon. perhaps general taylor had them, but they did not appear. * * * * * the mexican war was unfortunate for the administration which carried it on, for the political party which caused the war. the success of general taylor attracted the attention of the people, and the obscure soldier took popular rank before the president of the united states. unconsciously the vicarious suitor, courting public favor for his master, won good graces for himself. the political party which began the war, was eclipsed by the triumph of its own soldier; and the slave-power which projected the war seems likely to be ruined by the success of the enterprise. it has been said, that he was averse to the mexican war which he fought in; i know not whether this be true or false. but if true, it deserves to be remembered in his defence, that the soldier is only an active tool, as much the instrument of his employer as the spade of the workman whose foot crowds it into the ground. the soldier, high or low, must obey the men who have the official right to command him, his free-will merging in that of his superior. if general taylor had thought the mexican war unjust and wicked, and in consequence had resigned his commission, he would have been covered with obloquy and contempt in the eyes of military men, and the officials of government. most of the newspapers of the land would have attacked him, called him a coward, a traitor and a fanatic; their condemnation would have been worth as much as their praise is now. in estimating his character we ought to remember this fact, for few men do more than their office demands of them, or more than public opinion can approve. such was the success of general taylor in war, at the head of a few thousand men, that public attention was turned towards him, and in a few months the obscure frontier soldier was the most prominent man in the nation. in he received the nomination of the whig convention at philadelphia, for president, and in due time was elected. his election was certainly one of the most remarkable that ever took place in america. it is worth while to look at it for a moment. there was nothing very remarkable in the man to entitle him to that eminent distinction; if there were, the nation was very slow in finding it out. he was a farmer till about twenty-four years old; then a common lieutenant four years more. in the next twenty years he got no higher than to the rank of a "frontier colonel;" he attained that dignity in fact, at the age of forty-eight. he was not made general till the fifty-fifth year of his age. but for the mexican war, i suppose he would, at this day, be as obscure as any other general in the united states' army; nobody would think he was the "second washington," "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen," as his creatures have declared. other military men have been chosen to the presidency. but washington was much more than a soldier; in "a time that tried men's souls" to the utmost, he had carried the nation through eight years of most perilous warfare, more by his character than any eminent military skill, and so had become endeared to the hearts of the people as no american had ever been before. general jackson, at first educated as a lawyer, was a man of large talents, distinguished as a governor, as a senator, and as a judge of the supreme court of tennessee, before he was elected president, or nominated for that office. general harrison, a man of small abilities, surely not more than a third-rate politician in ohio, was yet familiar with the routine of political affairs. he had been a member of the legislature of ohio, of both branches of the congress of the united states, and minister to colombia. general taylor, with an education very imperfect, had passed his life, from twenty-four to sixty-four, on the frontiers and in the army; had never held any civil office; had seldom voted, and though an excellent officer in the sphere of duty he had occupied, did not appear to be the most promising man in the nation to select for its highest and most difficult office. the defence of a log-house in against a troop of indians, the conquest of black hawk, the rout of the seminoles, the gaining of half-a-dozen battles in mexico, at the head of a few thousand soldiers, does not seem exactly an adequate schooling to prepare a common man to lead and rule twenty million americans with the most complicated government in the world. it certainly was surprising, that he should be nominated for that office; and more so, that the nomination should be confirmed by the people. it is not surprising, that the distinguished senator of massachusetts should call this "a nomination not fit to be made;" the wonder is, he deemed it fit to be confirmed. in selecting him for our chief, the nation went hap-hazard, and made a leap in the dark. no prudent man in boston would hire a cook or a coachman with such inadequate recommendations as general taylor had to prove his fitness for his place. had a sensible man on election day asked the nation, "what do you know about the man you vote for?" the people would have been sadly puzzled to seek for an answer. the reasons which led to his selection were partly special, and partly of a general and popular character. it is instructive for us to look at them, now that we can do it coolly. i suppose this was the special cause of his nomination: the leaders of the whig party thought they could not elect either of their most prominent men. if they went before the people with nothing but their idea,--the protection of property by a tariff, and a representative of that idea, however able and well trained, they feared defeat; such as they had met with in the last campaign, when the democratic party, with a man almost unknown to the people, a tricky lawyer from tennessee, had yet carried the day against one of the oldest and ablest politicians in the country. so the whig leaders availed themselves of the temporary popularity of a successful general to give an accidental triumph to their party, and apparently to their idea. that i think was the specific reason which led the politicians to nominate him. doubtless there were other private reasons, weighty to certain individuals, that need not be touched upon. but the general reasons, which gave him weight with the mass of the people and secured his election, ought to be stated for our serious reflection. . there was no one of the great leaders of either party whom the people had much confidence in. i am sorry to say so, but i do not think there is much in any of them to command the respect of a nation, and make us swear fealty to those men. there were two candidates of the whig party; from one of them you might expect a compromise; from the other you were not certain even of that. the democratic candidate had not a name to conjure with. the free soil candidate--was he a man to trust in such times as these? did you see your king and chief in any one of those four men? was any one of them fit to be the political schoolmaster of this nation? what "ground and lofty tumbling" have we had from all four of them? . general taylor was not mixed up with the grand or petty intrigues of the parties, their quarrels and struggles for office. men knew little about him; if little good, certainly little not good; little evil in comparison with any of the others. sometimes you take a man whom you do not know, in preference to an old acquaintance whom you have known too long and too well to trust. . then general taylor had shown himself a rough, honest, plain, straight-forward man, and withal mild and good-natured. apparently, there was much in him to attract and deserve the good-will of the nation. his likeness went abroad through the country like a proclamation; it was the rude, manly, firm, honest, good-natured, homely face of a backwoodsman. his plain habits, plain talk, and modest demeanor reminded men of the old english ballad of "the king and the miller" and the like, and won the affections of honest men. i doubt not the fact that general harrison had once lived in a log cabin, and, other things failing, did drink "hard cider," gave him thousands of votes. the candidate was called "old rough and ready," and there was not a clown in field or city but could understand all that was meant by those terms. even his celebrated horse contributed to his master's election, and drew votes for the president by the thousand. . then he was a successful soldier. the dullest man in the alleghany mountains, or in the low lanes of new york and boston, or the silliest behind the counters of a city shop, can understand fighting, and remember who won a battle. it is wholly needless for such to inquire what the battle was fought for. hence military success is always popular with the multitude, and will be, i suppose, for some ages in america as everywhere else. our churches know no god but the "lord of hosts," "a man of war!" . then he was a southern man, and all our masters must be from the south, or of it, devoted to its peculiar institution. if he had been born in barnstable county, and owned a little patch of yellow sand at cape cod, and had the freeman's hatred of slavery, even churubusco and buena vista would not have given him the votes of the convention, and his war-horse might have lived till this day, he would not have carried his master to the presidency. he was a slaveholder, as seven presidents had been before him, holding office for eight-and-forty years. there are some men at the north, chiefly in the country towns, who think it is not altogether right for a man to steal his brother; such men were to be propitiated. so it was diligently rumored abroad in the north, that the candidate was "opposed to slavery," that he would "probably emancipate his slaves as soon as he was elected." i am told that some persons who heard such a story, actually believed it; i think nobody who told it believed any such thing. the fact that he was a slaveholder, that he had lately purchased one hundred and fourteen men, women, and children, and kept them at hard work for his advantage, showed the value of such a story; and the opposite statement, publicly and industriously circulated at the south, that he loved slavery, desired its extension, and hated the wilmot proviso, shows the honesty of some of the men at the north, who, knowing these facts, sought to keep them secret. these seem to have been the chief reasons which procured his nomination and election. it is easy to see that such a man, though as honest as washington, must be eminently unfit for the high office of president of the united states. he knew little or nothing of the political history of the country, or of the political questions then up for solution; little or nothing of the political men. he had the honesty to confess it. he declared that he was not fit for the office, not acquainted with the political measures of the day, and only consented to be brought from his obscurity, when great men told him he was the only man that could "save the union." he was no statesman, and knew nothing of politics, less than the majority of the more cultivated mechanics, merchants and farmers. he was a soldier, and knew something of fighting, at least of fighting indians and mexicans. if you should take a man of the common abilities, intellectual and moral, the common education, a farmer from northfield, a skipper from provincetown, a jobber from boston, a bucket-maker from hingham, and appoint him chief justice of the supreme court of massachusetts, with the duty of selecting all his associate judges, i think he would be about as competent for the office as general taylor for the post he was elected to. in such a case as i have supposed, the new "judge" must depend on other men, who will tell him what to do; his only safety would be in relying on their advice. then they would be the chief justice, not he. under such circumstances, the leaders of one party nominated him. i must confess such an act, committed by such men, seems exceedingly rash. it was done by the very men who ought, above all others, to have known better. this is one of the many things we have had, which show thinking men how little we can rely on our political chiefs. the nomination once made, the election followed. the wise men told the multitude: "you must vote for him," and the multitude voted. you know how angry men were if you did not believe in his fitness for the office; how it became a test of "patriotism" to believe in him. now the good man is cold in death, how base all that seems! when such a man under such circumstances comes into such an office, you do not know whether the deeds which receive his official sanction, the papers published under his name, the speeches he delivers, and the messages he sends, are his or not his. it is probable that he has little to do with them; they are his officially, not personally; he writes state papers by their signature. some of his speeches were undoubtedly made for him. you know it once happened that a speech, alleged to have been made by him at a public meeting, was sent on by telegraph, and published by the party organ, in one of our great cities, and he was taken sick before the meeting was held, and could not speak at all. that speech betrayed the trick of the administration: it was a speech he had never heard of. from this one act judge of many more. in his arduous office, he must choose advisers, but he wants advisers to advise him to choose advisers. much will depend on his first step; that must needs be in the dark. since this is so, i shall pass over his brief administration with very few words. i do not know how much it was the administration of general taylor, or how far it was that of his cabinet. i do not know who made the cabinet. the messages, in his official term, were as good as usual; but who made the messages? one thing is clear: he promised to be the president of the country, not of a party; to remove no man from office except for reasons not political. neither promise was kept. it was plain that other elements interfered and counteracted the honest intentions of that honest man. general jackson rewarded his "friends" and punished his "enemies," men who voted against him. mr. jefferson had done the same. but i doubt if the administration of either of these men was so completely a party administration as that of general taylor. men were continually removed from office purely for political reasons. the general character of his appointments to office, you can judge of better than i. it seems to me the removal of subordinate officers from their station on account of their vote is one great evil in the management of our institutions. of what consequence is it whether the postmaster at eastham or west-newton, the keeper of the lighthouse at cape anne, or the clay pounds of truro, or the district attorney in boston, or the tide-waiters at nantucket are "good whigs," or not good whigs? * * * * * what shall i say of the character of the man who has left this high office; of him on the whole? some men can be as eloquent on a ribbon as on a raphael. they find no difficulty in calling general taylor "the second washington." i like the first washington too much to call any one by that name lightly. general harrison was the "second washington" ten years ago. general jackson ten years before that. i think there is another "second washington" getting ready, and before the century ends we shall perhaps have five or six of this family. but the world does not breed great men every day. i must confess it, i have not seen any thing very great in general taylor, though i have diligently put my eye to the magnifying glasses of his political partisans; neither have i seen any thing uncommonly mean and little in him, though i have also looked through the minifying glasses of his foes. to be a frontier soldier for forty years, to attain the rank of colonel at the age of forty-eight, after twenty-four years of service, to become a brigadier-general at fifty-four, is no great thing. to defend a log-house, to capture black hawk, to use bloodhounds in war, and to extirpate the seminole indians from the everglades of florida, to conquer the mexicans at churubusco and monterey, does not require very high qualities of mind and heart. but in all the offices he ever held, he appears to have done his official duty openly and honestly. he was a good officer, a plain, blunt, frank, open, modest man. no doubt he was "rough and ready;" his courage was never questioned. his integrity is above suspicion. all this is well known. but is all this enough to make a great man in the middle of this century; a great man in america, and for such an office? judge for yourselves. i sincerely believe that he was more of a man than his political supporters thought him; that he had more natural sagacity, more common sense, more firmness of purpose, and very much more honesty than they expected or desired. rumors reach me that he was not found quite so manageable as his "friends" and admirers had hoped; that he had some conscience and a will of his own. it seems to me that he honestly intended to be an honest and impartial ruler, the president of his country; that he took washington for his general model; that he never sought the office, and at first did not desire it, but when he came to it endeavored to deserve well of his country and do well by mankind. but with the best intentions, what could such a man do, especially with such foes, and more especially with such friends. it is said he was a religious man: sometimes that means that a man loves god and loves men; sometimes that he is superstitious, formal, hypocritical, that he does not love men, and is afraid of god, or of a devil. i do not know in which sense the word is used in reference to him. but it appears to me that he was a man of veracity, honest, upright, and downright too; a good father, a good husband, a good friend, faithful to his idea of duty; very plain, very unpretending, mild and yet firm, good-natured, free and easy. there were many that loved him; a rare circumstance among politicians. he was a temperate man, also, remarkably temperate, and such temperance as his is not a very common virtue in high political and social stations in america, as we all know too well. these are all the good qualities i can make out his title to. i suppose there are some ten thousand men in massachusetts that are his equals in all these qualities, as honest, as able, and as patriotic as he. it is hardly worth while to worship those qualities in a president which are not rare in farmers, and traders, and butchers and mechanics. there are two things which seem to me decidedly wrong in his public career. his partisans at the north claimed that he was hostile to slavery. i never could find any reason for that opinion: at the south his friends insisted that he was the decided friend of slavery. when his opinion was asked on this matter, he remained steadily and pertinaciously silent. to me this does not seem honest or manly. then he was a slaveholder, not by compulsion, as some pretend they hold men in bondage, not by inheritance. he was a slaveholder from choice, and only three years ago bought one hundred and fourteen human beings and kept them as his slaves. this fact must be considered in estimating the character and value of the man. i know that money is the popular god of america; that slaveholding is one of the canonical forms of worshipping that god, sanctioned by the constitution and the laws and the legislature of the land, by its literature and by its churches. i know men in boston, who would have no more scruple in buying and selling a black man as a slave, or a white man if they could catch and keep him, than they would have of buying a cow at brighton. there are men in massachusetts that have grown rich by the slave-trade. it does not hurt their reputation; it is no impeachment of their religious character. now i do not expect a frontier colonel, busy in fighting indians half his life, dogging them with cuban bloodhounds, to be more enlightened on such a matter than merchants, manufacturers, lawyers, ministers and professors of theology in new england. it may be that he had the same opinion as professor stuart, that slavery was allowed in the new testament and sanctioned in the old testament; such a good thing that paul and james said never a word against it. we should not judge such a man as you would judge a unitarian minister in boston or doctors of divinity at andover. born as he was, bred as he had been, living in a camp, sustained by the public opinion of the press, the state and the church, it would not be surprising if it had never occurred to him that it was wrong to steal men. but the fact is to be taken into the account in determining the elevation of his character. it is now plain that he found the office of president a heavy burden; that it cost him his life. it seems to me the conduct of some of our public men towards him was ungenerous, not to say unjust and shameful. an honest man, he looked for honest foes and honest friends; but his hardest battles were fought after he had ceased to be a soldier. well, he has gone to his rest and his recompense. to his family the affliction is sudden, painful and terrible. what vicissitudes in their life--from the obscurity of their former home to the glaring publicity of that high station; then in so brief a time the honored and well-beloved head is silent and cold forever! the nation may well drop its tears of sympathy for those whom its election has robbed of a father and a husband; the ghastly honors of the office are poor recompense for the desolation it has brought into a quiet and once happy home. he has gone to his reward. he leaves the government in the hands of an obscure man, whom the nation knows very little of, whom no one would ever have thought of making president; a man selected certainly for no eminence of faculty, intellectual or moral. there is some cause to fear, perhaps some little for hope.[ ] two very important questions are now before the nation: shall we extend over the territory conquered from mexico the awful blight which now mildews the material welfare of the south, and curses with a threefold ban the intellect, the conscience and the religion of the land? shall congress pass that infamous fugitive slave measure, known as mr. mason's bill, with mr. webster's indorsement on it? i know not how his death will affect these things. who knows the intentions of the late president? or those of his successor? he has power to bless, he may use it only to curse the land. let us wait and see. the fact that the "great compromiser" now represents the administration in the senate, the rumor of the appointment of the senator of boston to the highest place in the cabinet, are things of ill omen for freedom, and bid us fear the worst. however, it may be that this event will affect the politicians more than the people. last tuesday night general taylor ceased to be mortal. his soul went home to god. he that fought against the mexican and the indian has gone to meet the god of the red man as well as the white. he who claimed to own the body and the soul of more than a hundred of his fellow creatures, enriched by the unrequited toil, which they unwillingly gave him when stung by the lash of his hireling overseers, has gone home to the father of negro slaves, who is no respecter of persons; gone where the servant is free from his master. black and white, conqueror and vanquished, the bond and the free, alike come up before the infinite father, whose perfect justice is perfect love; and there the question is, "what hast thou done with the talent committed unto thee?" the same question is asked of the president; the same of the slave; yea, it will one day be asked of you and me! "an old man, wearied with the storms of state," now only asks a little earth for charity. costly heathen pageants there will be in these streets to his memory, and politicians will, i suppose, hold their drunken and profane debauch over his grave, as over the tomb of that far-famed friend of freedom who died two years ago. but he has ceased to be mortal. the memory of his battle-fields faded from before his dying sight. power rests no longer in his hands; victory perches on another banner. his ear is still, and his heart is cold. how hollow sounds the voice of former flattery! his riches go to other men; his slaves will be called by his name no more; the scourge that goads them to unpaid toil is now owned by another man. his fame goes back to such as gave; the accident of an accident succeeds him in the presidential chair; only the man, not the officer, goes home to god, with what of goodness and piety he had won. his manhood is all that he can carry out of the world; elected or rejected, a conqueror or conquered, it is now the same to him; and it may be the humblest female slave who only earned the bread which her master only ate, and got an enforced concubinage for pay, takes rank in heaven far before the man whom the nation honored with its highest trust, and for whom the official senate and low-browed church send out their hollow groans. "the glories of our birth and state are shadows, not substantial things. there is no armor against fate: death lays his icy hand on kings. sceptre and crown must tumble down, and in the dust be equal made, with the poor crooked scythe and spade. "some men with swords may reap the field, and plant fresh laurels where they kill; but their strong arms at last must yield, they tame but one another still. early or late they stoop to fate, and must give up their murmuring breath, when they, pale captives, creep to death. "the garlands wither on his brow: then boast no more his mighty deeds, upon death's purple altar now, see where the victor victim bleeds. all heads must come to the cold tomb, only the actions of the just smell sweet and blossom in the dust." if he could speak to us from his present position, methinks he would say: countrymen and friends! you see how little it availed you to agitate the land and put a little man in a great place. it is not the hurrah of parties that will "save the union," it is not "great men." it is only justice. remember that atheism is not the first principle of a republic; remember there is a law of god, the higher law of the universe, the everlasting right; i thought so once, and now i know it. remember that you are accountable to god for all things; that you owe justice to all men, the black not less than the white; that god will demand it of you, proud, wicked nation, careful only of your gold, forgetful of god's high law! before long each of you shall also come up before the eternal. then and there it will not avail you to have compromised truth, justice, love, but to have kept them. righteousness only is the salvation of a state; that only of a man. footnotes: [ ] the above was written in july, . since then the ground of hope has wholly vanished; the ground for fear remains alone. the following statement may suggest a thought the other side of the ocean, if no shame on this side among politicians and their priests: elisha brazealle, a planter of jefferson county in the state of mississippi, was taken sick, and as he lay oppressed with a loathsome disease, a slave of his, a bright mulatto or quadroon, nursed him, and, as was believed, through her nursing, saved him from death. he was a man of feeling and did not forget her kindness, but took her to ohio and there educated her. she made rapid progress, and soon became his wife. he made or caused to be made a legal and sound deed of emancipation, and had it legally and formally recorded in ohio and mississippi. lawyers, in both states, said she was free, safe, and that no power in the south, or elsewhere, could legally deprive her or her children of freedom. mr. brazealle returned to mississippi with his wife; they had a son, and named him john munroe brazealle. after some years mr. brazealle sickened and died, leaving a will in which he recited the deed of emancipation, declared his intention to ratify it, and devised all his property to his son, acknowledging him in the will to be such. some poor and distant relations of his in north carolina, whom he did not know, and for whom he did not care, hearing of his death, went on to mississippi and claimed the property devised by mr. brazealle to his son. they instituted a suit for the recovery of the property. the case came before william l. sharkey, "chief justice of the high court of errors and appeals" for that state. it is reported in howard's mississippi reports, vol. ii. p. , _et seq._ judge sharkey declared the act of emancipation "an offence against morality, pernicious and detestable as an example," set aside the will, gave to those distant relations the property which mr. brazealle had devised to his son, and in addition declared that son and his mother to be slaves. here is his own language:-- "the state of the case shows conclusively that the contract had its origin in an offence against morality, pernicious and detestable as an example."... "the consequence [of the decision] is, that the negroes john munroe and his mother, are still slaves, and a part of the estate of elisha brazealle." "john munroe being a slave cannot take the property as devised; and i apprehend it is equally clear that it cannot be held in trust for him." while these volumes are in the press, i learn that mr. fillmore has appointed judge sharkey to the honorable and lucrative post of consul to havana. iv. the function and place of conscience, in relation to the laws of men: a sermon for the times.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, september , . acts : . "herein do i exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offence toward god and toward men." there are some things which are true, independent of all human opinions. such things we call facts. thus it is true that one and one are equal to two, that the earth moves round the sun, that all men have certain natural unalienable rights, rights which a man can alienate only for himself, and not for another. no man made these things true; no man can make them false. if all the men in jerusalem and ever so many more, if all the men in the world, were to pass a unanimous vote that one and one were not equal to two, that the earth did not move round the sun, that all men had not natural and unalienable rights, the opinion would not alter the fact, nor make truth false and falsehood true. so there are likewise some things which are right, independent of all human opinions. thus it is right to love a man and not to hate him, to do him justice and not injustice, to allow him the natural rights which he has not alienated. no man made these things right; no man can make them wrong. if all the men in jerusalem and ever so many more, if all the men in the world, were to pass a unanimous vote that it was right to hate a man and not love him, right to do him injustice and not justice, right to deprive him of his natural rights not alienated by himself, the opinion would not alter the fact, nor make right wrong and wrong right. there are certain constant and general facts which occur in the material world, the world of external perception, which represent what are called the laws of matter, in virtue of which things take place so and not otherwise. these laws are the same everywhere and always; they never change. they are not made by men, but only discovered by men, are inherent in the constitution of matter, and seem designed to secure the welfare of the material world. these natural laws of matter, inherent in its constitution, are never violated, nor can be, for material nature is passive, or at least contains no element or will that is adverse to the will of god, the ultimate cause of these laws as of matter itself. the observance of these laws is a constant fact of the universe; "the most ancient heavens thereby are fresh and strong." these laws represent the infinity of god in the world of matter, his infinite power, wisdom, justice, love and holiness. so there are likewise certain constant and general facts which occur in what may be called the spiritual world, the world of internal consciousness. they represent the laws of spirit--that is of the human spirit--in virtue of which things are designed to take place so and not otherwise. these laws are the same everywhere and always; they never change. they are not made by men, but only discovered by men. they are inherent in the constitution of man, and as you cannot conceive of a particle of matter without extension, impenetrability, figure and so on, no more can you conceive of man without these laws inhering in him. they seem designed to secure the welfare of the spiritual world. they represent the infinity of god in the world of man, his infinite power, wisdom, justice, love and holiness. but while matter is stationary, bound by necessity, and man is progressive and partially free, to the extent of a certain tether, so it is plain that there may be a will in the world of man adverse to the will of god, and thus the laws of man's spirit may be violated to a certain extent. the laws of matter depend for their execution only on the infinite will of god, and so cannot be violated. the laws of man depend for their execution also on the finite will of man, and so may be broken.[ ] let us select a portion of these laws of the human spirit; such as relate to a man's conduct in dealing with his fellow men, a portion of what are commonly called moral laws, and examine them. they partake of the general characteristics mentioned above; they are universal and unchangeable, are only discovered and not made by man, are inherent in man, designed to secure his welfare, and represent the infinity of god. these laws are absolutely right; to obey them is to be and do absolutely right. so being and doing, a man answers the moral purpose of his existence, and attains moral manhood. if i and all men keep all the laws of man's spirit, i have peace in my own heart, peace with my brother, peace with my god; i have my delight in myself, in my brother, in my god, they theirs and god his in me. what is absolutely right is commonly called justice. it is the point in morals common to me and all mankind, common to me and god, to mankind and god; the point where all duties unite--to myself, my brethren, and my god; the point where all interests meet and balance--my interests, those of mankind, and the interests of god. when justice is done, all is harmony and peaceful progress in the world of man; but when justice is not done, the reverse follows, discord and confusion; for injustice is not the point where all duties and all interests meet and balance, not the point of morals common to mankind and me, or to us and god. we may observe and study the constant facts of the material world, thus learn the laws they represent, and so get at a theory of the world which is founded on the facts thereof. such a theory is true; it represents the thought of god, the infinity of god. then for every point of theory we have a point of fact. instead of pursuing this course we may neglect these constant facts, with the laws they represent, and forge a theory which shall not rest on these facts. such a theory will be false and will represent the imperfection of men, and not the facts of the universe and the infinity of god. in like manner we may study the constant facts of the spiritual world, and, in special, of man's moral nature, and thereby obtain a rule to regulate our conduct. if this rule is founded on the constant facts of man's moral nature, then it will be absolutely right, and represent justice, the thought of god, the infinity of god, and for every point of moral theory we shall have a moral fact. instead of pursuing that course, we may forge a rule for our conduct, and so get a theory which shall not rest on those facts. such a rule will be wrong, representing only the imperfection of men. in striving to learn the laws of the universe, the wisest men often go astray, propound theories which do not rest upon facts, and lay down human rules for the conduct of the universe, which do not agree with its nature. but the universe is not responsible for that; material nature takes no notice thereof. the opinion of an astronomer, of the american academy, does not alter a law of the material universe, or a fact therein. the philosophers once thought that the sun went round the earth, and framed laws on that assumption; but that did not make it a fact; the sun did not go out of his way to verify the theory, but kept to the law of god, and swung the earth round him once a year, say the philosophers what they might say, leaving them to learn the fact and thereby correct their theory. in the same way, before men attain a knowledge of the absolute right, they often make theories which do not rest upon the facts of man's moral nature, and enact human rules for the conduct of men which do not agree with the moral nature of man. these are rules which men make and do not find made. they are not a part of man's moral nature, writ therein, and so obligatory thereon, no more than the false rules for the conduct of matter are writ therein, and so obligatory thereon. you and i are no more morally bound to keep such rules of conduct, because king pharaoh or king people say we shall, than the sun is materially bound to go round the earth every day, because hipparchus and ptolemy say it does. the opinion or command of a king, or a people, can no more change a fact and alter a law of man's nature, than the opinion of a philosopher can do this in material nature. we learn the laws of matter slowly, by observation, experiment, and induction, and only get an outside knowledge thereof, as objects of thought. in the same way we might study the facts of man's moral nature, and arrive at rules of conduct, and get a merely outside acquaintance with the moral law as something wholly external. the law might appear curious, useful, even beautiful, moral gravitation as wonderful as material attraction. but no sense of duty would attach us to it. in addition to the purely intellectual powers, we have a faculty whose special function it is to discover the rules for a man's moral conduct. this is conscience, called also by many names. as the mind has for its object absolute truth, so conscience has for its object absolute justice. conscience enables us not merely to learn the right by experiment and induction, but intuitively, and in advance of experiment; so, in addition to the experimental way, whereby we learn justice from the facts of human history, we have a transcendental way, and learn it from the facts of human nature, from immediate consciousness. it is the function of conscience to discover to men the moral law of god. it will not do this with infallible certainty, for, at its best estate, neither conscience nor any other faculty of man is absolutely perfect, so as never to mistake. absolute perfection belongs only to the faculties of god. but conscience, like each other faculty, is relatively perfect,--is adequate to the purpose god meant it for. it is often immature in the young, who have not had time for the growth and ripening of the faculty, and in the old, who have checked and hindered its development. here it is feeble from neglect, there from abuse. it may give an imperfect answer to the question, what is absolutely right? now, though the conscience of a man lacks the absolute perfection of that of god, in all that relates to my dealing with men, it is still the last standard of appeal. i will hear what my friends have to say, what public opinion has to offer, what the best men can advise me to, then i am to ask my own conscience, and follow its decision; not that of my next friend, the public, or the best of men. i will not say that my conscience will always disclose to me the absolutely right, according to the conscience of god, but it will disclose the relatively right, what is my conviction of right to-day, with all the light i can get on the matter; and as all i can know of the absolute right, is my conviction thereof, so i must be true to that conviction. then i am faithful to my own conscience, and faithful to my god. if i do the best thing i can know to-day, and to-morrow find a better one and do that, i am not to be blamed, nor to be called a sinner against god, because not so just to-day as i shall be to-morrow. i am to do god's will soon as i know it, not before, and to take all possible pains to find it out; but am not to blame for acting childish when a child, nor to be ashamed of it when grown up to be a man. such is the function of conscience. * * * * * having determined what is absolutely right, by the conscience of god, or at least relatively right, according to my conscience to-day, then it becomes my duty to keep it. i owe it to god to obey his law, or what i deem his law; that is my duty. it may be uncomfortable to keep it, unpopular, contrary to my present desires, to my passions, to my immediate interests; it may conflict with my plans in life; that makes no difference. i owe entire allegiance to my god. it is a duty to keep his law, a personal duty, my duty as a man. i owe it to myself, for i am to keep the integrity of my own consciousness; i owe it to my brother, and to my god. nothing can absolve me from this duty, neither the fact that it is uncomfortable or unpopular, nor that it conflicts with my desires, my passions, my immediate interests, and my plans in life. such is the place of conscience amongst other faculties of my nature. * * * * * i believe all this is perfectly plain, but now see what it leads to. in the complicated relations of human life, various rules for the moral conduct of men have been devised, some of them in the form of statute laws, some in the form of customs, and, in virtue of these rules, certain artificial demands are made of men, which have no foundation in the moral nature of man; these demands are thought to represent duties. we have the same word to describe what i ought to do as subject to the law of god, and what is demanded of me by custom, or the statute. we call each a duty. hence comes no small confusion: the conventional and official obligation is thought to rest on the same foundation as the natural and personal duty. as the natural duty is at first sight a little vague, and not written out in the law-book, or defined by custom, while the conventional obligation is well understood, men think that in case of any collision between the two, the natural duty must give way to the official obligation. for clearness' sake, the natural and personal obligation to keep the law of god as my conscience declares it, i will call duty; the conventional and official obligation to comply with some custom, keep some statute, or serve some special interest, i will call business. here then are two things--my natural and personal duty, my conventional and official business. which of the two shall give way to the other,--personal duty or official business? let it be remembered that i am a man first of all, and all else that i am is but a modification of my manhood, which makes me a clergyman, a fisherman, or a statesman; but the clergy, the fish, and the state, are not to strip me of my manhood. they are valuable in so far as they serve my manhood, not as it serves them. my official business as clergyman, fisherman, or statesman, is always beneath my personal duty as man. in case of any conflict between the two, the natural duty ought to prevail and carry the day before the official business; for the natural duty represents the permanent law of god, the absolute right, justice, the balance-point of all interests; while the official business represents only the transient conventions of men, some partial interest; and besides the man who owes the personal duty, is immortal, while the officer who performs the official business, is but for a time. at death, the man is to be tried by the justice of god, for the deeds done, and character attained, for his natural duty, but he does not enter the next life as a clergyman, with his surplice and prayer-book, or a fisherman, with his angles and net, nor yet as a statesman, with his franking privilege, and title of honorable and member of congress. the officer dies, of a vote or a fever. the man lives forever. from the relation between a man and his occupation, it is plain, in general, that all conventional and official business is to be overruled by natural personal duty. this is the great circle, drawn by god, and discovered by conscience, which girdles my sphere, including all the smaller circles, and itself included by none of them. the law of god has eminent domain everywhere, over the private passions of oliver and charles, the special interests of carthage and of rome, over all customs, all official business, all precedents, all human statutes, all treaties between judas and pilate, or england and france, over all the conventional affairs of one man or of mankind. my own conscience is to declare that law for me, yours for you, and is before all private passions, or public interests, the decision of majorities, and a world full of precedents. you may resign your office, and escape its obligations, forsake your country, and owe it no allegiance, but you cannot move out of the dominions of god, nor escape where conscience has not eminent domain. see some examples of a conflict between the personal duty and the official business. a man may be a clergyman, and it may be his official business to expound and defend the creed which is set up for him by his employers, his bishop, his association, or his parish, to defend and hold it good against all comers; it may be, also, in a certain solemn sort, to please the audience, who come to be soothed, caressed, and comforted,--to represent the average of religion in his society, and so to bless popular virtues and ban unpopular vices, but never to shake off or even jostle with one of his fingers the load of sin, beloved and popular, which crushes his hearers down till they are bowed together and can in nowise lift themselves up; unpopular excellence he is to call fanaticism, if not infidelity. but his natural duty as a man, standing in this position, overrides his official business, and commands him to tell men of the false things in their creed, of great truths not in it; commands him to inform his audience with new virtue, to represent all of religion he can attain, to undo the heavy burdens of popular sin, private or national, and let the men oppressed therewith go free. excellence, popular or odious, he is to commend by its own name, to stimulate men to all nobleness of character and life, whether it please or offend. this is his duty, however uncomfortable, unpopular, against his desires, and conflicting with his immediate interests and plans of life. which shall he do? his official business, and pimp and pander to the public lust, with base compliance serving the popular idols, which here are money and respectability, or shall he serve his god? that is the question. if the man considers himself substantially a man, and accidentally a clergyman, he will perform his natural duty; if he counts the priesthood his substance, and manhood an accident of that, he will do only his official business. i may be a merchant, and my official business may be to buy, and sell, and get gain; i may see that the traffic in ardent spirits is the readiest way to accomplish this. so it becomes my official business to make rum, sell rum, and by all means to induce men to drink it. but presently i see that the common use of it makes the thriving unthrifty, the rich less wealthy, the poor miserable, the sound sick, and the sane mad; that it brings hundreds to the jail, thousands to the almshouse, and millions to poverty and shame, producing an amount of suffering, wretchedness, and sin, beyond the power of man to picture or conceive. then my natural duty as man is very clear, very imperative. shall i sacrifice my manhood to money?--the integrity of my consciousness to my gains by rum-selling? that is the question. and my answer will depend on the fact, whether i am more a man or more a rum-seller. suppose i compromise the matter, and draw a line somewhere between my natural duty as man, and my official business as rum-seller, and for every three cents that i make by iniquity, give one cent to the american tract society, or the board for foreign missions, or the unitarian association, or the excellent society for promoting the gospel among the indians (and others) in north america. that does not help the matter; business is not satisfied, though i draw the line never so near to money; nor conscience, unless the line comes up to my duty. i am a citizen, and the state says, "you must obey all the statutes made by the proper authorities; that is your official business!" suppose there is a statute adverse to the natural law of god, and the convictions of my own conscience, and i plead that fact in abatement of my obligation to keep the statute, the state says, "obey it, none the less, or we will hang you. religion is an excellent thing in every matter except politics; there it seems to make men mad." shall i keep the commandment of men, or the law of my god? a statute was once enacted by king pharaoh for the destruction of the israelites in egypt; it was made the official business of all citizens to aid in their destruction: "pharaoh charged all his people saying, every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive." it was the official business of every egyptian who found a hebrew boy to throw him into the nile,--if he refused, he offended against the peace and dignity of the kingdom of egypt, and the form of law in such case made and provided. but if he obeyed, he murdered a man. which should he obey, the lord pharaoh, or the lord god? that was the question. i make no doubt that the priests of osiris, orus, apis, isis, and the judges, and the justices of the peace and quorum, and the members of congress of that time said, "keep the king's commandment, oh ye that worship the crocodile and fear the cat, or ye shall not sleep in a whole skin any longer!" so said every thing that loveth and maketh a lie. king charles ii. made a statute some one hundred and ninety years ago, to punish with death the remnant of the nine-and-fifty judges who had brought his father's head to the block, teaching kings "that they also had a joint in their necks." he called on all his subjects to aid in the capture of these judges. it was made their official business as citizens to do so; a reward was offered for the apprehension of some of them "alive or dead;" punishment hung over the head of any who should harbor or conceal them. three of these regicides, who had adjudged a king for his felony, came to new england. many americans knew where they were, and thought the condemnation of charles i. was the best thing these judges ever did. with that conviction ought they to have delivered up these fugitives, or afforded them shelter? in time of peril, when officers of the english government were on the lookout for some of these men, a clergyman in the town where one of them was concealed, preached, it is said, on the text "bewray not him that wandereth," an occasional sermon, and put the duty of a man far before the business of a citizen. when sir edmund andros was at new haven looking after one of the judges, and attended public worship in the same meeting-house with the fugitive, the congregation sung an awful hymn in his very ears.[ ] would the men of connecticut have done right, bewraying him that wandered, and exposing the outcast, to give up the man who had defended the liberties of the world and the rights of mankind against a tyrant,--give him up because a wanton king, and his loose men and loose women, made such a commandment? one of the regicides dwelt in peace eight-and-twenty years in new england, a monument of the virtue of the people. of old time the roman statute commanded the christians to sacrifice to jupiter; they deemed it the highest sin to do so, but it was their official business as roman citizens. some of them were true to their natural duty as men, and took the same cross jesus had borne before them; peter and john had said at their outset to the authorities--"whether it be right in the sight of god to hearken unto you more than unto god, judge ye." the emperor once made it the official business of every citizen to deliver up the christians. but god made it no man's duty. nay, it was each man's duty to help them. in such cases what shall a man do? you know what we think of men who comply basely, and save their life with the loss of their soul. you know how the christian world honors the saints and martyrs, who laid down their lives for the sake of truth and right; a handful of their dust, which was quieted of its trouble by the headsman's axe seventeen hundred years ago, and is now gathered from the catacombs of saint agnes at rome--why it is enough to consecrate half of the catholic churches in new england. as i have stood among their graves, have handled the instruments with which they tasted of bitter death, and crumbled their bones in my hands,--i keep their relics still with reverend awe--i have thought there was a little difference between their religion, and the pale decency that haunts the churches of our time, and is afraid lest it lose its dividends, or its respectability, or hurt its usefulness, which is in no danger. do i speak of martyrs for conscience' sake? to-day is st. maurice's day, consecrated to him and the "thebæan legion." maurice appears to have been a military tribune in the christian legion, levied in the thebais, a part of egypt. in the latter part of the third century this legion was at octodurum, near the little village of martigni, in valais, a swiss canton, under the command of maximian, the associate emperor, just then named herculeus, going to fight the bagaudæ. the legion was ordered to sacrifice to the gods after the heathen fashion. the soldiers refused; every tenth man was hewn down by maximian's command. they would not submit, and so the whole legion, as the catholic story tells us, perished there on the d of september, fifteen hundred and fifty-three years ago this day. perhaps the account is not true; it is probable that the number of martyrs is much exaggerated, for six thousand soldiers would not stand still and be slaughtered without striking a blow. but the fact that the catholic church sets apart one day in the calendar to honor this alleged heroism, shows the value men put on fidelity to conscience in such cases. last winter a bill for the capture of fugitive slaves was introduced into the senate of the united states of america; the senator who so ably represented the opinions and wishes of the controlling men of this city, proposed to support that bill, "with all its provisions to the fullest extent;" that bill, with various alterations, some for the better, others for the worse, has become a law--it received the vote of the representative from boston, who was not sent there, i hope, for the purpose of voting for it. that statute allows the slaveholder, or his agent, to come here, and by summary process seize a fugitive slave, and, without the formality of a trial by jury, to carry him back to eternal bondage. the statute makes it the official business of certain magistrates to aid in enslaving a man; it empowers them to call out force enough to overcome any resistance which may be offered, to summon the bystanders to aid in that work. it provides a punishment for any one who shall aid and abet, directly or indirectly, and harbor or conceal the man who is seeking to maintain his natural and unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. he may be fined a thousand dollars, imprisoned six months, and be liable to a civil action for a thousand dollars more! this statute is not to be laid to the charge of the slaveholders of the south alone; its most effective supporters are northern men; boston is more to be blamed for it than charleston or savannah, for nearly a thousand persons of this city and neighborhood, most of them men of influence through money if by no other means, addressed a letter of thanks to the distinguished man who had volunteered to support that infamous bill, telling him that he had "convinced the understanding and touched the conscience of the nation." a man falls low when he consents to be a slave, and is spurned for his lack of manhood; to consent to be a catcher of fugitive slaves is to fall lower yet; but to consent to be the defender of a slave-catcher--it is seldom that human nature is base enough for that. but such examples are found in this city! this is now the law of the land. it is the official business of judges, commissioners and marshals, as magistrates, to execute the statute and deliver a fugitive up to slavery; it is your official business and mine, as citizens, when legally summoned, to aid in capturing the man. does the command make it any man's duty? the natural duty to keep the law of god overrides the obligation to observe any human statute, and continually commands us to love a man and not hate him, to do him justice, and not injustice, to allow him his natural rights not alienated by himself; yes, to defend him in them, not only by all means legal, but by all means moral. let us look a little at our duty under this statute. if a man falls into the water and is in danger of drowning, it is the natural duty of the bystanders to aid in pulling him out, even at the risk of wetting their garments. we should think a man a coward who could swim, and would not save a drowning girl for fear of spoiling his coat. he would be indictable at common law. if a troop of wolves or tigers were about to seize a man, and devour him, and you and i could help him, it would be our duty to do so, even to peril our own limbs and life for that purpose. if a man undertakes to murder or steal a man, it is the duty of the bystanders to help their brother, who is in peril, against wrong from the two-legged man, as much as against the four-legged beast. but suppose the invader who seizes the man is an officer of the united states, has a commission in his pocket, a warrant for his deed in his hand, and seizes as a slave a man who has done nothing to alienate his natural rights--does that give him any more natural right to enslave a man than he had before? can any piece of parchment make right wrong, and wrong right? the fugitive has been a slave before: does the wrong you committed yesterday, give you a natural right to commit wrong afresh and continually? because you enslaved this man's father, have you a natural right to enslave his child? the same right you would have to murder a man because you butchered his father first. the right to murder is as much transmissible by inheritance as the right to enslave! it is plain to me that it is the natural duty of citizens to rescue every fugitive slave from the hands of the marshal who essays to return him to bondage; to do it peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must, but by all means to do it. will you stand by and see your countrymen, your fellow-citizens of boston, sent off to slavery by some commissioner? shall i see my own parishioners taken from under my eyes and carried back to bondage, by a man whose constitutional business it is to work wickedness by statute? shall i never lift an arm to protect him? when i consent to that, you may call me a hireling shepherd, an infidel, a wolf in sheep's clothing, even a defender of slave-catching if you will; and i will confess i was a poor dumb dog, barking always at the moon, but silent as the moon when the murderer came near. i am not a man who loves violence. i respect the sacredness of human life. but this i say, solemnly, that i will do all in my power to rescue any fugitive slave from the hands of any officer who attempts to return him to bondage. i will resist him as gently as i know how, but with such strength as i can command; i will ring the bells, and alarm the town; i will serve as head, as foot, or as hand to any body of serious and earnest men, who will go with me, with no weapons but their hands, in this work. i will do it as readily as i would lift a man out of the water, or pluck him from the teeth of a wolf, or snatch him from the hands of a murderer. what is a fine of a thousand dollars, and jailing for six months, to the liberty of a man? my money perish with me, if it stand between me and the eternal law of god. i trust there are manly men enough in this house to secure the freedom of every fugitive slave in boston, without breaking a limb or rending a garment. one thing more i think is very plain, that the fugitive has the same natural right to defend himself against the slave-catcher, or his constitutional tool, that he has against a murderer or a wolf. the man who attacks me to reduce me to slavery, in that moment of attack alienates his right to life, and if i were the fugitive, and could escape in no other way, i would kill him with as little compunction as i would drive a mosquito from my face. it is high time this was said. what grasshoppers we are before the statute of men! what goliaths against the law of god! what capitalist heeds your statute of usury when he can get illegal interest? how many banks are content with six _per cent._ when money is scarce? did you never hear of a merchant evading the duties of the custom-house? when a man's liberty is concerned, we must keep the law, must we? betray the wanderer, and expose the outcast?[ ] in the same manner the natural duty of a man overrides all the special obligations which a man takes on himself as a magistrate by his official oath. our theory of office is this: the man is sunk in the magistrate; he is _un homme couvert_; his individual manhood is covered up and extinguished by his official cap; he is no longer a man, but a mere president, general, governor, representative, sheriff, juror, or constable; he is absolved from all allegiance to god's law of the universe when it conflicts with man's law of the land; his official business as a magistrate supersedes his natural duty as a man. in virtue of this theory, president polk, and his coadjutors in congress and out of it, with malice aforethought and intent to rob and to kill, did officially invade mexico, and therein "slay, kill, and murder" some thousands of men, as well americans as mexicans. this is thought right because he did it officially. but the fact that he and they were magistrates, doing official business, did not make the killing any the less a wrong than if he and they had been private men, with general lopez and not general taylor to head or back them. the official killing of a man who has not alienated his right to life, is just as much a violation of the law of god, and the natural duty of a man, as the unofficial killing of such a person. because you and i and some other foolish people put a man in a high office, and get him to take an oath, does that, all at once, invest him with a natural right to kill anybody he sees fit; to kill an innocent mexican? all his natural rights he had before, and it would be difficult to ascertain where the people could find the right to authorize him to do a wrong. a man does not escape from the jurisdiction of natural law and the dominion of god by enlisting in the army, or by taking the oath of the president; for justice, the law paramount of the universe, extends over armies and nations. a little while ago a murderer was hanged in boston, by the sheriff of suffolk county, at the command of the governor and council of massachusetts, by the aid of certain persons called grand and petit jurors, all of them acting in their official capacity, and doing the official business they had sworn to do. if it be a wrong thing to hang a man, or to take his life except in self-defence, and while in imminent peril, then it is not any less a wrong because men do it in their official character, in compliance with their oath. i am speaking of absolute wrong, not merely what is wrong relatively to the man's own judgment, for i doubt not that all those officers were entirely conscientious in what they did, and therefore no blame rests on them. but if a man believes it wrong to take human life deliberately, except in the cases named, then i do not see how, with a good conscience, he can be partaker in the death of any man, notwithstanding his official oath. let me suppose a case which may happen here, and before long. a woman flies from south carolina to massachusetts to escape from bondage. mr. greatheart aids her in her escape, harbors and conceals her, and is brought to trial for it. the punishment is a fine of one thousand dollars and imprisonment for six months. i am drawn to serve as a juror, and pass upon this offence. i may refuse to serve, and be punished for that, leaving men with no scruples to take my place, or i may take the juror's oath to give a verdict according to the law and the testimony. the law is plain, let us suppose, and the testimony conclusive. greatheart himself confesses that he did the deed alleged, saving one ready to perish. the judge charges, that if the jurors are satisfied of that fact, then they must return that he is guilty. this is a nice matter. here are two questions. the one, put to me in my official capacity as juror, is this: "did greatheart aid the woman?" the other, put to me in my natural character as man, is this: "will you help punish greatheart with fine and imprisonment for helping a woman obtain her unalienable rights?" i am to answer both. if i have extinguished my manhood by my juror's oath, then i shall do my official business and find greatheart guilty, and i shall seem to be a true man; but if i value my manhood, i shall answer after my natural duty to love a man and not hate him, to do him justice, not injustice, to allow him the natural rights he has not alienated, and shall say "not guilty." then foolish men, blinded by the dust of courts, may call me forsworn and a liar; but i think human nature will justify the verdict.[ ] in cases of this kind, when justice is on one side and the court on the other, it seems to me a conscientious man must either refuse to serve as a juror, or else return a verdict at variance with the facts and what courts declare to be his official business as juror; but the eyes of some men have been so long blinded by what the court declares is the law, and by its notion of the juror's function, that they will help inflict such a punishment on their brother, and the judge decree the sentence, in a case where the arrest, the verdict and the sentence are the only wrong in which the prisoner is concerned. it seems to me it is time this matter should be understood, and that it should be known that no official oath can take a man out of the jurisdiction of god's natural law of the universe. a case may be brought before a commissioner or judge of the united states, to determine whether daniel is a slave, and therefore to be surrendered up. his official business, sanctioned by his oath, enforced by the law of the land, demands the surrender; his natural duty, sanctioned by his conscience, enforced by absolute justice, forbids the surrender. what shall he do? there is no serving of god and mammon both. he may abandon his commission and refuse to remain thus halting between two opposites. but if he keeps his office, i see not how he can renounce his nature and send back a fugitive slave, and do as great a wrong as to make a free man a slave! suppose the constitution had been altered, and congress had made a law, making it the business of the united states' commissioners to enslave and sell at public outcry all the red-haired men in the nation, and forbid us to aid and abet their escape, to harbor and conceal them under the same penalties just now mentioned; do you think any commissioner would be justified before god by his oath in kidnapping the red-haired men, or any person in punishing such as harbored or concealed them, such as forcibly took the victims out of the hand of officials who would work mischief by statute? will the color of a hair make right wrong, and wrong right? suppose a man has sworn to keep the constitution of the united states, and the constitution is found to be wrong in certain particulars: then his oath is not morally binding, for before his oath, by his very existence, he is morally bound to keep the law of god as fast as he learns it. no oath can absolve him from his natural allegiance to god. yet i see not how a man can knowingly, and with a good conscience, swear to keep what he deems wrong to keep, and will not keep, and does not intend to keep. it seems to me very strange that men so misunderstand the rights of conscience and their obligations to obey their country. not long ago, an eminent man taunted one of his opponents, telling him he had better adhere to the "higher law." the newspapers echoed the sneer, as if there were no law higher than the constitution. latterly, the democratic party, even more completely than the whig party, seems to have forgotten that there is any law higher than the constitution, any rights above vested rights.[ ] an eminent theologian of new england, who has hitherto done good and great service in his profession, grinding off the barb of calvinism, wrote a book in defence of slave-catching, on "conscience and the constitution," a book which not only sins against the sense of the righteous in being wicked, but against the worldliness of the world in being weak,--and he puts the official business of keeping "a compact" far before the natural duty of keeping a conscience void of offence, and serving god. but suppose forty thieves assemble on fire island, and make a compact to rob every vessel wrecked on their coast, and reduce the survivors to bondage. suppose i am born amongst that brotherhood of pirates, am i morally bound to keep that compact, or to perform any function which grows out of it? nay, i am morally bound to violate the compact, to keep the pirates from their plunder and their prey. instead of forty thieves on fire island, suppose twenty millions of men in the united states make a compact to enslave every sixth man--the dark men--am i morally bound to heed that compact, or to perform any function which grows out of it? nay, i am morally bound to violate the compact, in every way that is just and wise. the very men who make such a compact are morally discharged from it as soon as they see it is wrong. the forty jews who bound themselves by wicked oath to kill paul before they broke their fast,--were they morally bound to keep their word? nay, morally bound to break it. i will tell you a portion of the story of a fugitive slave whom i have known. i will call his name joseph, though he was in worse than egyptian bondage. he was "owned" by a notorious gambler, and once ran away, but was retaken. his master proceeded to punish him for that crime, took him to a chamber, locked the door, and lighted a fire; he then beat the slave severely. after that he put the branding-iron in the fire, took a knife,--i am not telling of what took place in algiers, but in alabama,--and proceeded to cut off the ears of his victim! the owner's wife, alarmed at the shrieks of the sufferer, beat down the door with a sledge-hammer, and prevented that catastrophe. afterwards, two slaves of this gambler, for stealing their master's sheep, were beaten so that they died of the stripes. the "minister" came to the funeral, told the others that those were wicked slaves, who deserved their fate; that they would never "rise" in the general resurrection, and were not fit to be buried! accordingly their bodies were thrown into a hole and left there. joseph ran away again; he came to boston; was sheltered by a man whose charity never fails; he has been in my house, and often has worshipped here with us. shall i take that man and deliver him up?--do it "with alacrity?" shall i suffer that gambler to carry his prey from this city? will you allow it--though all the laws and constitutions of men give the commandment? god do so unto us if we suffer it.[ ] this we need continually to remember: that nothing in the world without is so sacred as the eternal law of god; of the world within nothing is more venerable than our own conscience, the permanent, everlasting oracle of god. the urim and thummim were but jewish or egyptian toys on the breast-plate of the hebrew priest; the delphic oracle was only a subtle cheat, but this is the true shekinah and presence of god in your heart: as this ----"pronounces lastly on each deed, of so much fame in heaven expect your meed." if i am consciously and continually false to this, it is of no avail that i seem loyal to all besides; i make the light that is in me darkness, and how great is that darkness! the centre of my manhood is gone, and i am rotten at my heart. men may respect me, honor me, but i am not respectable, i am a base, dishonorable man, and like a tree, broad-branched, and leafed with green, but all its heart gnawed out by secret worms, at some slight touch one day, my rotten trunk will fall with horrid squelch, bringing my leafy honors to dishonored dust, and men will wonder that bark could hide such rottenness and ruin. but if i am true to this legate of god, holding his court within my soul, then my power to discover the just and right will enlarge continually; the axis of my little life will coincide with the life of the infinite god, his conscience and my own be one. then my character and my work will lie in the plane of his almighty action; no other will in me, his infinite wisdom, justice, holiness, and love, will flow into me, a ceaseless tide, filling with life divine and new the little creeklets of my humble soul. i shall be one with god, feel his delight in me and mine in him, and all my mortal life run o'er with life divine and bless mankind. let men abhor me, yea, scourge and crucify, angels are at hand; yes, the father is with me! * * * * * how we mistake. men think if they can but get wickedness dignified into a statute, enrolled in the capitol, signed by the magistrates, and popular with the people, that all is secure. then they rejoice, and at their "thanksgiving dinner," say with the short-lived tyrant in the play, after he had slain the rightful heirs of england's throne, and set his murderous hoof on justice at every step to power,-- "now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer" ... and think that sin sits fast and rides secure.[ ] but no statute of men is ever fixed on man till it be first the absolute, the right, the law of god. all else lasts but its day, forever this, forever still the same. by "previous questions," men may stop debate, vote down minorities with hideous grin, but the still small voice of justice will whisper in the human heart, will be trumpet-tongued in history to teach you that you cannot vote down god. in your private character, if you would build securely, you must build on the natural law of god, inherent in your nature and in his; if the nation would build securely, it must build so. out of their caprice, their selfishness, and their sin, may men make statutes, to last for a day, built up with joyous huzzas, and the chiming of a hundred guns, to come down with the curses of the multitude, and smitten by the thunder of god; but to build secure, you must build on the justice of the almighty. the beatitudes of jesus will outlast the codes of all the tyrants of the old world and the new. so i have seen gamblers hurry and huddle up their booths at a country muster, on the unsmoothed surface of a stubble-field, foundation good enough for such a structure, not a post plumb, to endure a single day of riot, drunkenness, and sin; but to build a pyramid which shall outlast empires, men lay bare the bosom of the primeval rock, and out of primeval rock they build thereon their well-joined work, outlasting syria, greece, carthage, rome, venerable to time, and underneath its steadfast foot the earthquakes pass all harmlessly away. all things conspire to overturn a wrong. every advance of man is hostile to it. reason is hostile; religion is its deadly foe; the new-born generation will assail it, and it must fall. of old it was written, "though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not prosper," and the world's wide walls, from the remotest bounds of peopled space, laugh out their loud and long "amen!" let iniquity be never so old and respectable, get all the most eminent votes, have the newspapers on her side, guns fired at her success, it all avails nothing; for this is god's world, not a devil's, and his eternal word has gone forth that right alone shall last forever and forever. * * * * * oh, young man, now in the period of the passions, reverence your conscience. defer that to no appetite, to no passion, to no foolish compliance with other men's ways, to no ungodly custom, even if become a law. ask always "is it right for me?" be brave and self-denying for conscience' sake. fear not to differ from men; keeping your modesty, keep your integrity also. let not even your discretion consume your valor. fear not to be scrupulously upright and pure; be afraid neither of men's hate, nor even of their laugh and haughty scorn, but shudder at the thought of tampering with your sense of right, even in the smallest matters. the flesh will come up with deceitful counsels--the spirit teaching the commandments of god; give both their due. be not the senses' slave, but the soul's free man. oh brother man, who once wert young, in the period of ambition, or beyond it, if such a time there be, can you trust the selfishness, the caprice, the passions, and the sin of men, before your own conscience, renounce the law of god for the customs of men? when your volcanic mountain has been capped with snow, interest, subtler than all the passions of the flesh, comes up to give her insidious counsel. "on our side," says she, "is the applause of men; feasting is with us; the wise and prudent are here also, yea, the ancient and honorable, men much older than thy father; and with gray hairs mottling thy once auburn head, wilt thou forsake official business, its solid praise, and certain gain, for the phantom of natural duty, renounce allegiance to warm human lies for the cold truth of god remote and far!" say, "get thee behind me," to such counsellors; "i will not stain my age by listening to your subterranean talk." oh, brother man, or old or young, how will you dare come up before your god and say: "oh lord, i heard, i heard thy voice in my soul, at times still and small, at times a trumpet talking with me of the right, the eternal right, but i preferred the low counsels of the flesh; the commands of interest i kept; i feared the rich man's decorous rage; i trembled at the public roar, and i scorned alike my native duty and thy natural law. lo, here is the talent thou gavest me, my sense of right. i have used each other sense, this only have i hid; it is eaten up with rust, but thus i bring it back to thee. take what is thine!" who would dare thus to sin against infinite justice? who would wish to sin against it when it is also infinite love, and the law of right is but the highway on which the almightiness of the father comes out to meet his prodigal, a great way off, penitent and returning home, or unrepentant still, refusing to be comforted, and famishing on draff and husks, while there is bread of heavenly life enough and yet to spare, comes out to meet us, to take us home, and to bless us forever and forever? footnotes: [ ] the terms _laws of the human spirit_, _spiritual laws_, &c., are sometimes used to denote exclusively those laws which man _must_ keep, not merely what he _ought_ to keep, laws in relation to which man has no more freedom than a mass of marble. the words are used above in a different sense. [ ] why dost thou, tyrant, boast abroad thy wicked works to praise? dost thou not know there is a god, whose mercies last alwaies? * * * * on mischiefe why sett'st thou thy minde, and wilt not walke upright? thou hast more lust false tales to find, than bring the truth to light. thou dost delight in fraud and guile, in mischiefe, bloud and wrong. thy lips have learned the flattering stile, oh false deceitful tongue. therefore shall god for aye confound, and pluck thee from thy place; thy seed root out from off the ground, and so shall thee deface. the just, when they behold thy fall, with feare shall praise the lord; and in reproach of thee withall, crie out with one accord:-- "behold the man that woulde not take the lord for his defence; but of his goods his god did make, and trust his corrupt sense. but i, as olive, fresh and green, shall spring and spread abroad; for why? my trust all times hath been, upon the living god! "for this therefore will i give praise to thee with heart and voyce; i will set forth thy name alwayes, wherein thy saints rejoyce." _psalm lii. in sternhold and hopkins._ [ ] it has been said that the fugitive slave law cannot be executed in boston. let us not be deceived. who would have thought a year ago, that the senator of boston would make such a speech as that of last march, that so many of the leading citizens of boston would write such a letter of approval, that such a bill could pass congress, and a man be found in this city (mr. samuel a. eliot) to vote for it and get no rebuke from the people! yet a single man should not endure the shame alone, which belongs in general to the leading men of the city. the member for boston faithfully represented the public opinion of his most eminent constituents, lay and clerical. here is an account of what took place in new york since the delivery of the sermon. [from the new york tribune.] "slave catching in new york--first case under the law. "the following case, which occurred yesterday, is one of peculiar interest, from the fact of its being the first case under the new fugitive slave law. it will be noticed that there is very little of the 'law's delay' here; the proceedings were as summary as an arkansas court audience could desire. "u. s. commissioner's office--before commissioner gardiner.--_examination as to james hamlet, charged to be a fugitive slave, the property of mary brown, of baltimore._--no person was present as counsel for accused, and only one colored man. he is a light mulatto. the marshal said mr. wood had been there. the commissioner said they would go on, and if counsel came in, he would read proceedings. "_thomas j. clare_ (a man with dark eyes and hair), sworn.--am thirty years of age; clerk for merchant's shot manufacturing company in baltimore; know james hamlet; he is slave of mary brown, a mother-in-law of mine, residing in baltimore; have known hamlet about twenty years; he left my mother-in-law about two years ago this season, by absenting himself from the premises, the dwelling where he resided in baltimore; she is entitled to his services; he is a slave for life; she never parted with him voluntarily; she came into possession of him by will from john g. brown, her deceased husband; the written paper shown is an extract from his will; she held him under that from the time she inherited him till he escaped, as i have testified; this is the man (pointing to hamlet, a light mulatto man, about twenty-four or twenty-five years of age, looking exceedingly pensive). "_gustavus brown_, sworn.--am twenty-five years of age; reside in new york; clerk with a. m. fenday, front street; resided before coming here in baltimore; i know james hamlet; i have known him since a boy; he is a slave to my mother; he is a slave for life; my mother inherited him under the will of my father; he left her service by running away, i suppose; absenting himself from the house in the city of baltimore, about two years since; i have seen him several times, within the last six months, in the city; first time i saw him was in april last; my mother is still entitled to possession of him; she never has parted with him; the man sitting here (hamlet) is the man. "mr. asa child, counsellor at law, here came into the room, and took his seat; he said he had been sent to this morning, through another, by a gentleman with whom hamlet had lived in this city (mr. s. n. wood), but he had no directions in the matter; he merely came to see that the law is properly administered, and supposed it would be without him. "mr. child was then shown the law, the power of attorney to mr. clare, the affidavit of mr. clare on which hamlet was arrested--and the testimony thus far. "_mr. clare_, cross-examined by mr. child.--i married mrs. brown's daughter about seventeen years ago; hamlet has always lived with us in the family: i am in her family now, and was at the time he went away; think he is about twenty-eight years of age (he looks much younger than that--his features are very even, as those of a white person of the kind); he occasionally worked at the shot tower where i worked; he was hired there as a laborer, and mrs. brown got the benefit of him--that is, when i had no other use for him; he had formerly been employed as a drayman; after i married into the family some year or two, we lived together, i furnishing the house; such wages as i got for the man it was returned to mrs. brown, to be used as she saw fit; i was her agent to get employment for him as i could; i had him in various occupations; i have a power of attorney; i have no further interest in him than he is her property, and we wish to get him back to maryland again, where he left. "_mr. brown_, cross-examined.--left home th march last. was home when hamlet went away. at the time he was engaged at the shot tower business. "mr. child said he had no further questions to ask. he supposed the rules of the law had been complied with. "mr. gardiner, the commissioner, then said, i will deliver the fugitive over to the marshal, to be delivered over to the claimant. "mr. child suggested if that was the law. the commissioner then said he would hand him, as the law said, to the claimant, and if there should be any danger of rescue, he would deliver him to the united states marshal. "the united states marshal said he had performed his duty in bringing him in. "mr. clare said he would demand such aid from the united states marshal, as would secure the delivery of the man to his owner in baltimore. "mr. child suggested that it must be an affidavit that he apprehends a rescue. mr. clare said that he did so apprehend. "mr. talmadge, the marshal, said he would have to perform his duty, if called upon. "mr. child replied he supposed he would, but there were doubts as to the form. "the necessary papers were made out by the commissioner, mr. clare swearing he feared a rescue, and hamlet was delivered to him, thence to the united states marshal, and probably was conveyed with all possible despatch to baltimore, a coach being in waiting at the door; and he was taken off in irons, an officer accompanying the party." here is the charge of judge mclean in a similar case. "no earthly power has a right to interpose between a man's conscience and his maker. he has a right, an inalienable and absolute right, to worship god according to the dictates of his own conscience. for this he alone must answer, and he is entirely free from all human restraint to think and act for himself. "but this is not the case when his acts affect the rights of others. society has a claim upon all its citizens. general rules have been adopted in the form of laws, for the protection of the rights of persons and things. these laws lie at the foundation of the social compact, and their observance is essential to the maintenance of civilization. in these matters the law, and not conscience, constitutes the rule of action you are sworn to decide this case according to the law and testimony; and you become unfaithful to the solemn injunctions you have taken upon yourselves, when you yield to an influence which you call conscience, that places you above the law and the testimony. "such a rule can only apply to individuals; and when assumed as a basis of action on the rights of others, it is utterly destructive of all law. what may be deemed a conscientious act by one individual, may be held criminal by another. in view of one, the act is meritorious; in the view of the other, it should be punished as a crime. and each has the same right, acting under the dictates of his conscience, to carry out his own view. this would overturn the basis of society. we must stand by the law. we have sworn to maintain it. it is expected that the citizens of the free states should be opposed to slavery. but with the abstract principles of slavery we have nothing to do. as a political question there could be no difference of opinion among us on the subject. but our duty is found in the constitution of the union, as construed by the supreme court. the fugitives from labor we are bound, by the highest obligations, to deliver up on claim of the master being made; and there is no state power which can release the slave from the legal custody of his master. "in regard to the arrest of fugitives from labor, the law does not impose active duties on our citizens generally. they are not prohibited from exercising the ordinary charities of life towards the fugitive. to secrete him or convey him from the reach of his master, or to rescue him when in legal custody, is forbidden; and for doing this a liability is incurred. this gives to no one a just ground of complaint. he has only to refrain from an express violation of the law, which operates to the injury of his neighbor." he seems to think the right to hold slaves as much a natural right as the absolute right to worship god according to the "dictates of conscience." one man has an unalienable right to liberty, other men an unalienable right to alienate and take it from him! here is something in a different spirit from a boston newspaper. "the fugitive slave bill. "this infamous bill has finally passed both branches of congress.[a] my opinion on this subject may have little weight with those who voted for it, but may help sustain the sinking spirit of some poor disconsolate one, who, having fled from the land of oppressors, is anxiously looking to see if there is any one who will give him a cheering look, or a kind reception, or who dares to give him a crust of bread, or a cup of water, and help him on his way. "allow me to say to such an one, that if pursued by the merciless slaveholder, and every other door in boston is shut against him, there is a door that will be open at no. beach street, and that the fear of fines and imprisonment will be ineffectual when the pursuer shall demand his victim. if he enters before the fleeing captive is safe, it will be at his peril. i am opposed to war, and all the spirit of war; even to all preparations for what is called self-defence in times of peace; yet i should resist the pursuer, and not allow him to enter my dwelling until he was able to tread me under his feet. i will not trample upon any law, either of my own state, or of the nation, that does not conflict with my conscientious duty to my god; but jesus has commanded, saying, 'all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.' "if, for no crime, i had been taken and sold, and deprived of all the rights of my manhood, and degraded to the rank of a beast of burden; not only deprived of the opportunity to labor for the support of my wife and children, but even deprived of their kind sympathy and companionship, whenever the interest or will of my oppressors should require it; and i should, at the peril of my life, flee from my oppressors, and they should pursue me to the dwelling of some poor disciple of jesus, it may be that of a colored man, and i should beg of him to protect me, and help me to escape from the pursuer's grasp, should i not hope, if he was a christian, he would give me bread and water, and help me on my way, regardless of the fines and imprisonment that such a kind act might render him liable to? could i expect to meet the approbation of my lord, if i did not do as much for the fleeing slave? can there be a christian, in this land of the pilgrims, who will not do it, and besides, do all in his power to prevent any one of those senators or representatives in congress who voted for that infamous bill from ever again misrepresenting any portion of the friends of freedom, in boston or elsewhere? it is said, this is a law of the land, and must be obeyed: to such i would say, 'whether it be right in the sight of god to hearken unto men more than unto god, judge ye,' "i prefer to obey god, if in so doing i must break the laws of men and be punished, rather than violate the laws of god and obey the laws of men, to escape fines and imprisonments, or even death. "boston, sept. , . t. gilbert." here is yet more: "the fugitive slave bill. "messrs. editors:--the bold and manly avowal of your correspondent, mr. t. gilbert, in last evening's traveller, in commenting upon what he very justly denominates the 'infamous fugitive slave bill,' is but the very echoing of thousands of hearts equally true to the cause of freedom, and who seek the elevation of the down-trodden sons and daughters of american slavery. that gentleman, acting upon the dictates of an enlightened patriotism, and in deep sympathy with the fleeing captive, has the courage to avow his determination to throw wide open his door, and offers to make his house--even though he should stand alone among his fellow-citizens--an asylum to the fugitive slave, in his retreat from the prison-house of bondage. the paramount claims which he awards to the divine law over that which is but human, and therefore necessarily imperfect, commend his spirited letter to the consideration of all those that have in any way aided in the passage of a bill at variance with the first principles of civil freedom, and in direct hostility to the instruction of that great teacher who hath commanded us to 'do unto others as we would that they should do unto us.' that the determination of your correspondent may be true and unfaltering, is the hearty prayer of one, at least, of his fellow-citizens, who is ready at all times to cooperate in making an asylum for the fugitive slave, even though bonds and imprisonments should prove the penalty. george w. carnes. "boston, sept. , ." here follow some characteristic remarks on the terror which the fugitives here in boston feel in apprehension of being torn from their families and their freedom. "the fugitive slave law. "the colored people had a grand time last evening, at zion's chapel in church street. their object was to denounce the fugitive slave law; and this was done with hearty good-will, or, we should say, malediction. "the steam would have been well up, without any extraneous elements of excitement; but what added a special interest to the occasion, and raised the temperament to blood-heat, was the announcement, made by mr. downing, that the wife of james hamlet (the fugitive slave who was returned to his owner in baltimore, a few days since, under a process of law), had died yesterday, of grief and convulsions. "this filled the measure of indignation which burned in the bosoms of all present, against a law which, besides its other abominations, could produce such fatal effects. in the fever of the moment, a contribution was called for, to defray the expense of her funeral, and about twenty dollars was collected. "shortly after, information was received that it was all a mistake about her dying of convulsions, or in any other way; and that she was as well as ever. this was a damper upon the enthusiasm of the occasion, but the money was already collected, and seeing it could not be applied just now to defray her funeral expenses, it was very properly decided to apply it to her living expenses. the meeting adjourned. "mrs. hamlet was in our office yesterday, accompanied by her mother and a colored man. she appeared to be in good health (though of course distressed at the misfortune of her husband), and we hope she will live a thousand years. she certainly shall, if his return will have that effect."--_n. y. journal of commerce._ i print these passages, hoping that some hundred years hence they may be found in some old library, and valued as monuments of the state of christianity in the free states in the year . [a] i call this bill _infamous_, because by it the man or woman who is charged with being a slave is deprived of all the means of self-defence allowed to those who are charged with crimes, and to be delivered up summarily, without the right of trial by jury, or any other proper means of proving the charge groundless. is it a worse crime to be a slave than a thief or a murderer? [ ] the function of the jury. there are two theories of the function of the jury in criminal trials. one i will call the theory of the government; the other the theory of the people. the first has of late been insisted on in certain courts, and laid down by some judges in their charges to the jury. the second lies, perhaps dimly, in the consciousness of the people, and may be gathered from the conduct of juries in trials where the judges' law would do obvious injustice to the prisoner. i. according to the theory of the government. the judge is to settle the law for the jury. this involves two things: . he is to declare the law denouncing punishment on the alleged crime. . to declare what constitutes the crime. then the jury are only to determine whether the prisoner did the deed which the judge says constitutes the crime. he, exclusively, is to decide what is the law, and what deed constitutes the crime; they only to decide if the prisoner did the deed. for example, to take a case which has not happened yet, to my knowledge: john doe is accused of having eaten a medford cracker; and thereupon, by direction of the government, has been indicted by a grand jury for the capital offence of treason, and is brought before a traverse jury for trial. the judge tells the jury, . that eating a medford cracker constitutes the crime of treason. . that there is a law denouncing death on that crime. then the jury are to hearken to the evidence, and if it is proved to their satisfaction that john doe ate the medford cracker, they are to return a verdict of guilty. they are only to judge of the matter of fact, and take the law on the judge's authority. ii. according to the theory of the people, in order to render their verdict, the jury are to determine three things: . did the man do the deed alleged? . if so, is there a legal and constitutional statute denouncing punishment upon the crime? here the question is twofold: (_a_) as to the deed which constitutes the crime, and (_b_) as to the statute which denounces the crime. . if all this is settled affirmatively, then, shall this man suffer the punishment thus legally and constitutionally denounced? for example: john doe is accused of having eaten a medford cracker, is indicted for treason, and brought to trial; the judge charges as above. then the jury are to determine: . did john doe eat the medford cracker in the manner alleged? . if so: (_a_) does that deed constitute the crime of treason? and (_b_) is there a legal and constitutional statute denouncing the punishment of death on that crime? . if so likewise, shall john doe suffer the punishment of death? the first question, as to the fact, they are to settle by the evidence presented in open court, according to the usual forms, and before the face of the prisoner; the testimony of each witness forms one element of that evidence. the jury alone are to determine whether the testimony of the witnesses proves the fact. the second question, (_a_) as to the deed which constitutes the crime, and (_b_) as to the law which denounces the crime, they are to settle by evidence; the testimony of the judge, of the states' attorney, of the prisoner's counsel, each forms an element of that evidence. the jury alone are to determine whether that testimony proves that the deed constitutes the crime, and that there is a law denouncing death against it; and the jury are to remember that the judge and the attorney who are the creatures of the government, and often paid to serve its passions, may be, and often have been, quite as partial, quite as unjust, as the prisoner's counsel. the third question, as to punishing the prisoner, after the other questions are decided against him, is to be settled solely by the mind and conscience of the jury. if they know that john doe did eat the medford cracker; that the deed legally constitutes the crime of treason, and that there is a legal and constitutional statute denouncing death on that crime, they are still to determine, on their oath as jurors, on their manhood as men, whether john doe shall suffer the punishment of death. they are jurors to do justice, not injustice; what they think is justice, not what they think injustice. the government theory, though often laid down in the charge, is seldom if ever practically carried out by a judge in its full extent. for he does not declare on his own authority what is the law and what constitutes the crime, but gives the statutes, precedents, decisions and the like; clearly implying by this very course that the jury are not to take his authority barely, but his reasons if reasonable. in the majority of cases, the statute and the ruling of the court come as near to real justice as the opinion of the jury does; then if they are satisfied that the prisoner did the deed alleged, they return a verdict of guilty with a clear conscience, and subject the man to what they deem a just punishment for an unjust act. their conduct then seems to confirm the government theory of the jurors' function. lawyers and others sometimes reason exclusively from such cases, and conclude such is the true and actual theory thereof. but when a case occurs, wherein the ruling of the judge appears wrong to the jury; when he declares legal and constitutional what they think is not so; when he declares that a trifling offence constitutes a great crime; when the statute is manifestly unjust, forbidding what is not wrong, or when the punishment denounced for a real wrong is excessive, or any punishment is provided for a deed not wrong, though there is no doubt of the facts, the jury will not convict. sometimes they will acquit the prisoner; sometimes fail to agree. the history of criminal trials in england and america proves this. in such cases the jury are not false to their function and jurors' oath, but faithful to both, for the jurors are the "country"--the justice and humanity of men. suppose some one should invent a machine to be used in criminal trials for determining the testimony given in court. let me call it a martyrion. this instrument receives the evidence and determines and reports the fact that the prisoner did, or did not, do the deed alleged. according to the government theory, the martyrion would perfectly perform all the functions of the jury in a criminal case; but would any community substitute the machine for the jury of "twelve good men and true?" if the jury is to be merely the judge's machine, it had better be of iron and gutta-percha than of human beings. in philadelphia, some years ago, a man went deliberately and shot a person who had seduced his sister under circumstances of great atrocity. he was indicted for wilful murder. there was no doubt as to the fact, none as to the law, none as to the deed which constituted that crime. the jury returned, "not guilty"--and were justified in their verdict. in , in new jersey, a man seduced the wife of another, under circumstances even more atrocious. the husband, in open day, coolly and deliberately shot the seducer; was tried for wilful murder. here, too, there was no doubt of the fact, of the law, or the deed which constituted the crime of murder; but the jury, perfectly in accordance with their official function, returned "not guilty." the case of william penn in , who was tried under the conventicle act, is well known. the conduct of many english juries who would not condemn a fellow-creature to death for stealing a few pounds of money, is also well known, and shows the value of this form of trial to protect a man from a wicked law. i think most men will declare the verdict of "not guilty" in the case of j. p. zenger, tried for high treason in new york in , a righteous judgment, made in strict accordance with the official function of the jurors; but it was plainly contrary to the evidence as well as to the ruling of the court. see mr. parker's defence, p. , _et seq._ for further remarks on the function of the jury (boston, ). [ ] so it appeared in september, ; but since then the whig party has vindicated its claim to the same bad eminence as the democratic party. [ ] the person referred to fled away from boston, and in one of the british provinces found the protection for his unalienable rights, which could not be allowed him in new england. [ ] this refers to a speech of mr. webster, occasioned by the passage of the fugitive slave law. v. the state of the nation, considered in a sermon for thanksgiving day.--preached at the melodeon, november , . proverbs xiv. . righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. we come together to-day, by the governor's proclamation, to give thanks to god for our welfare, not merely for our happiness as individuals or as families, but for our welfare as a people. how can we better improve this opportunity, than by looking a little into the condition of the people? and accordingly i invite your attention to a sermon of the state of this nation. i shall try to speak of the condition of the nation itself, then of the causes of that condition, and, in the third place, of the dangers that threaten, or are alleged to threaten, the nation. * * * * * first, of our condition. look about you in boston. here are a hundred and forty thousand souls, living in peace and in comparative prosperity. i think, without doing injustice to the other side of the water, there is no city in the old world, of this population, with so much intelligence, activity, morality, order, comfort, and general welfare, and, at the same time, with so little of the opposite of all these. i know the faults of boston, and i think i would not disguise them; the poverty, unnatural poverty, which shivers in the cellar; the unnatural wealth which bloats in the parlor; the sin which is hid in the corners of the jail; and the more dangerous sin which sets up christianity for a pretence; the sophistry which lightens in the newspapers, and thunders in the pulpit:--i know all these things, and do not pretend to disguise them; and still i think no city of the old world, of the same population, has so much which good men prize, and so little which good men deplore. see the increase of material wealth; the buildings for trade and for homes; the shops and ships. this year boston will add to her possessions some ten or twenty millions of dollars, honestly and earnestly got. observe the neatness of the streets, the industry of the inhabitants, their activity of mind, the orderliness of the people, the signs of comfort. then consider the charities of boston; those limited to our own border, and those which extend further, those beautiful charities which encompass the earth with their sweet influence. look at the schools, a monument of which the city may well be proud, in spite of their defects. but boston, though we proudly call it the athens of america, is not the pleasantest thing in new england to look at; it is the part of massachusetts which i like the least to look at, spite of its excellence. look further, at the whole of massachusetts, and you see a fairer spectacle. there is less wealth at provincetown, in proportion to the numbers, but there is less want; there is more comfort; property is more evenly and equally distributed there than here, and the welfare of a country never so much depends upon the amount of its wealth, as on the mode in which its wealth is distributed. in the state, there are about one hundred and fifty thousand families--some nine hundred and seventy-five thousand persons, living with a degree of comfort, which, i think, is not anywhere enjoyed by such a population in the old world. they are mainly industrious, sober, intelligent, and moral. every thing thrives; agriculture, manufactures, commerce. "the carpenter encourages the goldsmith; he that smites the anvil, him that smootheth with the hammer." look at the farms, where intelligent labor wins bread and beauty both, out of the sterile soil and climate not over-indulgent. behold the shops all over the state; the small shops where the shoemaker holds his work in his lap, and draws his thread by his own strong muscles; and the large shops where machines, animate with human intelligence, hold, with iron grasp, their costlier work in their lap, and spin out the delicate staple of sea island cotton. look at all this; it is a pleasant sight. look at our hundreds of villages, by river, mountain, and sea; behold the comfortable homes, the people well fed, well clad, well instructed. look at the school-houses, the colleges of the people; at the higher seminaries of learning; at the poor man's real college further back in the interior, where the mechanic's and farmer's son gets his education, often a poor one, still something to be proud of. look at the churches, where, every sunday, the best words of hebrew and of christian saints are read out of this book, and all men are asked, once in the week, to remember they have a father in heaven, a faith to swear by, and a heaven to live for, and a conscience to keep. i know the faults of these churches. i am not in the habit of excusing them; still i know their excellence, and i will not be the last man to acknowledge that. look at the roads of earth and iron which join villages together, and make the state a whole. follow the fisherman from his rocky harbor at cape ann; follow the mariner in his voyage round the world of waters; see the industry, the intelligence, and the comfort of the people. i think massachusetts is a state to be thankful for. there are faults in her institutions and in her laws, that need change very much. in her form of society, in her schools, in her colleges, there is much which clamors loudly for alteration,--very much in her churches to be christianized. these changes are going quietly forward, and will in time be brought about. i love to look on this state, its material prosperity, its increase in riches, its intelligence and industry, and the beautiful results that are seen all about us to-day. i love to look on the face of the people, in halls and churches, in markets and factories; to think of our great ideas; of the institutions which have come of them; of our schools and colleges, and all the institutions for making men wiser and better; to think of the noble men we have in the midst of us, in every walk of life, who eat an honest bread, who love mankind, and love god, who have consciences they mean to keep, and souls which they intend to save. the great business of society is not merely to have farms, and ships, and shops,--the greater shops and the less,--but to have men; men that are conscious of their manhood, self-respectful, earnest men, that have a faith in the living god. i do not think we have many men of genius. we have very few that i call great men; i wish there were more; but i think we have an intelligent, an industrious, and noble people here in massachusetts, which we may be proud of. let us go a step further. new england is like massachusetts in the main, with local differences only. all the north is like new england in the main; this portion is better in one thing; that portion worse in another thing. our ideas are their ideas; our institutions are the same. some of the northern states have institutions better than we. they have added to our experience. in revising their constitutions and laws, or in making new ones, they go beyond us, they introduce new improvements, and those new improvements will give those states the same advantage over us, which a new mill, with new and superior machinery, has over an old mill, with old and inferior machinery. by and by we shall see the result, and take counsel from it, i trust. all over the north we find the same industry and thrift, and similar intelligence. here attention is turned to agriculture, there to mining; but there is a similar progress and zeal for improvement. attention is bestowed on schools and colleges, on academies and churches. there is the same abundance of material comfort. population advances rapidly, prosperity in a greater ratio. everywhere new swarms pour forth from the old hive, and settle in some convenient nook, far off in the west. so the frontier of civilization every year goes forward, further from the ocean. fifty years ago it was on the ohio; then on the mississippi; then on the upper missouri: presently its barrier will be the rocky mountains, and soon it will pass beyond that bar, and the tide of the atlantic will sweep over to the pacific--yea, it is already there! the universal yankee freights his schooner at bangor, at new bedford, and at boston, with bricks, timber, frame-houses, and other "notions," and by and by drops his anchor in the smooth pacific, in the bay of st. francis. we shall see there, ere long, the sentiments of new england, the ideas of new england, the institutions of new england; the school-house, the meeting-house, the court-house, the town-house. there will be the same industry, thrift, intelligence, morality, and religion, and the idle ground that has hitherto borne nothing but gold, will bear upon its breast a republic of men more precious than the gold of ophir, or the rubies of the east. here i wish i could stop. but this is not all. the north is not the whole nation; new england is not the only type of the people. there are other states differing widely from this. in the southern states you find a soil more fertile under skies more genial. through what beautiful rivers the alleghanies pour their tribute to the sea! what streams beautify the land in georgia, alabama, louisiana, and mississippi! there genial skies rain beauty on the soil. nature is wanton of her gifts. there rice, cotton, and sugar grow; there the olive, the orange, the fig, all find a home. the soil teems with luxuriance. but there is not the same wealth, nor the same comfort. only the ground is rich. you witness not a similar thrift. strange is it, but in , the single state of new york alone earned over four million dollars more than the six states of north and south carolina, georgia, alabama, louisiana, and mississippi! the annual earnings of little massachusetts, with her seven thousand and five hundred square miles, are nine million dollars more than the earnings of all florida, georgia, and south carolina! the little county of essex, with ninety-five thousand souls in , earned more than the large state of south carolina, with five hundred and ninety-five thousand. in those states we miss the activity, intelligence, and enterprise of the north. you do not find the little humble school-house at every corner; the frequent meeting-house does not point its taper finger to the sky. villages do not adorn the margin of the mountain, stream and sea; shops do not ring with industry; roads of earth and iron are poorer and less common. temperance, morality, comfort are not there as here. in the slave states, in , there were not quite three hundred and two thousand youths and maidens in all the schools, academies, and colleges of the south; but in , in the free states of the north there were more than two million two hundred and twelve thousand in such institutions! little rhode island has five thousand more girls and boys at school than large south carolina. the state of ohio alone has more than seventeen thousand children at school beyond what the whole fifteen slave states can boast. the permanent literature of the nation all comes from the north; your historians are from that quarter--your sparkses, your bancrofts, your hildreths, and prescotts, and ticknors; the poets are from the same quarter--your whittiers, and longfellows, and lowells, and bryants; the men of literature and religion--your channings, and irvings, and emersons--are from the same quarter! preaching--it is everywhere, and sermons are as thick almost as autumnal leaves; but who ever heard of a great or famous clergyman in a southern state? of a great and famous sermon that rang through the nation from that quarter? no man. your edwards of old time, and your beechers, old and young, your channing and buckminster, and the rest, which throng to every man's lips--all are from the north. nature has done enough for the south; god's cup of blessing runs over--and yet you see the result! but there has been no pestilence at the south more than at the north; no earthquake has torn the ground beneath their feet; no war has come to disturb them more than us. the government has never laid a withering hand on their commerce, their agriculture, their schools and colleges, their literature and their church. still, letting alone the south and the north as such, not considering either exclusively, we are one nation. what is a nation? it is one of the great parties in the world. it is a sectional party, having geographical limits; with a party organization, party opinions, party mottoes, party machinery, party leaders, and party followers; with some capital city for its party head-quarters. there has been an assyrian party, a british, a persian, an egyptian, and a roman party; there is now a chinese party, and a russian, a turkish, a french, and an english party; these are also called nations. we belong to the american party, and that includes the north as well as the south; and so all are brothers of the same party, differing amongst ourselves--but from other nations in this, that we are the american party, and not the russian nor the english. we ought to look at the whole american party, the north and south, to see the total condition of the people. now at this moment there is no lack of cattle and corn and cloth in the united states, north or south, only they are differently distributed in the different parts of the land. but still there is a great excitement. men think the nation is in danger, and for many years there has not been so great an outcry and alarm amongst the politicians. the cry is raised, "the union is in danger!" and if the union falls, we are led to suppose that every thing falls. there will be no more thanksgiving days; there will be anarchy and civil war, and the ruin of the american people! it is curious to see this material plenty, on the one side, and this political alarm and confusion on the other. this condition of alarm is so well known, that nothing more need be said about it at this moment. * * * * * let me now come to the next point, and consider the causes of our present condition. this will involve a consideration of the cause of our prosperity and of our alarm. . first, there are some causes which depend on god entirely; such as the nature of the country, soil, climate, and the like; its minerals, and natural productions; its seas and harbors, mountains and rivers. in respect to these natural advantages, the country is abundantly favored, but the north less so than the south. tennessee, virginia and alabama, certainly have the advantage over maine, new hampshire and ohio. that i pass by; a cause which depends wholly on god. . then again, this is a wide and new country. we have room to spread. we have not to contend against old institutions, established a thousand years ago, and that is one very great advantage. i make no doubt that in crossing the ocean, our fathers helped forward the civilization of the world at least a thousand years; i mean to say, it would have taken mankind a thousand years longer to reach the condition we have attained in new england, if the attempt had of necessity been made on the soil of the old world and in the face of its institutions. . then, as a third thing, much depends on the peculiar national character. well, the freemen in the north and south are chiefly from the same race, this indomitable caucasian stock; mainly from the same composite stock, the tribe produced by the mingling of saxon, danish and norman blood. that makes the present english nation, and the american also. this is a very powerful tribe of men, possessing some very noble traits of character; active and creative in all the arts of peace; industrious as a nation never was before; enterprising, practical; fond of liberty, fond also of law, capable of organizing themselves into great masses, and acting with a complete concert and unity of action. in these respects, i think this tribe, which i will call the english tribe, is equal to any race of men in the world that has been or is; perhaps superior to any race that has been developed hitherto. but in what relates to the higher reason and imagination, to the affections and to the soul, i think this tribe is not so eminent as some others have been. north and south, the people are alike of anglo-norman descent. . another cause of our prosperity, which depends a great deal on ourselves, is this--the absence of war and of armies. in france, with a population of less than forty millions, half a million are constantly under arms. the same state of things prevails substantially in austria, prussia, and in all the german states. here in america, with a population of twenty millions, there is not one in a thousand that is a soldier or marine. in time of peace, i think we waste vast sums in military preparations, as we did in actual war not long since. still, when i compare this nation with others, i think we have cause to felicitate ourselves on the absence of military power. . again, much depends on the past history of the race; and here there is a wide difference between the different parts of the country. new england was settled by a religious colony. i will not say that all the men who came here from to were moved by religious motives; but the controlling men were brought here by these motives, and no other. many who cared less for religious ideas, came for the sake of a great moral idea, for the sake of obtaining a greater degree of civil freedom than they had at home. now the pilgrims and the puritans are only a little ways behind us. the stiff ruff, the peaked beard, the "prophesying book" are only six or seven generations behind the youngest of us. the character of the puritans has given to new england much of its present character and condition. they founded schools and colleges; they trained up their children in a stern discipline which we shall not forget for two centuries to come. the remembrance of their trials, their heroism, and their piety affects our preaching to-day, and our politics also. the difference between new england and new york, from to , is the difference between the sons of the religious colony and the sons of the worldly colony. you know something of new york politics before the revolution, and also since the revolution; the difference between new york and new england politics at that time, is the difference between the sons of religious men and the sons of men who cared very much less for religion. just now, when i said that all the north is like new england, i meant substantially so. the west is our own daughter. new england has helped people the western part of the state of new york; and the best elements of new england character mingling with others, its good qualities will appear in the politics of that mighty state. the south, in the main, had a very different origin from the north. i think few if any persons settled there for religion's sake; or for the sake of freedom in the state. it was not a moral idea which sent men to virginia, georgia and carolina. "men do not gather grapes of thorns." the difference of the seed will appear in the difference of the crop. in the character of the people of the north and south, it appears at this day. the north is not to be praised, nor the south to be blamed for this; they could not help it: but certainly it is an advantage to be descended from a race of industrious, moral and religious men; to have been brought up under their training, to have inherited their ideas and institutions,--and this is a circumstance which we make quite too little account of. i pass by that. . there are other causes which depend on ourselves entirely. much depends on the political and social organization of the people. there is no denying that government has a great influence on the character of the people; on the character of every man. the difference between the development of england and the development of spain at this day, is mainly the result of different forms of government; for three centuries ago the spaniards were as noble a race as the english. a government is carried on by two agencies: the first is public opinion, and the next is public law,--the fundamental law which is the constitution, and the subsidiary laws which carry out the ideas of the constitution. in a government like this, public opinion always precedes the laws, overrides them, takes the place of laws when there are none, and hinders their execution when they do not correspond to public opinion. thus the public opinion of south carolina demands that a free colored seaman from the north shall be shut up in jail, at his employer's cost. the public opinion of charleston is stronger than the public law of the united states on that point, stronger than the constitution, and nobody dares execute the laws of the united states in that matter. these two things should always be looked at, to understand the causes of a nation's condition--the public opinion, as well as the public law. let me know the opinions of the men between twenty-five and thirty-five years of age, and i know what the laws will be. now in public opinion and in the laws of the united states, there are two distinct political ideas. i shall call one the democratic, and the other the despotic idea. neither is wholly sectional; both chiefly so. each is composed of several simpler ideas. each has enacted laws and established institutions. this is the democratic idea: that all men are endowed by their creator with certain natural rights, which only the possessor can alienate; that all men are equal in these rights; that amongst them is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that the business of the government is to preserve for every man all of these rights until he alienates them. this democratic idea is founded in human nature, and comes from the nature of god who made human nature. to carry it out politically is to execute justice, which is the will of god. this idea, in its realization, leads to a democracy, a government of all, for all, by all. such a government aims to give every man all his natural rights; it desires to have political power in all hands, property in all hands, wisdom in all heads, goodness in all hearts, religion in all souls. i mean the religion that makes a man self-respectful, earnest, and faithful to the infinite god, that disposes him to give all men their rights, and to claim his own rights at all times; the religion which is piety within you, and goodness in the manifestation. such a government has laws, and the aim thereof is to give justice to all men; it has officers to execute these laws, for the sake of justice. such a government founds schools for all; looks after those most who are most in need; defends and protects the feeblest as well as the richest and most powerful. the state is for the individual, and for all the individuals, and so it reverences justice, where the rights of all, and the interests of all, exactly balance. it demands free speech; every thing is open to examination, discussion, "agitation," if you will. thought is to be free, speech to be free, work to be free, and worship to be free. such is the democratic idea, and such the state which it attempts to found. the despotic idea is just the opposite:--that all men are _not_ endowed by their creator with certain natural rights which only the possessor can alienate, but that one man has a natural right to overcome and make use of some other men for his advantage and their hurt; that all men are _not_ equal in their rights; that all men have _not_ a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that government is _not_ instituted to preserve these natural rights for all. this idea is founded on the excess of human passions, and it represents the compromise between a man's idleness and his appetite. it is not based on facts eternal in human nature, but on facts transient in human nature. it does not aim to do justice to all, but injustice to some; to take from one man what he ought not to lose, and give to another what he ought not to get. this leads to aristocracy in various forms, to the government of all by means of a part and for the sake of a part. in this state of things political power must be in few hands; property in few hands; wisdom in few heads; goodness in few hearts, and religion in few souls. i mean the religion which leads a man to respect himself and his fellow men; to be earnest, and to trust in the infinite god; to demand his rights of other men and to give their rights to them. neither the democratic nor the despotic idea is fully made real anywhere in the world. there is no perfect democracy, nor perfect aristocracy. there are democrats in every actual aristocracy; despots in every actual democracy. but in the northern states the democratic idea prevails extensively and chiefly, and we have made attempts at establishing a democratic government. in the southern states the despotic idea prevails extensively and chiefly, and they have made attempts to establish an aristocratic government. in an aristocracy there are two classes: the people to be governed, and the governing class, the nobility which is to govern. this nobility may be movable, and depend on wealth; or immovable, and depend on birth. in the southern states the nobility is immovable, and depends on color. in , in the north there were ten million free men, and in the south five million free men and three million slaves. three eighths of the population have no human rights at all--privileges as cattle, not rights as men. there the slave is protected by law, as your horse and your ox, but has no more human rights. here, now, is the great cause of the difference in the condition of the north and south; of the difference in the material results, represented by towns and villages, by farms and factories, ships and shops. here is the cause of the difference in schools, colleges, churches, and in the literature; the cause of the difference in men. the south, with its despotic idea, dishonors labor, but wishes to compromise between its idleness and its appetite, and so kidnaps men to do its work. the north, with its democratic idea, honors labor; does not compromise between its idleness and its appetite, but lays its bones to the work to satisfy its appetite; instead of kidnapping a man who can run away, it kidnaps the elements, subdues them to its command, and makes them do its work. it does not kidnap a freeman, but catches the winds, and chains them to its will. it lays hands on fire and water, and breeds a new giant, which "courses land and ocean without rest," or serves while it stands and waits, driving the mills of the land. it kidnaps the connecticut and the merrimac; does not send slave-ships to africa, but engineers to new hampshire; and it requires no fugitive slave law to keep the earth and sea from escaping, or the rivers of new england from running up hill. this is not quite all! i have just now tried to hint at the causes of the difference in the condition of the people, north and south. now let me show the cause of the agitation and alarm. we begin with a sentiment; that spreads to an idea; the idea grows to an act, to an institution; then it has done its work. men seek to spread their sentiments and ideas. the democratic idea tries to spread; the despotic idea tries to spread. for a long time the nation held these two ideas in its bosom, not fully conscious of either of them. both came here in a state of infancy, so to say, with our fathers; the democratic idea very dimly understood; the despotic idea not fully carried out, yet it did a great mischief in the state and church. in the declaration of independence, writ by a young man, only the democratic idea appears, and that idea never got so distinctly stated before. but mark you, and see the confusion in men's minds. that democratic idea was thus distinctly stated by a man who was a slaveholder almost all his life; and unless public rumor has been unusually false, he has left some of his own offspring under the influence of the despotic and not the democratic idea; slaves and not free men. in the constitution of the united states these two ideas appear. it was thought for a long time they were not incompatible; it was thought the great american party might recognize both, and a compromise was made between the two. it was thought each might go about its own work and let the other alone; that the hawk and the hen might dwell happily together in the same coop, each lay her own eggs and rear her own brood, and neither put a claw upon the other. in the mean time each founded institutions after its kind; in the northern states, democratic institutions; in the southern, aristocratic. what once lay latent in the mind of the nation has now become patent. the thinking part of the nation sees the difference between the two. some men are beginning to see that the two are completely incompatible, and cannot be good friends. others are asking us to shut our eyes and not see it, and they think that so long as our eyes are shut, all things will go on peacefully. such is the wisdom of the ostrich. at first the trouble coming from this source was a very little cloud, far away on the horizon, not bigger than a man's hand. it seemed so in , when the brave senator from massachusetts, a hartford convention federalist, a name that calls the blood to some rather pale cheeks now-a-days, proposed to alter the constitution of the united states, and cut off the north from all responsibility for slavery. it was a little cloud not bigger than a man's hand; now it is a great cloud which covers the whole hemisphere of heaven, and threatens to shut out the day. in the last session of congress, ten months long, the great matter was the contest between the two ideas. all the newspapers rung with the battle. even the pulpits now and then alluded to it; forgetting their decency, that they must preach "only religion," which has not the least to do with politics and the welfare of the state. each idea has its allies, and it is worth while to run our eye over the armies and see what they amount to. the idea of despotism has for its allies: . the slaveholders of the south with their dependents; and the servile class who take their ideas from the prominent men about them. this servile class is more numerous at the south than even at the north. . it has almost all the distinguished politicians of the north and south; the distinguished great politicians in the congress of the nation, and the distinguished little politicians in the congresses of the several states. . it has likewise the greater portion of the wealthy and educated men in many large towns of the north; with their dependents and the servile men who take their opinions from the prominent class about them. and here, i am sorry to say, i must reckon the greater portion of the prominent and wealthy clergy, the clergy in the large cities. once this class of men were masters of the rich and educated; and very terrible masters they were in madrid and in rome. now their successors are doing penance for those old sins. "it is a long lane," they say, "which has no turn," and the clerical has had a very short and complete turn. when i say the majority of the clergy in prominent situations in the large cities, are to be numbered among the allies of the despotic idea, and are a part of the great pro-slavery army, i know there are some noble and honorable exceptions, men who do not fear the face of gold, but reverence the face of god. then on the side of the democratic idea there are: . the great mass of the people at the north; farmers, mechanics, and the humbler clergy. this does not appear so at first sight, because these men have not much confidence in themselves, and require to be shaken many times before they are thoroughly waked up. . beside that there are a few politicians at the north who are on this side; some distinguished ones in congress, some less distinguished ones in the various legislatures of the north. . next there are men, north and south, who look at the great causes of the welfare of nations, and make up their minds historically, from the facts of human history, against despotism. then there are such as study the great principles of justice and truth, and judge from human nature, and decide against despotism. and then such as look at the law of god, and believe christianity is sense and not nonsense; that christianity is the ideal for earnest men, not a pretence for a frivolous hypocrite. some of these men are at the south; the greater number are in the north; and here again you see the difference between the son of the planter and the son of the puritan. here are the allies, the threefold armies of despotism on the one side, and of democracy on the other. * * * * * now it is not possible for these two ideas to continue to live in peace. for a long time each knew not the other, and they were quiet. the men who clearly knew the despotic idea, thought, in , it would die "of a rapid consumption:" they said so; but the culture of cotton has healed its deadly wound, at least for the present. after the brief state of quiet, there came a state of armed neutrality. they were hostile, but under bonds to keep the peace. each bit his thumb, but neither dared say he bit it at the other. now the neutrality is over; attempts are made to compromise, to compose the difficulty. various peace measures were introduced to the senate last summer; but they all turned out war measures, every one of them. now there is a trial of strength between the two. which shall recede? which be extended? freedom or slavery? that is the question; refuse to look at it as we will,--refrain or refrain not from "political agitation," that is the question. in the last congress it is plain the democratic idea was beaten. congress said to california, "you may come in, and you need not keep slaves unless you please." it said, "you shall not bring slaves to washington for sale, you may do that at norfolk, alexandria, and georgetown, it is just as well, and this 'will pacify the north.'" utah and new mexico were left open to slavery, and fifty thousand or seventy thousand square miles and ten million dollars were given to texas lest she should "dissolve the union,"--without money or men! to crown all, the fugitive slave bill became a law. i think it is very plain that the democratic idea was defeated, and it is easy to see why. the three powers which are the allies of the despotic idea, were ready, and could act in concert--the southern slaveholders, the leading politicians, the rich and educated men of the northern cities, with their appendages and servile adherents. but since then, the conduct of the people in the north, and especially in this state, shows that the nation has not gone that way yet. i think the nation never will; that the idea of freedom will never be turned back in this blessed north. i feel sure it will at last overcome the idea of slavery. i come to this conclusion, firstly, from the character of the tribe: this anglo-norman-saxon tribe loves law, deliberation, order, method; it is the most methodical race that ever lived. but it loves liberty, and while it loves law, it loves law chiefly because it keeps liberty; and without that it would trample law under foot. see the conduct of england. she spent one hundred millions of dollars in the attempt to wipe slavery from the west indies. she keeps a fleet on the coast of africa to put down the slave-trade there--where we also have, i think, a sloop-of-war. she has just concluded a treaty with brazil for the suppression of the slave-trade in that country, one of her greatest achievements in that work for many years. see how the sons of the puritans, as soon as they came to a consciousness of what the despotic idea was, took their charters and wiped slavery clean out, first from massachusetts, and then from the other states, one after another. see how every northern state, in revising its constitution, or in making a new one, declares all men are created equal, that all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. then the religion of the north demands the same thing. professors may try to prove that the old testament establishes slavery; that the new testament justifies the existence of slavery; that paul's epistle to philemon was nothing more than another fugitive slave law, that paul himself sent back a runaway; but it does not touch the religion of the north. we know better. we say if the old testament does that and the new testament, so much the worse for them both. we say, "let us look and see if paul was so benighted," and we can judge for ourselves that the professor was mistaken more than the apostle. again, the spirit of the age, which is the public opinion of the nations, is against slavery. it was broken down in england, france, italy, and spain; it cannot stand long against civilization and good sense; against the political economy and the religious economy of the civilized world. the genius of freedom stands there, year out, year in, and hurls firebrands into the owl's nest of the prince of darkness, continually,--and is all this with no effect? besides that, it is against the law of god. that guides this universe, treating with even-handed justice the great geographical parties, austrian, roman, british, or american, with the same justice wherewith it dispenses its blessings to the little local factions that divide the village for a day, marshalling mankind forward in its mighty progress towards wisdom, freedom, goodness towards men, and piety towards god. of the final issue i have no doubt; but no man can tell what shall come to pass in the mean time. we see that political parties in the state are snapped asunder: whether the national party shall not be broken up, no man can say. in , on the th day of november, no man in old england or new england could tell what would bring forth. no man, north or south, can tell to-day what will bring to pass. he must be a bold man who declares to the nation that no new political machinery shall be introduced, in the next thirty years, to our national mill. we know not what a day shall bring forth, but we know that god is on the side of right and justice, and that they will prevail so long as god is god. * * * * * now, then, to let alone details, and generalize into one all the causes of our condition, this is the result: we have found welfare just so far as we have followed the democratic idea, and enacted justice into law. we have lost welfare just so far as we have followed the despotic idea, and made iniquity into a statute. so far as we have reaffirmed the ordinance of nature and reënacted the will of god, we have succeeded. so far as we have refused to do that, we have failed. of old it was written, "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." * * * * * and now a word of our dangers. there seems no danger from abroad; from any foreign state, unless we begin the quarrel; none from famine. the real danger, in one word, is this--that we shall try to enact injustice into a law, and with the force of the nation to make iniquity obeyed. see some of the special forms of injustice which threaten us, or are already here. i shall put them into the form of ideas. . one, common among politicians is, that the state is for a portion of the people, not the whole. thus it has been declared that the constitution of the united states did not recognize the three million slaves as citizens, or extend to them any right which it guarantees to other men. it would be a sad thing for the state to declare there was a single child in the whole land to whom it owed no protection. what, then, if it attempts to take three millions from under its shield? in obedience to this false idea, the counsel has been given, that we must abstain from all "political agitation" of the most important matter before the people. we must leave that to our masters, for the state is for them, it is not for you and me. they must say whether we shall "agitate" and "discuss" these things or not. the politicians are our masters, and may lay their fingers on our lips when they will. . the next false idea is,--that government is chiefly for the protection of property. this has long been the idea on which some men legislated, but on the th day of this month, the distinguished secretary of state, in a speech at new york, used these words: "the great object of government is the protection of property at home and respect and renown abroad." you see what the policy must be where the government is for the protection of the hat, and only takes care of the head so far as it serves to wear a hat. here the man is the accident, and the dollar is the substance for which the man is to be protected. i think a notion very much like this prevails extensively in the great cities of america, north and south. i think the chief politicians of the two parties are agreed in this--that government is for the protection of property, and every thing else is subsidiary. with many persons politics are a part of their business; the state-house and the custom-house are only valued for their relation to trade. this idea is fatal to a good government. think of this, that "the great object of government is the protection of property." tell that to samuel adams, and john hancock, and washington, and the older winthrops, and the bradfords and carvers! why! it seems as if the buried majesty of massachusetts would start out of the ground, and with its bible in its hand say--this is false! . the third false idea is this--that you are morally bound to obey the statute, let it be never so plainly wrong and opposed to your conscience. this is the most dangerous of all the false ideas yet named. ambitious men, in an act of passion, make iniquity into a law, and then demand that you and i, in our act of prayer, shall submit to it and make it our daily life; that we shall not try to repeal and discuss and agitate it! this false idea lies at the basis of every despot's throne, the idea that men can make right wrong, and wrong right. it has come to be taught in new england, to be taught in our churches--though seldom there, to their honor be it spoken, except in the churches of commerce in large towns--that if wrong is law, you and i must do what it demands, though conscience declares it is treason against man and treason against god. the worst doctrines of hobbes and filmer are thus revived. i have sometimes been amazed at the talk of men who call on us to keep the fugitive slave law, one of the most odious laws in a world of odious laws--a law not fit to be made or kept. i have been amazed that they should dare to tell us the law of god, writ on the heavens and our hearts, never demanded we should disobey the laws of men! well, suppose it were so. then it was old daniel's duty at darius's command to give up his prayer; but he prayed three times a day, with his windows up. then it was john's and peter's duty to forbear to preach of christianity; but they said, "whether it be right in the sight of god to hearken unto you more than unto god, judge ye." then it was the duty of amram and jochebed to take up their new-born moses and cast him into the nile, for the law of king pharaoh, commanding it, was "constitutional," and "political agitation" was discountenanced as much in goshen as in boston. but daniel did not obey; john and peter did not fail to preach christianity; and amram and jochebed refused "passive obedience" to the king's decree! i think it will take a strong man all this winter to reverse the judgment which the world has passed on these three cases. but it is "innocent" to try. however, there is another ancient case, mentioned in the bible, in which the laws commanded one thing and conscience just the opposite. here is the record of the law:--"now both the chief priests and the pharisees had given a commandment, that if any one knew where he [jesus] were, he should show it, that they might take him." of course, it became the official and legal business of each disciple who knew where christ was, to make it known to the authorities. no doubt james and john could leave all and follow him, with others of the people who knew not the law of moses, and were accursed; nay the women, martha and mary, could minister unto him of their substance, could wash his feet with tears, and wipe them with the hairs of their head. they did it gladly, of their own free will, and took pleasure therein, i make no doubt. there was no merit in that--"any man can perform an agreeable duty." but there was found one disciple who could "perform a disagreeable duty." he went, perhaps "with alacrity," and betrayed his saviour to the marshal of the district of jerusalem, who was called a centurion. had he no affection for jesus? no doubt; but he could conquer his prejudices, while mary and john could not. judas iscariot has rather a bad name in the christian world: he is called "the son of perdition," in the new testament, and his conduct is reckoned a "transgression;" nay, it is said the devil "entered into him," to cause this hideous sin. but all this it seems was a mistake; certainly, if we are to believe our "republican" lawyers and statesmen, iscariot only fulfilled his "constitutional obligations." it was only "on that point," of betraying his saviour, that the constitutional law required him to have any thing to do with jesus. he took his "thirty pieces of silver"--about fifteen dollars; a yankee is to do it for ten, having fewer prejudices to conquer--it was his legal fee, for value received. true, the christians thought it was "the wages of iniquity," and even the pharisees--who commonly made the commandment of god of none effect by their traditions--dared not defile the temple with this "price of blood;" but it was honest money. it was as honest a fee as any american commissioner or deputy will ever get for a similar service. how mistaken we are! judas iscariot is not a traitor; he was a great patriot; he conquered his "prejudices," performed "a disagreeable duty" as an office of "high morals and high principle;" he kept the "law" and the "constitution," and did all he could to "save the union;" nay, he was a saint, "not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." "the law of god never commands us to disobey the law of man." _sancte iscariote ora pro nobis._ it is a little strange to hear this talk in boston, and hear the doctrine of passive obedience to a law which sets christianity at defiance, taught here in the face of the adamses, and hancock, and washington! it is amazing to hear this talk, respecting such a law, amongst merchants. do they keep the usury laws? i never heard of but one money-lender who kept them,[ ] and he has been a long time dead, and i think he left no kith nor kin! the temperance law,--is that kept? the fifteen gallon law,--were men so very passive in their obedience to that, that they could not even "agitate?" yet it violated no law of god--was not unchristian. when the government interferes with the rumsellers' property, the law must be trod under foot; but when the law insists that a man shall be made a slave, i must give up conscience in my act of prayer, and stoop to the vile law men have made in their act of passion! it is curious to hear men talk of law and order in boston, when the other day one or two hundred smooth-faced boys, and youths beardless as girls, could disturb a meeting of three or four thousand men, for two hours long; and the chief of the police, and the mayor of the city stood and looked on, when a single word from their lips might have stilled the tumult and given honest men a hearing.[ ] talk of keeping the fugitive slave law! come, come, we know better. men in new england know better than this. we know that we ought not to keep a wicked law, and that it must not be kept when the law of god forbids! but the effect of a law which men cannot keep without violating conscience, is always demoralizing. there are men who know no higher law than the statute of the state. when good men cannot keep a law that is base, some bad ones will say, "let us keep no law at all,"--then where does the blame lie? on him that enacts the outrageous law. the idea that a statute of man frees us from obligation to the law of god, is a dreadful thing. when that becomes the deliberate conviction of the great mass of the people, north or south, then i shall despair of human nature; then i shall despair of justice, and despair of god. but this time will never come. one of the most awful spectacles i ever saw, was this: a vast multitude attempting, at an orator's suggestion, to howl down the "higher law," and when he said, "will you have this to rule over you?" they answered, "never!" and treated the "higher law" to a laugh and a howl! it was done in faneuil hall;[ ] under the eyes of the three adamses, hancock, and washington; and the howl rung round the venerable arches of that hall! i could not but ask, "why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? the rulers of the earth set themselves, and kings take counsel against the lord and say, 'let us break his bands asunder, and cast off his yoke from us.'" then i could not but remember that it was written, "he that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the lord shall have them in derision. he taketh up the isles as a very little thing, and the inhabitants of the earth are as grasshoppers before him." howl down the law of god at a magistrate's command! do this in boston! let us remember this--but with charity. men say there is danger of disunion, of our losing fealty for the constitution. i do not believe it yet! suppose it be so. the constitution is the machinery of the national mill; and suppose we agree to take it out and put in new; we might get worse, very true, but we might get better. there have been some modern improvements; we might introduce them to the state as well as the mill. but i do not believe there is this danger. i do not believe the people of massachusetts think so. i think they are strongly attached to the union yet, and if they thought "the union was in peril--this day," and every thing the nation prizes was likely to be destroyed, we should not have had a meeting of a few thousands in faneuil hall, but the people would have filled up the city of worcester with a hundred thousand men, if need be; and they would have come with the cartridge-box at their side, and the firelock on their shoulder. that is the way the people of massachusetts would assemble if they thought there was real danger. i do not believe the south will withdraw from the union, with five million free men, and three million slaves. i think massachusetts would be no loser, i think the north would be no loser; but i doubt if the north will yet allow them to go if so disposed. do you think the south is so mad as to wish it? but i think i know of one cause which may dissolve the union--one which ought to dissolve it, if put in action: that is, a serious attempt to execute the fugitive slave law, here and in all the north. i mean an attempt to recover and take back all the fugitive slaves in the north, and to punish, with fine and imprisonment, all who aid or conceal them. the south has browbeat us again and again. she has smitten us on the one cheek with "protection," and we have turned the other, kissing the rod; she has smitten that with "free trade." she has imprisoned our citizens; driven off, with scorn and loathing, our officers sent to ask constitutional justice. she has spit upon us. let her come to take back the fugitives--and, trust me, she "will wake up the lion." in my humble opinion, this law is a wedge--sharp at one end, but wide at the other--put in between the lower planks of our ship of state. if it be driven home, we go to pieces. but i have no thought that that will be done quite yet. i believe the great politicians, who threatened to drive it through the gaping seams of our argosy, will think twice before they strike again. nay, that they will soon be very glad to bury the wedge "where the tide ebbs and flows four times a day." i do not expect this of their courage, but of their fears; not of their justice--i am too old for that--but of their concern for property, which it is the "great object of government" to protect. i know how some men talk in public, and how they act at home. i heard a man the other day, at faneuil hall, declare the law must be kept, and denounce, not very gently, all who preached or prayed against it, as enemies of "all law." but that was all talk, for this very man, on that very day, had violated the law; had furnished the golden wheels on which fugitives rode out of the reach of the arms which the marshal would have been sorry to lift. i could tell things more surprising--but it is not wise just now![ ] i do not believe there is more than one of the new england men who publicly helped the law into being, but would violate its provisions; conceal a fugitive; share his loaf with a runaway; furnish him golden wings to fly with. nay, i think it would be difficult to find a magistrate in new england, willing to take the public odium of doing the official duty.[ ] i believe it is not possible to find a regular jury, who will punish a man for harboring a slave, for helping his escape, or fine a marshal or commissioner for being a little slow to catch a slave.[ ] men will talk loud in public meetings, but they have some conscience after all, at home. and though they howl down the "higher law" in a crowd, yet conscience will make cowards of them all, when they come to lay hands on a christian man, more innocent than they, and send him into slavery forever! one of the commissioners of boston talked loud and long, last tuesday, in favor of keeping the law. when he read his litany against the law of god, and asked if men would keep the "higher law," and got "never" as the welcome, and amen for response--it seemed as if the law might be kept, at least by that commissioner, and such as gave the responses to his creed. but slave-hunting mr. hughes, who came here for two of our fellow-worshippers,[ ] in his georgia newspaper, tells a different story. here it is, from the "georgia telegraph," of last friday. "i called at eleven o'clock at night, at his [the commissioner's] residence, and stated to him my business, and asked him for a warrant, saying that if i could get a warrant, i could have the negroes [william and ellen craft] arrested. he said the law did not authorize a warrant to be issued: that it was my duty to go and arrest the negro without a warrant, and bring him before him!" this is more than i expected. "is saul among the prophets?" the men who tell us that the law must be kept, god willing, or against his will--there are puritan fathers behind them also; bibles in their houses; a christ crucified, whom they think of; and a god even in their world, who slumbers not, neither is weary, and is as little a respecter of parchments as of persons! they know there is a people, as well as politicians, a posterity not yet assembled, and they would not like to have certain words writ on their tombstone. "traitor to the rights of mankind," is no pleasant epitaph. they, too, remember there is a day after to-day; aye, a forever; and, "inasmuch as ye have not done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have not done it unto me," is a sentence they would not like to hear at the day of judgment.[ ] much danger is feared from the "political agitation" of this matter. great principles have never been discussed without great passions, and will not be, for some time, i suppose. but men fear to have this despotic idea become a subject of discussion. last spring, mr. webster said here in boston, "we shall not see the legislation of the country proceed in the old harmonious way, until the discussion in congress and out of congress, upon the subject [of slavery] shall be in some manner suppressed. take that truth home with you!" we have lately been told that political agitation on the subject must be stopped. so it seems this law, like that which daniel would not keep, is one that may not be changed, and must not be talked of. now there are three modes in which attempts may be made to stop the agitation. . by sending "----troops, with guns and banners, cut short our speeches and our necks, and break our heads to mend our manners." that is the austrian way, which has not yet been tried here, and will not be. . by sending lecturers throughout the land, to stir up the people to be quiet, and agitate them till they are still; to make them sign the pledge of total abstinence from the discussion of this subject. that is not likely to effect the object. . for the friends of silence to keep their own counsel--and this seems as little likely to be tried, as the others to succeed. strange is it to ask us to forbear to talk on a subject which involves the welfare of twenty million men! as well ask a man in a fever not to be heated, and a consumptive person not to cough, to pine away and turn pale. miserable counsellors are ye all, who give such advice. but we have seen lately the lion of the democrats, and the lamb of the whigs, lie down together, joined by this opinion, so gentle and so loving, all at once, that a little child could lead them, and so "fulfil the sure prophetic word." yes, we have seen the herod of one party, and the pilate of the other, made friends for the sake of crucifying the freedom of mankind. but there is one way in which, i would modestly hint, that we might stop all this talk "in congress and out of congress," that is, to "discuss" the matter till we had got at the truth, and the whole truth; then to "agitate" politically, till we had enacted justice into law, and carried it out all over the north, and all over the south. after that there would be no more discussion about the fugitive slave bill, than about the "boston port bill;" no more agitation about american slavery, than there is about the condition of the people of babylon before the flood. i think there is no other way in which we are likely to get rid of this discussion. * * * * * such is our condition, such its causes, such our dangers. now, for the lesson, look a moment elsewhere. look at continental europe, at rome, austria, prussia, and the german states--at france. how uncertain is every government! france--the stablest of them all! remember the revolution which two years ago shook those states so terribly, when all the royalty of france was wheeled out of paris in a street cab. why are those states so tottering? whence those revolutions? they tried to make iniquity their law, and would not give over the attempt! why are the armies of france five hundred thousand strong, though the nation is at peace with all the world? because they tried to make injustice law! why do the austrian and german monarchs fear an earthquake of the people? because they tread the people down with wicked laws! whence came the crushing debts of france, austria, england? from the same cause: from the injustice of men who made mischief by law! it is not for men long to hinder the march of human freedom. i have no fear for that, ultimately,--none at all, simply for this reason, that i believe in the infinite god. you may make your statutes; an appeal always lies to the higher law, and decisions adverse to that get set aside in the ages. your statutes cannot hold him. you may gather all the dried grass and all the straw in both continents; you may braid it into ropes to bind down the sea; while it is calm, you may laugh, and say, "lo, i have chained the ocean!" and howl down the law of him who holds the universe as a rosebud in his hand--its every ocean but a drop of dew. "how the waters suppress their agitation," you may say. but when the winds blow their trumpets, the sea rises in its strength, snaps asunder the bonds that had confined his mighty limbs, and the world is littered with the idle hay! stop the human race in its development and march to freedom? as well might the boys of boston, some lustrous night, mounting the steeples of this town, call on the stars to stay their course! gently, but irresistibly, the greater and the lesser bear move round the pole; orion, in his mighty mail, comes up the sky; the bull, the ram, the heavenly twins, the crab, the lion, the maid, the scales, and all that shining company, pursue their march all night, and the new day discovers the idle urchins in their lofty places, all tired, and sleepy, and ashamed. it is not possible to suppress the idea of freedom, or forever hold down its institutions. but it is possible to destroy a state; a political party with geographical bounds may easily be rent asunder. it is not impossible to shiver this american union. but how? what clove asunder the great british party, one nation once in america and england? did not our fathers love their father-land? aye. they called it home, and were loyal with abundant fealty; there was no lack of piety for home. it was the attempt to make old english injustice new england law! who did it,--the british people? never. their hand did no such sacrilege! it was the merchants of london, with the "navigation act;" the politicians of westminster with the "stamp act;" the tories of america, who did not die without issue, that for office and its gold would keep a king's unjust commands. it was they, who drove our fathers into disunion against their will. is here no lesson? we love law, all of us love it; but a true man loves it only as the safeguard of the rights of man. if it destroy these rights, he spurns it with his feet. is here no lesson? look further then. do you know how empires find their end? yes, the great states eat up the little. as with fish, so with nations. aye, but how do the great states come to an end? by their own injustice, and no other cause. they would make unrighteousness their law, and god wills not that it be so. thus they fall; thus they die. look at these ancient states, the queenliest queens of earth. there is rome, the widow of two civilizations,--the pagan and the catholic. they both had her, and unto both she bore daughters and fair sons. but, the niobe of nations, she boasted that her children were holier and more fair than all the pure ideas of justice, truth, and love, the offspring of the eternal god. and now she sits there, transformed into stone, amid the ruins of her children's bones. at midnight i have heard the owl hoot in the coliseum and the forum, giving voice to desolation; and at midday i have seen the fox in the palace where augustus gathered the wealth, the wit, the beauty and the wisdom of a conquered world; and the fox and the owl interpreted to me the voice of many ages, which came to tell this age, that though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not prosper. come with me, my friends, a moment more, pass over this golgotha of human history, treading reverent as you go, for our feet are on our mothers' grave, and our shoes defile our fathers' hallowed bones. let us not talk of them; go further on, look and pass by. come with me into the inferno of the nations, with such poor guidance as my lamp can lend. let us disquiet and bring up the awful shadows of empires buried long ago, and learn a lesson from the tomb. come, old assyria, with the ninevitish dove upon thy emerald crown! what laid thee low? "i fell by my own injustice. thereby nineveh and babylon came, with me, also, to the ground." oh queenly persia, flame of the nations, wherefore art thou so fallen, who troddest the people under thee, bridgedst the hellespont with ships, and pouredst thy temple-wasting millions on the western world? "because i trod the people under me, and bridged the hellespont with ships, and poured my temple-wasting millions on the western world. i fell by my own misdeeds!" thou muselike, grecian queen, fairest of all thy classic sisterhood of states, enchanting yet the world with thy sweet witchery, speaking in art, and most seductive song, why liest thou there with beauteous yet dishonored brow, reposing on thy broken harp? "i scorned the law of god; banished and poisoned wisest, justest men; i loved the loveliness of flesh, embalmed it in the parian stone; i loved the loveliness of thought, and treasured that in more than parian speech. but the beauty of justice, the loveliness of love, i trod them down to earth! lo, therefore have i become as those barbarian states--as one of them!" oh manly and majestic rome, thy sevenfold mural crown, all broken at thy feet, why art thou here? it was not injustice brought thee low; for thy great book of law is prefaced with these words, justice is the unchanging, everlasting will to give each man his right! "it was not the saint's ideal: it was the hypocrite's pretence! i made iniquity my law. i trod the nations under me. their wealth gilded my palaces,--where thou mayst see the fox and hear the owl,--it fed my courtiers and my courtezans. wicked men were my cabinet counsellors, the flatterer breathed his poison in my ear. millions of bondmen wet the soil with tears and blood. do you not hear it crying yet to god? lo here have i my recompense, tormented with such downfall as you see! go back and tell the new-born child, who sitteth on the alleghanies, laying his either hand upon a tributary sea, a crown of thirty stars about his youthful brow--tell him that there are rights which states must keep, or they shall suffer wrongs! tell him there is a god who keeps the black man and the white, and hurls to earth the loftiest realm that breaks his just, eternal law! warn the young empire that he come not down dim and dishonored to my shameful tomb! tell him that justice is the unchanging, everlasting will to give each man his right. i knew it, broke it, and am lost. bid him to know it, keep it, and be safe!" * * * * * "god save the commonwealth!" proclaims the governor. god will do his part,--doubt not of that. but you and i must help him save the state. what can we do? next sunday i will ask you for your charity; to-day i ask a greater gift, more than the abundance of the rich, or the poor widow's long remembered mite. i ask you for your justice. give that to your native land. do you not love your country? i know you do. here are our homes and the graves of our fathers; the bones of our mothers are under the sod. the memory of past deeds is fresh with us; many a farmer's and mechanic's son inherits from his sires some cup of manna gathered in the wilderness, and kept in memory of our exodus; some stones from the jordan, which our fathers passed over sorely bested and hunted after; some aaron's rod, green and blossoming with fragrant memories of the day of small things when the lord led us--and all these attach us to our land, our native land. we love the great ideas of the north, the institutions which they founded, the righteous laws, the schools, the churches too--do we not love all these? aye. i know well you do. then by all these, and more than all, by the dear love of god, let us swear that we will keep the justice of the eternal law. then are we all safe. we know not what a day may bring forth, but we know that eternity will bring everlasting peace. high in the heavens, the pole-star of the world, shines justice; placed within us, as our guide thereto, is conscience. let us be faithful to that "which though it trembles as it lowly lies, points to the light that changes not in heaven." footnotes: [ ] the late mr. john parker. [ ] this took place at a meeting in faneuil hall to welcome mr. george thompson. [ ] at the "union meeting" two days before the delivery of this sermon. [ ] nor even yet. november , . [ ] subsequent events have shown the folly of this statement. clergymen, it is said, are wont to err, by overrating the moral principle of men. see the next sermon. [ ] recent experiments fortunately confirm this, and, spite of all the unjust efforts to pack a jury, none has yet been found to punish a man for such a "crime." [ ] mr. william craft, and mrs. ellen craft. [ ] this also appears to have been a mistake. still i let the passage stand, though it is apparently not at all true. vi. the chief sins of the people.--a sermon delivered at the melodeon, boston, on fast day, april , . my friends,--this is a day of public humiliation and prayer. we have one every year. it is commonly in the city churches only a farce, because there is no special occasion for it, and the general need is not felt. but such is the state of things in the union at this moment, and particularly in boston, that, if it were not a custom, it would be a good thing, even if it were for the first time in the history of our country, to have such a day for humiliation and prayer, that we consider the state of the nation, and look at our conduct in reference to the great principles of religion, and see how we stand before god; for these are times that try men's souls. last sunday, i purposely disappointed you, and turned off from what was nearest to your heart and was nearest to mine,--a subject that would have been easy to preach on without any preparation. then i asked you to go to the fountain of all strength, and there prepare yourselves for the evils that we know not of. to-day, the governor has asked us to come together, and consider, in the spirit of christianity, the public sins of the community, to contemplate the value of our institutions, and to ask the blessing of god on the poor, the afflicted, and the oppressed. i am glad of this occasion; and i will improve it, and ask your attention to a sermon of the chief sins of this people. i have said that these are times that try men's souls. this is such an occasion as never came before, and, i trust, never will again. i have much to say to you, much more than i intend to say to-day, much more than there are hours enough in this day to speak. many things i shall pass by. i shall detain you to-day somewhat longer than is my wont; but do not fear, i will look out for your attention. i simply ask you to be calm, to be composed, and to hear with silence what i have to say. to understand these things, we must begin somewhat far off. the purpose of human life is to form a manly character, to get the best development of body and of spirit,--of mind, conscience, heart, soul. this is the end: all else is the means. accordingly, that is not the most successful life in which a man gets the most pleasure, the most money or ease, the most power of place, honor, and fame; but that in which a man gets the most manhood, performs the greatest amount of human duty, enjoys the greatest amount of human right, and acquires the greatest amount of manly character. it is of no importance whether he win this by wearing a hod upon his shoulders, or a crown upon his head. it is the character, and not the crown, i value. the crown perishes with the head that wore it; but the character lives with the immortal man who achieved it; and it is of no consequence whether that immortal man goes up to god from a throne or from a gallows. every man has some one preponderating object in life,--an object that he aims at and holds supreme. perhaps he does not know it. but he thinks of this in his day-dreams, and his dreams by night. it colors his waking hours, and is with him in his sleep. sometimes it is sensual pleasure that he wants; sometimes money; sometimes office, fame, social distinction; sometimes it is the quiet of a happy home, with wife and children, all comfortable and blessed; sometimes it is excellence in a special science or art, or department of literature; sometimes it is a special form of philanthropy; and sometimes it is the attainment of great, manly character. this supreme object of desire is sometimes different at different times in a man's life, but in general is mainly the same all through. for "the child is father of the man," and his days bound each to each, if not by natural piety, then by unnatural profaneness. this desire may act with different intensity in the active and passive periods, in manhood and in age. it is somewhat modified by the season of passion, and by the season of ambition. if this object of special desire be worthy, so is the character in general; if base, so is the man. for this special desire becomes the master-motive in the man; and, if strong, establishes a unity in his consciousness, and calls out certain passions, appetites, powers of mind and conscience, heart and soul; and, in a long life, the man creates himself anew in the image of his ideal desire. this desire, good or bad, which sways the man, is writ on his character, and thence copied into the countenance; and lust or love, frivolity or science, interest or principle, mammon or god, is writ on the man. still this unity is seldom whole and complete. with most men there are exceptional times, when they turn off a little from their great general pursuit. simeon the stylite comes down from his pillar-top, and chaffers in the market-place with common folks. jeffries is even just once or twice in his life, and wilkes is honorable two or three times. even when the chief desire is a high and holy one, i should not expect a man to go through life without ever committing an error or a sin. when i was a youngster, just let loose from the theological school, i thought differently; but at this day, when i have felt the passions of life, and been stirred by the ambitions of life, i know it must be expected that a man will stumble now and then. i make allowances for that in myself, as i do in others. these are the exceptional periods in a man's life,--the eddies in the stream. the stream runs down hill all the time, though the eddy may for a time apparently run up. now, as with men, so it is with nations. the purpose of national life is to bring forth and bring up manly men, who do the most of human duty, have the most of human rights, and enjoy the most of human welfare. so that is not the most successful nation which fills the largest space, which occupies the longest time, which produces the most cattle, corn, cotton, or cloth, but that which produces the most men. and, in reference to men, you must count not numbers barely, but character quite as much. that is not the most successful nation which has an exceptional class of men, highly cultured, well-bodied, well-minded, well-born, well-bred, at the one end of society; and at the other a mighty multitude, an instantial class, poor, ill-born, ill-bred, ill-bodied, and ill-minded too, as in england; but that is the most successful nation which has the whole body of its people well-born, well-bred, well-bodied, and well-minded too; and those are the best institutions which accomplish this best; those worst, which accomplish it least. the government, the society, the school, or the church, which does this work, is a good government, society, school, or church; that which does it not, is good for nothing. as with men, so with nations. each has a certain object of chief desire, which object prevails over others. the nation is not conscious of it,--less so, indeed, than the individual; but, silently, it governs the nation's life. sometimes this chief desire is the aggrandizement of the central power,--the monarchy: it was so once in france; but, god be praised! is not so now. then devotion to the king's person was held as the greatest national excellence, and disrespect for the king was treason, the greatest national crime. the people must not dare to whisper against their king. sometimes it is the desire to build up an aristocracy. it was once so in venice. it may be an aristocracy of priests, of soldiers, of nobles, or an aristocracy of merchants. sometimes it is to build up a middle class of gentry, as in basel and berne. it may be a military desire, as in ancient rome; it may be ecclesiastical ambition, as in modern rome; or commercial ambition, as in london and many other places. the chief object of desire is not always the same in the course of a nation's history. a nation now greatens the centripetal power, strengthening the king and weakening the people; now it greatens the centrifugal power, weakening the king and strengthening the people. but, commonly, you see some one desire runs through all the nation's history, only modified by its youth, or manhood, or old age, and by circumstances which react upon the nation as the nation acts upon them. this chief object of desire may be permanent, and so govern the whole nation for all its history. or it may be, on the other hand, a transient desire, which is to govern it for a time. in either case, it will appear prominently in the controlling classes; either in the classes which control all through, or in such as last only for a time. thus the military desire appeared chiefly in the patricians of old rome, and not much in the plebeians; the commercial ambition appeared in the nobles of venice; the ecclesiastical in the priests of modern rome, where the people care little for the church, though quite as much perhaps as it deserves. as the chief desire of the individual calls out appetites and passions, which are the machinery of that desire, and reconstructs the man in its image; so the desire of a nation, transient or permanent, becoming the master-motive of the people, calls out certain classes of men, who become its exponents, its machinery, and they make the constitution, institutions, and laws to correspond thereto. as with one man, so with the millions, there may be fluctuations of purpose for a time. i cannot expect that one man, or many men, will always pursue an object without at some time violating fundamental principles. i might have thought so once. but as i live longer, and see the passion and the ambition of men, see the force of circumstances, i know better. no ship sails across the ocean with a straight course, without changing a sail: it frequently leaves its direct line, now "standing" this way, now that; and the course is a very crooked one, although, as a whole, it is towards the mark. america is a young nation, composite, not yet unified; and it is, therefore, not quite so easy to say what is the chief desire of the people; but, if i understand american history, this desire is the love of individual liberty. nothing has been so marked in our history as this. we are consciously, in part, yet still more unconsciously, aiming at democracy,--at a government of all the people, by all the people, and for the sake of all the people. of course that must be a government by the higher law of god, by the eternal justice to which you and i and all of us owe reverence. we all love freedom for ourselves; one day we shall love it for every man,--for the tawny indian and the sable negro, as much as for you and me. this love of freedom has appeared in the ideas of new england,--and new england was once america; it was once the soul, although not the body of america. it appeared in its political action and its ecclesiastical action, in the state and in the church, and in all the little towns. in general, every change in the constitution of a free state makes it more democratic; every change in local law is for democracy, not against it. we have broken with the old feudal tradition,--broken forever with that. i think this love of individual liberty is the specific desire of the people. if we are proud of any thing, it is of our free institutions. i know there are men who are prouder of wealth than of any thing else: by and by i shall have a word to say of them. but in massachusetts, new england, in the north, if we should appeal to the great body of the people, and "poll the house," and ask of all what they were proudest of, they would not say, of our cattle, or cotton, or corn, or cloth; but it is of our freedom, of our men and women. leaving out of the calculation the abounding class, which is corrupt everywhere, and the perishing class, which is the vassal as it is the creature of the abounding class, and as corrupt and selfish here as everywhere, we shall find that seven-eighths of the people of new england are eminently desirous of this one thing. this desire will carry the day in any fifty years to come, as it has done in two hundred and fifty years past. the great political names of our history are all on its side: washington, the adamses--both of them, god bless them!--jefferson, madison, jackson, these were all friends of liberty. i know the exceptions in the history of some of these men, and do not deny them. other american names, dear to the people, are of the same stamp. the national literature, so far as we have any national literature, is democratic. i know there is what passes for american literature, because it grows on american soil, but which is just as far from being indigenous to america as the orange is from being indigenous to cape cod. this literature is a poor, miserable imitation of the feudal literature of old europe. perhaps it is now the prominent literature of the time. one day america will take it and cast it out from her. the true american literature is very poor, is very weak, is almost miserable now; but it has one redeeming quality,--it is true to freedom, it is true to democracy. in the revolution this desire of the nation was prominent, and came to consciousness. it was the desire of the most eminent champions of liberty. at one time in the history of the nation, the platform of speakers was in advance of the floor that was covered by the people at large, because at that time the speakers became conscious of the idea which possessed the hearts of the people. that is the reason why john hancock, the two adamses, and jefferson, came into great prominence before the people. they were more the people than the people themselves; more democratic than the democrats. i know, and i think it must be quite plain in our history, that this has been the chief desire of the people. if so, it determines our political destination. however, with nations as with men, there are exceptional desires; one of which, with the american nation at present, is the desire for wealth. just now, that is the most obvious and preponderate desire in the consciousness of the people. it has increased surprisingly in fifty years. it is the special, the chief desire of the controlling class. by the controlling class, i mean what are commonly called "our first men." i admit exceptions, and state the general rule. with them every thing gives way to money, and money gives way to nothing, neither to man nor to god. see some proofs of this. there are two ways of getting money; one is by trade, the other is by political office. the pursuit of money, in one or the other of these ways, is the only business reckoned entirely "commendable" and "respectable." there are other callings which are very noble in themselves, and deemed so by mankind; but here they are not thought "commendable" and "respectable," and accordingly you very seldom see young men, born in what is called "the most respectable class of society," engaged in any thing except the pursuit of money by trade or by office. there are exceptions; but the sons of "respectable men," so called, seldom engage in the pursuit of any thing but money by trade or office. this is the chief desire of a majority of the young men of talent, ambition, and education. even in colleges more respect is paid to money than to genius. the purse is put before the pen. in the churches, wealth is deemed better than goodness or piety. it names towns and colleges; and he is thought the greatest benefactor of a university who endows it with money, not with mind. in giving name to a street in boston, you call the wealthy end after a rich man, and only the poor end after a man that was good and famous. money controls the churches. it draws veils of cotton over the pulpit window, to color "the light that cometh from above." as yet the churches are not named after men whose only virtue is metallic, but the recognized pillars of the churches are all pillars of gold. festus does not tremble before paul, but paul before festus. the pulpit looks down to the pews for its gospel, not up to the eternal god. is there a rich pro-slavery man in the parish? the minister does not dare read a petition from an oppressed slave asking god that his "unalienable rights" be given him. he does not dare to ask alms for a fugitive. st. peter is the old patron saint of the holy catholic church. st. hunker is the new patron saint of the churches of commerce, catholic and protestant. money controls the law as well as the gospel. the son of a great man and noble is forgotten if the father dies poor; but the mantle of the rich man falls on the son's shoulders. if the son be only half so manly as his sire, and twice as rich, he is sure to be doubly honored. money supplies defects of character, defects of culture. it is deemed better than education, talent, genius, and character, all put together. was it not written two thousand years ago in the proverbs, it "answereth all things?" look round and see. it does not matter how you get or keep it. "the end justifies the means." edmund burke, or somebody else, said "something must be pardoned to the spirit of liberty." now it is "something must be pardoned" to the love of money, nothing "to the spirit of liberty." we find that rich men will move out of town on the last day of april, to avoid taxation on the first day of may. that is nothing. it is very "respectable," very "honorable," indeed! i do not believe that there is any master-carpenter or master-blacksmith in boston who would not be ashamed to do so. but men of the controlling classes do not hesitate! no matter how you get money. you may rent houses for rum-shops and for brothels; you may make rum, import rum, sell rum, to the ruin of the thousands whom you thereby bring down to the kennel and the almshouse and the jail. if you get money by that, no matter: it is "clean money," however dirtily got. a merchant can send his ships to sea, and in the slave-trade acquire gold, and live here in boston, new york, or philadelphia; and his gold will be good sterling gold, no matter how he got it! in political office, if you are a senator from california or oregon, you may draw "constructive mileage," and pay yourself two or three thousand dollars for a journey never made from home, and two or three thousand more back to your home. so you filch thousands of dollars out of the public purse, and you are the "honorable senator" just as before. you have got the money, no matter how. you may be a senator from massachusetts, and you may take the "trust fund," offered you by the manufacturers of cotton, and be bound as their "retained attorney," by your "retaining fee," and you are still "the honorable senator from massachusetts," not hurt one jot in the eyes of the controlling classes. if you are secretary of state, you may take forty or fifty thousand dollars from state street and wall street, and suffer no discredit at all. at one end of the union they will deny the fact as "too atrocious to be believed" at this end they admit it, and say it was "honorable in the people to give it," and "honorable in the secretary to take it." "alas! the small discredit of a bribe scarce hurts the master, but undoes the scribe." it would sound a little strange to some people, if we should find that the judges of a court had received forty or fifty thousand dollars from men who were plaintiffs in that court. you and i would remember that a gift blindeth the eyes of the prudent, how much more of the profligate! but it would be "honorable" in the plaintiffs to give it; "honorable" in the judges to take it! hitherto i have called your attention to the proofs of the preponderance of money. i will now point you to signs, which are not exactly proofs, of this immediate worship of money. see these signs in boston. when the old south church was built, when christ's church in salem street, when king's chapel, when brattle square church, they were respectively the costliest buildings in town. they were symbols of religion, as churches always are; symbols of the popular esteem for religion. out of the poverty of the people, great sums of money were given for these "houses of god." they said, like david of old, it is a shame that we dwell in a palace of cedars, and the ark of the most high remains under the curtains of a tent. how is it now? a crockery shop overlooks the roof-tree of the church where once the eloquence of a channing enchanted to heaven the worldly hearts of worldly men. now a hotel looks down on the church which was once all radiant with the sweet piety of a buckminster. a haberdasher's warehouse overtops the church of the blessed trinity; the roof of the shop is almost as tall as the very tower of the church. these things are only symbols. let us compare boston, in this respect, with any european city that you can name; let us compare it with gay and frivolous vienna, the gayest and most frivolous city of all europe, not setting paris aside. for though the surface of life in paris sparkles and glitters all over with radiant and iridescent and dazzling bubbles, empty and ephemeral, yet underneath there flows a stream which comes from the great fountain of nature, and tends on to the ocean of human welfare. no city is more full of deep thought and earnest life. but in vienna it is not so. yet even there, above the magnificence of the herrengasse, above the proud mansions of the esterhazys and the schwartzenbergs and the lichtensteins, above the costly elegance of the imperial palace, st. stephen's church lifts its tall spire, and points to god all day long and all the night, a still and silent emblem of a power higher than any mandate of the kings of earth; ay, to the infinite god. men look up to its cross overtowering the frivolous city, and take a lesson! here, trade looks down to find the church. i am glad that the churches are lower than the shops. i have said it many times, and i say it now. i am glad they are less magnificent than our banks and hotels. i am glad that haberdashers' shops look down on them. let the outward show correspond to the inward fact. if i am pinched and withered by disease, i will not disguise it from you by wrappages of cloth; but i will let you see that i am shrunken and shrivelled to the bone. if the pulpit is no nearer heaven than the tavern-bar, let that fact appear. if the desk in the counting-room is to give law to the desk in the church, do not commit the hypocrisy of putting the pulpit-desk above the counting-room. let us see where we are. * * * * * the consequence of such causes as are symbolized by these facts must needs appear in our civilization. men tell us there is no law higher than mercantile! do you wonder at it? it was said in deeds before words; the architecture of boston told it before the politicians. money is the god of our idolatry. let the fact appear in his temples. money is master now, all must give way to it,--that to nothing: the church, the state, the law, is not for man, but money. let the son of a distinguished man beat a watchman, knowing him to be such, and be brought before a justice (it would be "levying war" if a mulatto had done so to the marshal); he is bailed off for two hundred dollars. but let a black man have in his pockets a weapon, which the constitution and laws of massachusetts provide that any man may have if he please, he is brought to trial and bound over for--two hundred dollars, think you? no! but for six hundred dollars! three times as much as is required of the son of the secretary of state for assaulting a magistrate![ ] the secretary of state publicly declared, a short time since, that "the great object of government is the protection of property at home, and respect and renown abroad." i thank him for teaching us that word! that is the actual principle of the american government. in all countries of the world, struggles take place for human rights. but in all countries there is a class who desire a privilege for themselves adverse to the rights of mankind: they are commonly richer and abler-minded than the majority of men; they can act in concert. between them and mankind there is a struggle. the quarrel takes various forms. the contest has been going on for a long time in europe. there, it is between the aristocracy of birth, and the aristocracy of wealth; for there it is not money, but birth, that makes noble. in this struggle the aristocracy of birth is gradually giving way to the aristocracy of gold. a long and brilliant rent-roll makes up for a short and obscure pedigree. in that great movement for human freedom which has lasted a thousand years, the city has generally represented right in its conflict with might. so, in the middle ages, the city, the home of the trader, of the mechanic, of the intelligent man, was democratic. there freedom got organized in guilds of craftsmen. but the country was the home of the noble and his vassals, the haughty, the ignorant, and the servile. then the country was aristocratic. it was so in the great struggles between the king and the people in england and france, in italy and holland. in america there is no nobility of birth--it was the people that came over, not monarchy, not aristocracy; they did not emigrate. the son of guy fawkes and the son of charlemagne are on the same level. i know in boston some of the descendants of henri quatre, the greatest king of france. i know also descendants of thomas wentworth, "the great earl of strafford;" and yet they are now obscure and humble men, although of famous birth. i do not say it should not be so; but such is the fact. here the controversy is not between distinguished birth and money; it is between money on the one hand, and men on the other; between capital and labor; between usurped privilege and natural right. here, the cities, as the seat of wealth, are aristocratic; the country, as the seat of labor, is democratic. we may see this in boston. almost all the journals in the city are opposed to a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people. take an example from the free soil movement, which, so far as it goes, is democratic. i am told that of the twenty-one journals in massachusetts that call themselves "democratic," eighteen favor the free soil movement, more or less; and that the three which do not are all in the cities. the country favors the temperance movement, one of the most democratic of all; for rum is to the aristocracy of gold, what the sword once was to the aristocracy of blood; the castles of the baron, and the rum-shops of the capitalist, are alike fortresses adverse to the welfare of mankind. the temperance movement finds little favor in the cities. in the country he who works with manly hands is held in esteem; in the city, in contempt. here laboring men have no political influence, and little confidence in themselves. they have been accustomed to do as they were told,--to do as their "masters" bid. i call a man a tory who, for himself or for others, seeks a privilege adverse to the rights of mankind; who puts the accidents of men before the substance of manhood. i may safely say the cities, in the main, are tory towns; that boston, in this sense, is a tory town. they are so, just as in the middle ages the cities were on the other side. this is unavoidable in our form of civilization just now. accordingly, in all the great cities of the north, slavery is in the ascendant: but, as soon as we get off the pavement, we come upon different ideas; freedom culminates and rises to the meridian. in america the controlling class in general are superior to the majority in money, in consequent social standing, in energy, in practical political skill, and in intellectual development; in virtue of these qualities, they are the controlling class. but in general they are inferior to the majority of men in justice, in general humanity, and in religion,--in piety and goodness. respectability is put before right; law before justice; money before god. with them religion is compliance with a public hearsay and public custom; it is all of religion, but piety and goodness; its chief sacrament is bodily presence in a meeting-house; its only sacrifice, a pew-tax. i know there are exceptions, and honor them all the more for being so very exceptional: they are only enough to show the rule. in the main, this controlling class governs the land by two instruments: the first is the public law; the next is public opinion. the law is what was once public opinion, or thought to be; is fixed, written, and supposed to be understood by somebody. public opinion is not written, and not fixed; but the opinion of the controlling class overrides and interprets the law,--bids or forbids its execution. public opinion can make or unmake a law; interpret as it chooses, and enforce or forbid its execution as it pleases. * * * * * such being the case, and such being the chief transient national desire just now, the controlling class consider the state as a machine to help them make money. a great politician, it is said, once laid down this rule,--"take care of the rich, and the rich will take care of the poor." perhaps he did not say that, though he did say that "the great object of government is the protection of property at home, and respect and renown abroad." such being the case, laws are made accordingly, and institutions are modified accordingly. let me give an example. in all the towns of new england, town-money is raised by taxes on all the people, and on all the property. the rich man is taxed according to his riches, and the poor man according to his poverty. but the national money is raised by taxation not in proportion to a man's wealth. a bachelor in new england, with a million dollars, pays a much smaller national tax than a carpenter who has no money at all, but only ten children, the poor man's blessing. the mechanic, with a family of twelve, pays more taxes than the southern planter owning a tract of land as wide as the town of worcester, with fifteen hundred slaves to till it. this, i say, is not an accident. it is the work of politicians, who know what they are about, and think a blunder is worse than a sin; and, sin as they may, they do not commit such blunders as that. this controlling class, with their dependents, their vassals, lay and clerical--and they have lay as well as clerical vassals, and more numerous, if less subservient--keep up the institution of slavery. two hundred years ago, that was the worst institution of europe. our fathers, breaking with feudal institutions in general, did not break with this: they brought it over here. but when the nation, aroused for its hour of trial, rose up to its great act of prayer, and prayed the declaration of independence, all the nation said "amen" to the great american idea therein set forth. every northern state reaffirms the doctrine that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." but in spite of this, and of the consciousness that it is true, while the northern states have cast out this institution, the southern states have kept it. the nation has adopted, extended, and fostered it. this has been done, notwithstanding the expectation of the people in that it would soon end. it has been done against the design of the constitution, which was "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty;" against the idea of america, that "all men have an equal and unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" against all religion, all humanity, all right, ay, and against the conscience of a majority of the people. well, a law was passed last september, that would have been atrocious two hundred years ago: you all know it. i have no words to describe it by. for the last two hundred years, the english race has not invented an adjective adequate to describe it. the english language is used up and broken down by any attempt to describe it. that law was not the desire of the people; and, could the nation have been polled north and south, three fourths would have said "no!" to the passage of that law. it was not passed to obtain the value of the slaves escaped, for in seven months twenty slaves have not been returned! it was not a measure looking to legal results, but it was a political measure, looking to political results: what those results will be we shall see in due time. * * * * * in america the controlling class is divided into two great parties: one is the slave power in the states of the south; the other is the money power in the cities of the north. there are exceptional men in both divisions--men that own slaves, and yet love freedom and hate slavery. there are rich men in northern cities who do the same; all honor to them. but in general it is not so; nay, it is quite otherwise. they are hostile to the great idea of america. let me speak with the nicety of theological speech. these two divisions are two "persons" in one "power;" there is only one "nature" in both, one "will." if not the same nature, it is a like nature: homoi-ousia, if not homo-ousia! the fugitive slave law was the act of the two "persons," representing the same "nature," and the same "will." it was the result of a union of the slave power of the south with the money power of the north: the philistines and the hebrews ploughed with the same heifer. there is sometimes an excuse or a palliation for a wicked deed. there was something like one for the "gag law," the "alien and sedition law," although there is no valid excuse for either of these laws, none to screen their author from deserved reproach. there is no excuse for the fugitive slave law; there was no occasion for it. you all know how it was brought about; you remember the speech of mr. webster on the th of march, , a day set apart for the blessed martyrs, saints perpetua and felicitas. we all know who was the author of that law. it is mr. webster's fugitive slave law! it was his "thunder," unquestioned and unquestionable. you know what a rapid change was wrought in the public opinion of the controlling classes, soon after its passage. first the leading whigs went over. i will not say they changed their principles, god knows, not i, what principles they have, i will only say they altered their "resolutions," and ate their own words. true, the whigs have not all gone over. there are a few who still cling to the old whig-tree, after it has been shaken and shaken, and thrashed and thrashed, and brushed and brushed, by politicians, as apple-trees in autumn. there are still a few little apples left, small and withered no doubt, and not daring to show their dishonored heads just now, but still containing some precious seeds that may do service by and by. whig journal after journal went over; politician after politician "caved in" and collapsed. at the sounding of the rams' horns of slavery, how quick the whig jericho went down! its fortresses of paper resolutions rolled up and blew away. of course, men changed only after "logical conviction." of course, nobody expected a "reward" for the change, at least only in the world to come. were they not all christians? true, on the th of june last, seventy-five years after the battle of bunker hill, mr. webster said in the senate, that if the north should vote for the fugitive slave bill, a tariff was expected. but that was of no moment, no more than worldly riches to "the elect." of course, a man has a right to change his opinions every ten minutes, if he has a good and sufficient reason. of course, these men expected no offices under this or any future president! but presently the fugitive slave law became a whig doctrine, a test of party fidelity and fitness for office! you all remember the "union" meeting in boston. on that occasion, democrats "of the worst kind" suddenly became "respectable." the very democratic prince of devils was thought to be as good a "gentleman" as any in the city. it was curious to see the effect of the fugitive slave law on the democratic party. democrat after democrat "caved in;" journal after journal went over; horse, foot, and dragoons, they went over. the democratic party north, and american slavery south, have long been accustomed to accommodate themselves with the same nag after the old fashion of "ride and tye." in the cities, democrats went over in tribes; entire democratic zabulons and nephthalims, whole galilees of democratic gentiles, all at once saw great whig light; and to them that sat in the shadow of freedom, slavery sprung up. that portion of the whig party which did not submit, became as meek, ay, became meeker even than the beast which the old prophet in the fable is alleged to have ridden; for, though beaten again and again,--because alarmed at seeing the angel of freedom that bars the way before the great whig balaam, who has been bidden by his master to go forth and curse the people of the lord,--it dares not open its mouth and say, "what have i done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?" * * * * * but when such a law is hostile to the feelings of a majority of the people, to their conscience and their religion, how shall we get the law executed? that is a hard matter. in russia and in austria it would be very easy. russia has an army five hundred or eight hundred thousand strong; and that army is ready. but here there is no such army. true, the president asked congress to give him greater power, and the answer came from the slave party south, not from the money party north, "no! you have more now than you know how to use." failing in this attempt, what was to be done that the law might be executed? two things must be done: a false idea must persuade the people to allow it to be done; base men must be found to do it. a word upon each point. * * * * * i. the false idea is set on foot, that the people are morally bound to obey any law which is made until it is repealed. general haynau wrote a letter, not long ago, to the subalterns in the austrian army, and thus quoth he: "you are bound to obey the law. it is none of your business whether the law is constitutional or not; that is our affair." so went it with our officers here. we are told that there is "no such thing as a higher law," "no rule of conduct better than that enacted by the law of the land." conscience is only to tell you to keep the statutes. religion consists in "fearing god and serving the king." you are told that religion bids you to "fear god and keep the commandments," no matter what these commandments may be. no matter whether it be king ahab, or king peter the cruel: you are told,--"mr. republican, what right have you to question the constitutionality or justice of any thing? your business is to keep the law." religion is a very excellent thing, quotes mr. webster, except when it interferes in politics; then it makes men mad. it is instructive to see the different relations which religion has sustained to law, at different periods of the world's history. at some other time i may dwell more at length upon this; now i will say but one word. at the beginning, religion takes precedence of law. before there is any human government, man bows himself to the source of law, and accepts his rule of conduct from his god. by and by, some more definite rule is needed, and wise men make human laws; but they pretend to derive these from a divine source. all the primitive lawgivers, moses, minos, zaleucus, numa, and the rest, speak in the name of god. for a long time, law comes up to religion for aid and counsel. at length law and religion, both imperfect, are well established in society, religion being the elder sister; both act as guardians of mankind. institution after institution rises up, all of them baptized by religion and confirmed by law, taking the sacrament from the hands of each. at length it comes to pass that law seeks to turn religion out of doors. politicians, intoxicated with ambition, giddy with power, and sometimes also drunk with strong drink, make a statute which outrages all the dictates of humanity, and then insist that it is the duty of sober men to renounce religion for the sake of keeping the wicked statute of the politicians. all tyrants have done so! in the north, the majority of men think that the law of man is subordinate to religion--the statutes of man beneath the law of god; that as ethics, personal morals, are amenable to conscience, so politics, national morals, are amenable to the same conscience; and that religion has much to do with national as with individual life. depend upon it, that idea is the safeguard of the state and of the law. it will preserve it, purify it, and keep it; but it will scourge every wicked law out of the temple of justice with iron whips, if need be. depend upon it, when we lose our hold of that idea, all hope of order is gone. but there is no danger; we are pretty well persuaded, that the law of god is a little greater than the statute of an accidental president unintentionally chosen for four years. when we think otherwise, we may count our case hopeless, and give up all. but with the controlling class of men it is not so. they tell us that we must keep any law, constitutional or not, legal or not, just or unjust: first, that we must submit passively, and let the government execute it; next, we must actively obey it, and with alacrity when called upon to execute it ourselves. this doctrine is the theory advanced in most of the newspapers of boston. it is preached in some of the pulpits, though, thank god! not in all. this doctrine appears in the charge of the judge of the circuit court to the grand jury.[ ] i believe that judge to be a good and excellent and honorable man; i never heard a word to the contrary, and i am glad to think that it is so.[ ] i have to deal only with his opinions; not with his theoretic doctrines of law, of which latter i profess to know nothing; but with the theoretic doctrines of morality he lays down. of morality i do profess to know something. he says some excellent things in his charge, which i am glad were said. he is modest in some places, and moderate in others. he does not think that a dozen black men taking a fugitive out of court are guilty of "levying war," and therefore should be hanged, drawn, and quartered, if you can catch them. all honor to his justice. he does not say, as the secretary of state, that we must suppress discussion and stop agitation. he says we may agitate as much as we have a mind to; may not only speak against a law, but may declaim against it, which is to speak strongly. i thank the judge for this respect for the constitution. but with regard to the higher and lower law, he has some peculiar opinions. he supposes a case: that the people ask him, "which shall we obey, the law of man or the law of god?" he says, "i answer, obey both. the incompatibility which the question assumes does not exist." so, then, here is a great general rule, that between the "law of man" and the "will of god" there is no incompatibility, and we must "obey both." now let us see how this rule will work. if i am rightly informed, king ahab made a law that all the hebrews should serve baal, and it was the will of god that they should serve the lord.--according to this rule of the judge, they must "obey both." but if they served baal, they could not serve the lord. in such a case, "what is to be done?"--we are told that elijah gathered the prophets together; "and he came unto all the people, and said, how long halt ye? if the lord be god, follow him; but if baal, then follow him." our modern prophet says, "obey both. the incompatibility which the question assumes does not exist." such is the difference between judge elijah and judge peleg. let us see how this rule will work in other cases; how you can make a compromise between two opposite doctrines. the king of egypt commanded the hebrew nurses, "when you do the office of a midwife to the hebrew women, if it be a son ye shall kill him." i suppose it is plain to the judge of the circuit court that this kind of murder, killing the new-born infants, is against "the will of god;" but it is a matter of record that it was according to "the law of man." suppose the hebrew nurses had come to ask judge sprague for his advice. he must have said, "obey both!" his rule is a universal one. another decree was once made as it is said, in the old testament, that no man should ask any petition of any god for thirty days, save of the king, on penalty of being cast into the den of lions. suppose daniel--i mean the old daniel, the prophet--should have asked him, what is to be done? should he pray to darius or pray to god? "obey both!" would be the answer. but he cannot, for he is forbid to pray to god. we know what daniel did do. the elders and scribes of jerusalem commanded the christians not to speak or to teach at all in the name of jesus; but peter and john asked those functionaries, "whether it be right in the sight of god to hearken unto you more than unto god, judge ye." our judge must have said, there is no "incompatibility;" "obey both!" what "a comfortable scripture" this would have been to poor john bunyan! what a great ethical doctrine to st. paul! he did not know such christianity as that. before this time a certain man had said, "no man can serve two masters." but there was one person who made the attempt, and he also is eminent in history. here was "the will of god," to do to others as you would have others do to you: "love thy neighbor as thyself." here is the record of "the law of man:" "now both the chief priests and the pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he [jesus] were, he should show it that they might take him." judas, it seems, determined to "obey both,"--"the law of man" and "the will of god."--so he sat with jesus at the last supper, dipped his hand in the same dish, and took a morsel from the hand of christ, given him in token of love. all this he did to obey "the will of god." then he went and informed the commissioner or marshal where jesus was. this he did to obey "the law of man." then he came back, and found christ,--the agony all over, the bloody sweat wiped off from his brow, presently to bleed again,--the angel of strength there with him to comfort him. he was arousing his sleeping disciples for the last time, and was telling them, "pray, lest ye enter into temptation."--judas came and gave him a kiss. to the eleven it seemed the friendly kiss, obeying "the will of god." to the marshal it also seemed a friendly kiss,--obeying "the law of man." so, in the same act, he obeys "the law of god" and "the will of man," and there is no "incompatibility!" of old it was said, "thou canst not serve god and mammon." he that said it, has been thought to know something of morals,--something of religion. till the fugitive slave law was passed, we did not know what a great saint iscariot was. i think there ought to be a chapel for him, and a day set apart in the calendar. let him have his chapel in the navy-yard at washington. he has got a priest there already. and for a day in the calendar--set apart for all time the seventh of march! let us look at some other things in that judge's address to the grand jury. "unjust and oppressive laws may indeed be passed by human government. but if infinite and inscrutable wisdom permits political society ... to establish such laws, may not the same wisdom permit and require individuals ... to obey them?" ask the prophets in such a case, if they would have felt themselves permitted and required to obey them! ask the men who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection; who had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment; who were stoned and sawn asunder; who were slain with the sword; who wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins, destitute, afflicted, and tormented, of whom the world was not worthy! ask the apostles, who thanked god they were counted worthy to suffer shame in the name of christ! ask paul, who was eight times publicly beaten, thrice shipwrecked; and in perils of waters, of robbers, of the heathen, of false brethren--that worst of all peril! nay, ask christ; let the crucified reply,--whether, when a wicked law is made, and we are commanded to keep it, god means we should! ask the men who, with their ocean-wearied feet, consecrated the rock of plymouth forever! ask the patriots of the revolution! what do they say? i will not give the answer. even the martyred jesuits say no. who is it that says yes? judas and the judge. let them go--each "to his own place." let me say no more of them. this attempt to keep the people down by false doctrine, is no new thing. but to say that there is no law higher than what the state can make, is practical atheism. it is not a denial of god in his person; that is only speculative atheism. it is a denial of the functions and attributes of god; that is real atheism. if there is no god to make a law for me, then there is no god for me. the law of the land is so sacred, it must override the law of god, must it? let us see if all the laws of the united states are kept everywhere. let a black man go to south carolina in a ship, and we shall see. let the british minister complain that south carolina puts british subjects in jail, for the color of their skin. mr. secretary clayton tells him, we cannot execute the laws of the united states in south carolina. why not? because the people of south carolina will not allow it! are the laws of massachusetts kept in boston, then? the usury law says, thou shalt not take more than six per cent. on thy money. is that kept? there are thirty-four millions of banking capital in massachusetts, and i think that every dollar of this capital has broken this law within the past twelve months; and yet no complaint has been made. there are three or four hundred brothels in this city of boston, and ten or twelve hundred shops for the sale of rum. all of them are illegal: some are as well known to the police as is this house; indeed, a great deal more frequented by some of them, than any house of god. does anybody disturb them? no! i have a letter from an alderman who furnishes me with facts of this nature, who says, that "some of the low places are prosecuted, some broken up." last saturday night, the very men who guarded mr. sims, i am told, were playing cards in his prison-house, contrary to the laws of massachusetts. in court square, in front of the court-house, is a rum-shop, one of the most frequented in the city, open at all hours of the day, and, for aught i know, of the night too. i never passed when its "fire was quenched," and its "worm" dead. is its owner prosecuted? how many laws of massachusetts have been violated this very week, in this very city, by the slave-hunters here, by the very officers of the state? what is the meaning of this? every law which favors the accumulation of money, must be kept; but those which prohibit the unjust accumulation of money by certain classes--they need not be kept.[ ] no doubt it would be a great pity to have the city government careful to keep the laws of the city,--to suppress rum-shops, and save the citizens from the almshouse, the jail, and the gallows. such laws may be executed at truro and wellfleet; but it is quite needless for the officers of "the athens of america," to attend to the temperance laws.[ ]--what a pity for the magistrates of boston to heed the laws of the state! no; it is the fugitive slave law that they must keep. * * * * * ii. a great deal of pains has been taken to impress the people with their "moral duty to obey the fugitive slave law." to carry it out, government needs base men; and that, my brothers, is a crop which never fails. rye and wheat may get blasted many times in the course of years; the potato may rot; apples and peaches fail. but base men never fail. put up your black pirate-flag in the market-place, offer "money and office," and they will come as other carrion-vultures to their prey. the olive, the fig, and the orange are limited in their range; even indian corn and oats will not grow everywhere; but base men are indigenous all the world over, between the tropics, and under a polar sky. no bad scheme ever failed for lack of bad men to carry it out. do you want to kill baptists and quakers in boston? there are the men for you. to hang "witches" at salem? there are hangmen in plenty on gallows hill. would james the second butcher his subjects? he found his "human" tools ready. would elizabeth murder the puritans and catholics? there was no lack of ruffians. would bloody mary burn the protestants? there were more executioners than victims. would the spanish inquisition torture and put to death the men for whom christ died? she found priests and "gentlemen," ready for their office. would nero murder the christians, and make a spectacle of their sufferings? rome is full of scoundrels to do the deed, and teems with spectators rushing to the amphitheatre at the cry of "christians to the lions!" all finding a holiday in their brothers' agony. would the high-priests crucify the son of man? they found a commissioner to issue the mandate, a marshal to enforce it, a commissioner to try him by illegal process,--for the process against christ was almost as unconstitutional as that against sims,--they found a commissioner ready to condemn christ, against his own conscience, soldiers ready to crucify him. ay! and there was a peter to deny him, and a judas to betray, and now there is a judge with his legal ethics, to justify the betrayal! i promised not to speak of judas or the judge again, but they will come up before me! it is true, that, if in boston, some judicial monster should wish to seethe a man in a pot of scalding water, he would find another john boilman in boston, as judge jeffries found one in england, in . the churches of new england, and the north, have had their trials. in my time they have been tried in various ways. the temperance reformation tried them. they have had perils on account of slavery. the mexican war tried them; the fugitive slave law has put them to the rack. but, never in my day, have the churches been so sorely tried, nor done so well as now. the very letter of the new testament on the one side, and of the old testament on the other, both condemned the law; the spirit of them both was against all slavery. there are two great sects in christendom,--the churches of christianity, and the churches of commerce. the churches of christianity always do well: they think that religion is love to god, and love to man. but the churches of commerce, which know no higher law, what should they do? some of the ministers of the churches of commerce were wholly silent. why so? the poor ministers were very modest all at once. now, modesty is a commendable virtue; but see how it works. here is a man who has given his mind ten, twenty, or thirty years to the study of theology, and knows every hebrew particle of the old testament, and every greek particle of the new testament, as well as he knows the lord's prayer; every great work on the subject of christianity, from nicodemus down to norton. let him come out and say that the old testament was written like other books; let him say that the miracles of the old and new testament are like the miracles of the popish legends; then, ministers in their pulpits, who never studied theology or philosophy, or pretended to study, only to know, the historical development of religion in the world,--they will come down instantly upon our poor man, call his doctrines "false," and call him an "infidel," an "atheist." but let a rich parishioner, or a majority of the rich parishioners, be in favor of the fugitive slave law, and all at once the minister is very modest indeed. he says to his people, by silence or by speech, "i do not understand these things; but you, my people, who all your lives are engaged in making money and nothing else, and worship mammon and nothing else, you understand them a great deal better than i do. my modesty forbids me to speak. let us pray!"[ ] some ministers have been silent; others have spoken out in favor of the lower law, and in derision of the higher law. here is a famous minister, the very chief of his denomination, reported in the newspapers to have said that he would surrender his own mother to slavery rather than have the union dissolved! i believe him this time. a few years ago, that minister printed, in the organ of his sect, that the existence of god was "not a certainty!" he did not mean to say that he doubted or disbelieved it, only that it was "not a certainty!" i should suppose that he had gone further in that direction, and thought the non-existence of god was "a certainty." but he is not quite original in this proposed sacrifice. he has been preceded and outbid by a spanish catholic. here is the story in señor de castro's history of the spanish protestants, written this very year. i can tell the story shorter than it is there related. in , there lived a man in valladolid, who had two protestant daughters, being himself a catholic. the inquisition was in full blast, and its fiery furnace heated seven times hotter than before. this man, according to the commandment of the priests and pope, complained to the inquisitors against his daughters, who were summoned to appear before them. they were tried, and condemned to be burned alive, at his suggestion. he furnished the accusation, brought forward the evidence, and was the only witness in the case. that was not all. after this condemnation, he went round his own estates, and from selected trees cut down morsels of wood, and carried them to the city to use in burning his own daughters. he was allowed to do this, and of course the priest commended him for his piety and love of god! thus, in , in valladolid, a father at noon-day, with wood from his own estate, on his own complaint and evidence, with his own hands, burned his two daughters alive; and the catholic church said, well done! now, in my opinion, the hidalgo of valladolid a little surpasses the unitarian doctor of divinity. i do not know what "recompense of reward" the spanish hidalgo got for his deed; but the american divine, for his offer, has been put into "one of the priests' offices, that he might eat a piece of bread." he has been appointed, as the newspapers say, a chaplain of the navy at washington. verily he has his reward. but there have been found men in boston to go a little further. last thanksgiving day, i said it would be difficult to find a magistrate in boston to take the odium of sending a fugitive back to slavery. i believed, after all, men had some conscience, although they talked about its being a duty to deliver up a man to bondage. pardon me, my country, that i rated you too high! pardon me, town of boston, that i thought your citizens all men! pardon me, lawyers, that i thought you had been all born of mothers! pardon me, ruffians, who kill for hire! i thought you had some animal mercy left, even in your bosom! pardon me, united states' commissioners, marshals, and the like, i thought you all had some shame! pardon me, my hearers, for such mistakes. one commissioner was found to furnish the warrant! pardon me, i did not know he was a commissioner; if i had, i never would have said it! spirits of tyrants, i look down to you! shade of cain, you great first murderer, forgive me that i forgot your power, and did not remember that you were parent of so long a line! and you, my brethren, if hereafter i tell you that there is any limit of meanness or wickedness which a yankee will not jump over, distrust me, and remind me of this day, and i will take it back! let us look at the public conduct of any commissioner who will send an innocent man from boston into slavery. i would speak of all men charitably; for i know how easy it is to err, yea, to sin. i can look charitably on thieves, prowling about in darkness; on rumsellers, whom poverty compels to crime; on harlots, who do the deed of shame that holy woman's soul abhors and revolts at; i can pity the pirate, who scours the seas doing his fiendish crimes--he is tempted, made desperate by a gradual training in wickedness. the man, born at the south, owning slaves, who goes to africa and sells adulterated rum in exchange for men to retail at cuba,--i cannot understand the consciousness of such a man; yet i can admit that by birth and by breeding he has become so imbruted, he knows no better. nay, even that he may perhaps justify his conduct to himself. i say i think his sin is not so dreadful as that of a commissioner in boston who sends a man into slavery. a man commits a murder, inflamed by jealousy, goaded by desire of great gain, excited by fear, stung by malice, or poisoned by revenge, and it is a horrid thing. but to send a man into slavery is worse than to murder him. i should rather be slain than enslaved. to do this, inflamed by no jealousy, goaded by no desire of great gain,--only ten dollars!--excited by no fear, stung by no special malice, poisoned by no revenge,--i cannot comprehend that in any man, not even in a hyena. beasts that raven for blood do not kill for killing's sake, but to feed their flesh. forgive me, o ye wolves and hyenas! that i bring you into such company. i can only understand it in a devil! when a man bred in massachusetts, whose constitution declares that "all men are born free and equal;" within sight of faneuil hall, with all its sacred memories; within two hours of plymouth rock; within a single hour of concord and lexington; in sight of bunker hill,--when he will do such a deed, it seems to me that there is no life of crime long enough to prepare a man for such a pitch of depravity; i should think he must have been begotten in sin, and conceived in iniquity, and been born "with a dog's head on his shoulders;" that the concentration of the villany of whole generations of scoundrels would hardly be enough to fit a man for a deed like this! you know the story of thomas sims. he crept on board a boston vessel at savannah. perhaps he had heard of boston, nay, even of faneuil hall, of the old cradle of liberty, and thought this was a christian town, at least human, and hoped here to enjoy the liberty of a man. when the ship arrived here, the first words he spoke were, "are we up there?" he was seized by a man who at the court-house boasted of his cruelty towards him, who held him by the hair, and kept him down, seeking to kidnap and carry him back into slavery. he escaped! but a few weeks pass by: the man-stealers are here; the commissioner issues his warrant; the marshals serve it in the night. last thursday night,--when odious beasts of prey, that dare not face the light of heaven, prowl through the woods,--those ruffians of the law seized on their brother-man. they lie to the bystanders, and seize him on a false pretence. there is their victim--they hold him fast. his faithless knife breaks in his hand; his coat is rent to pieces. he is the slave of boston.[ ] can you understand his feelings? let us pass by that. his "trial!" shall i speak of that? he has been five days on trial for more than life, and has not seen a judge! a jury? no,--only a commissioner! o justice! o republican america! is this the liberty of massachusetts? where shall i find a parallel with men who will do such a deed,--do it in boston? i will open the tombs, and bring up most hideous tyrants from the dead. come, brood of monsters, let me bring you up from the deep damnation of the graves wherein your hated memories continue for all time their never-ending rot. come, birds of evil omen! come, ravens, vultures, carrion-crows, and see the spectacle! come, see the meeting of congenial souls! i will disturb, disquiet, and bring up the greatest monsters of the human race! tremble not, women; tremble not, children; tremble not, men! they are all dead! they cannot harm you now! fear the living, not the dead. come hither, herod the wicked. thou that didst seek after that young child's life, and destroyedst the innocents! let me look on thy face! no; go! thou wert a heathen! go, lie with the innocents thou hast massacred. thou art too good for this company! come, nero! thou awful roman emperor! come up! no; thou wast drunk with power! schooled in roman depravity. thou hadst, besides, the example of thy fancied gods! go, wait another day. i will seek a worser man. come hither, st. dominic! come, torquemada!--fathers of the inquisition! merciless monsters, seek your equal here! no; pass by! you are no companions for such men as these! you were the servants of atheistic popes, of cruel kings. go to, and get you gone. another time i may have work for you,--not now; lie there and persevere to rot. you are not yet quite wicked and corrupt enough for this comparison. go, get ye gone, lest the sun turn back at sight of ye! come up, thou heap of wickedness, george jeffries!--thy hands deep purple with the blood of thy murdered fellow men! ah, i know thee! awful and accursed shade! two hundred years after thy death, men hate thee still, not without cause! let me look upon thee! i know thy history. pause and be still, while i tell it to these men. brothers, george jeffries "began in the sedition line." "there was no act, however bad, that he would not resort to to get on." "he was of a bold aspect, and cared not for the countenance of any man." "he became the avowed, unblushing slave of the court, and the bitter persecutor and unappeasable enemy of the principles he had before supported." he "was universally insolent and over-bearing." "as a judge, he did not consider the decencies of his post, nor did he so much as affect to be impartial, as became a judge." his face and voice were always unamiable. "all tenderness for the feelings of others, all self-respect were obliterated from his mind." he had "a delight in misery, merely as misery," and "that temper which tyrants require in their worst instruments." "he made haste to sell his forehead of brass and his tongue of venom to the court." he had "more impudence than ten carted street-walkers;" and was appropriately set to a work "which could be trusted to no man who reverenced law, or who was sensible of shame." he was a "commissioner" in . you know of the "bloody assizes" which he held, and how he sent to execution three hundred and twenty persons in a single circuit. "the whole country was strewed with the heads and limbs of his victims." yet a man wrote that "a little more hemp might have been usefully employed." he was the worst of the english judges. "there was no measure, however illegal, to the execution of which he did not devotedly and recklessly abandon himself." "during the stuart reigns, england was cursed by a succession of ruffians in ermine, who, for the sake of court favor, wrested the principles of law, the precepts of religion, and the duties of humanity; but they were all greatly outstripped by jeffries." such is his history. come, shade of a judicial butcher! two hundred years thy name has been pilloried in face of the world, and thy memory gibbeted before mankind! let us see how thou wilt compare with those who kidnap men in boston! go seek companionship with them! go claim thy kindred, if such they be! go tell them that the memory of the wicked shall rot,--that there is a god; an eternity; ay! and a judgment too! where the slave may appeal against him that made him a slave, to him that made him a man. what! dost thou shudder? thou turn back? these not thy kindred! why dost thou turn pale, as when the crowd clutched at thy life in london street? it is true, george jeffries, and these are not thy kin. forgive me that i should send thee on such an errand, or bid thee seek companionship with such--with boston hunters of the slave! thou wert not base enough! it was a great bribe that tempted thee! again i say, pardon me for sending thee to keep company with such men! thou only struckst at men accused of crime; not at men accused only of their birth! thou wouldst not send a man into bondage for two pounds! i will not rank thee with men who, in boston, for ten dollars, would enslave a negro now! rest still, herod! be quiet, nero! sleep, st. dominic, and sleep, o torquemada! in your fiery jail! sleep, jeffries, underneath "the altar of the church" which seeks with christian charity to hide your hated bones. "but," asks a looker-on, "what is all this for?" oh! to save the union. "a precious union which needs a saving such as this! and who are to rend the union asunder?" why, men that hate slavery and love freedom for all mankind. "is this the way to make them love the union and slavery, and hate freedom for all mankind?" we know none better. "what sort of a measure is this fugitive slave law?" oh! it is a "peace measure." don't you see how well it works? how quiet the city? in the country not a mouse stirring? there will not be a word against the peace measure in all new england on this fast day. blessed are the peace-makers, saith lord! "but you have great warrant for such deeds?" oh yes, the best in the world,--the example of washington. he also "saved the union." "so men blaspheme." let me tell you a little of that great man. shortly after the passage of the law of , a favorite female slave of washington's wife ran away from the president of the new republic, and went into new hampshire. she lived at portsmouth. washington wrote to mr. whipple, a united states' marshal, i think, or, at any rate, an officer of the united states, saying that he should like to have the woman sent back to him, if it could be done without tumult, and without shocking the principles and the feelings of the people. he added that the slave was a favorite of his wife. mr. whipple wrote back, and said,--it cannot be done without tumult, nor without shocking the principles and feelings of the people. washington said no more! the woman died at a great age, a few years ago, at portsmouth. that was the example of washington,--the man who at his death freed his slaves! would to god he had done it before! but they that come at the eleventh hour shall never be cast out from my charity. * * * * * see what is the consequence of this measure! see what has been the condition of boston for the past week! read the mingled truth and lies in the newspapers; look at men's faces in the street; listen to their talk; see the court-house in chains; see one hundred policemen on guard, and three companies of military picketed in faneuil hall; behold the people shut out from the courts--i will not say of justice! see the officers of massachusetts made slave-hunters--against the law; constitutional rights struck down--against the law; sheriffs refusing to serve writs--against the law; see the great civil rights our fathers gained five hundred years ago, the trial by jury, by our "peers," by the "law of the land," all cloven down; the writ of "personal replevin" made null--no sheriff daring to execute a law made to suit such a case as this, made but eight years ago! where is your high sheriff? where is your governor? see the judges of massachusetts bend beneath that chain; see them bow down, one by one, and kneel, and creep, and cringe, and crouch, and crawl, under the chain! note the symbol! that was the chain on the neck of the commonwealth, visible on the necks of the judges as they entered the bastile of boston,--the barracoon of boston! a few years ago, they used to tell us, "slavery is an abstraction;" "we at the north have nothing to do with it," now liberty is only an abstraction! here is a note just handed me in the pulpit:-- "marshal tukey told me this morning, that his orders were _not merely to keep the peace_, but to _assist the united states' marshal in detaining and transporting the slave_; that he _knew he was violating the state law, as well as i did_; but it was not his responsibility, but that of the mayor and aldermen. i thought you might like to know this." well, my brethren, i know boston has seen sad days before now. when the stamp act came here in our fathers' time, it was a sad day; they tolled the bells all over town, and mayhew wished "they were cut off that trouble you." it was a sad day when the tea came here, although, when it went down the stream, all the hills of new england laughed. and it was a sadder day still, the th of june, , when our fathers fought and bled on yonder hill, all red from battle at concord and lexington, and poured sheeted death into the ranks of their enemies, while the inhabitants of this town lifted up their hands, but could not go to assist their brethren in the field; and when, to crown all their sadness, they saw four hundred of the houses of their sister town go up in flames to heaven, and could not lend a helping hand! a sadder day when they fired one hundred guns in boston for the passage of the fugitive slave law. it was the saddest day of all, when a man was kidnapped in boston by the men of boston, and your court-house hung with chains. it was not from the tyrants of the other side of the world that this trouble came! if you could have seen what i have this morning, at sunrise, one hundred of the police of this city, contrary to the laws of the state, drilling with drawn swords, to learn to guard a man whilst he should be carried into bondage! and who do you suppose was at their head? a man bearing an honorable name--samuel adams! tell it not in massachusetts; let not your children hear of this, lest they curse the mothers that bore them. it is well that we should have a day of fasting and humiliation and prayer, when such things are done here. well, my brethren, these are only the beginning of sorrows. there will be other victims yet; this will not settle the question. what shall we do? i think i am a calm man and a cool man, and i have a word or two to say as to what we shall do. never obey the law. keep the law of god. next i say, resist not evil with evil; resist not now with violence. why do i say this? will you tell me that i am a coward? perhaps i am; at least i am not afraid to be called one. why do i say, then, do not now resist with violence? because it is not time just yet; it would not succeed. if i had the eloquence that i sometimes dream of, which goes into a crowd of men, and gathers it in its mighty arm, and sways them as the pendent boughs of yonder elm shall be shaken by the summer breeze next june, i would not give that counsel. i would call on men, and lift up my voice like a trumpet through the whole land, until i had gathered millions out of the north and the south, and they should crush slavery forever, as the ox crushes the spider underneath his feet. but such eloquence is given to no man. it was not given to the ancient greek who "shook the arsenal and fulmined over greece." he that so often held the nobles and the mob of rome within his hand, had it not. he that spoke as never man spake, and who has since gathered two hundred millions to his name, had it not. no man has it. the ablest must wait for time! it is idle to resist here and now. it is not the hour. if in they had attempted to carry out the revolution by force, they would have failed. had it failed, we had not been here to-day. there would have been no little monument at lexington "sacred to liberty and the rights of mankind," honoring the men who "fell in the cause of god and their country." no little monument at concord; nor that tall pile of eloquent stone at bunker hill, to proclaim that "resistance to tyrants is obedience to god." success is due to the discretion, heroism, calmness, and forbearance of our fathers: let us wait our time. it will come--perhaps will need no sacrifice of blood. resist, then, by peaceful means; not with evil, but with good. hold the men infamous that execute this law; give them your pity, but never give them your trust, not till they repent. then swiftly forgive. agitate, discuss, petition, and elect to office men whom you can trust; not men who never show their face in the day of darkness and of peril. choose men that are men. i suppose that this man will be carried back to slavery. the law of the united states has been cloven down; the law of massachusetts cloven down. if we have done all that we can we must leave the result to god. it is something that a man can only be kidnapped in boston by riding over the law, and can only be tried in a court-house surrounded by chains, when the crouching judges crawl under the iron of slavery to enter their house of bondage; that even on fast day it is guarded by one hundred police, and three companies of military are picketed in faneuil hall--the "sims brigade!"[ ] the christians saw christ crucified, and looked on from afar; sad, but impotent. the christians at rome saw their brethren martyred, and could not help them: they were too weak. but the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church. to-day is st. bademus' day: three hundred and seventy-six years after christ, that precious saint was slain because he would not keep the commandment of the king. by crucified redeemers shall mankind be saved. if we cannot prevent crucifixion, let us wait for the redemption. shall i ask you to despair of human liberty and rights? i believe that money is to triumph for the present. we see it does in boston, philadelphia, new york, and washington: see this in the defence of bribery; in the chains of the court-house; in the judges' pliant necks; in the swords of the police to-day; see it in the threats of the press to withdraw the trade of boston from towns that favor the unalienable rights of man! will the union hold out? i know not that. but, if men continue to enforce the fugitive slave law, i do not know how soon it will end; i do not care how soon the union goes to pieces. i believe in justice and the law of god; that ultimately the right will prevail. wrong will prevail for a time, and attract admiration. i have seen in a haberdasher's shop-window the figure of a wooden woman showily arrayed, turning round on a pivot, and attracting the gaze of all the passers-by; but ere long it is forgotten. so it will be with this transient love of slavery in boston; but the love of right will last as long as the granite in new hampshire hills. i will not tell you to despair of freedom because politicians are false; they are often so. despair of freedom for the black man! no, never. not till heaven shakes down its stars; nay, not till the heart of man ceases to yearn for liberty; not till the eternal god is hurled from his throne, and a devil takes his place! all the arts of wicked men shall not prevail against the father; nay, at last, not against the son. the very scenes we have witnessed here,--the court-house in chains,--the laws of massachusetts despised,--the commonwealth disgraced,--these speak to the people with an eloquence beyond all power of human speech. here is great argument for our cause. this work begets new foes to every form of wrong. there is a day after to-day,--an eternity after to-morrow. let us be courageous and active, but cool and tranquil, and full of hope. these are the beginning of sorrows; we shall have others, and trials. continued material prosperity is commonly bad for a man, always for a nation. i think the time is coming when there will be a terrible contest between liberty and slavery. now is the time to spread ideas, not to bear arms. i know which will triumph: the present love of thraldom is only an eddy in the great river of the nation's life; by and by it will pass down the stream and be forgot. liberty will spread with us, as the spring over the new england hills. one spot will blossom, and then another, until at last the spring has covered the whole land, and every mountain rejoices in its verdant splendor. o boston! thou wert once the prayer and pride of all new england men, and holy hands were laid in baptism on thy baby brow! thou art dishonored now; thou hast taken to thy arms the enemies of men. thou hast betrayed the slave; thy brother's blood cries out against thee from the ground. thou art a stealer of mankind. in thy borders, for long years, the cradle of liberty has been placed. the golden serpent of commerce has twined its snaky folds about it all, and fascinated into sleep the child. tread lightly, soldiers: he yet may wake. yes, in his time this child shall wake, and boston shall scourge out the memory of the men who have trodden her laws under foot, violated the dearest instincts of her heart, and profaned her religion. i appeal from boston, swollen with wealth, drunk with passion, and mad against freedom--to boston in her calm and sober hour. o massachusetts, noble state, the mother that bore us all; parent of goodly institutions and of noble men, whose great ideas have blessed the land!--how art thou denied, dishonored, and brought low! one of thine own hired servants has wrought this deed of shame, and rent the bosom which took him as an adopted son. shall it be always thus? i conjure thee by all thy battle-fields,--by the remembrance of the great men born of thee, who battled for the right, thy franklin, hancock, the adamses--three in a single name,--by thine ideas and thy love of god,--to forbid forever all such deeds as this, and wipe away thy deep disgrace. america, thou youngest born of all god's family of states! thou art a giant in thy youth, laying thine either hand upon thine either sea; the lakes behind thee, and the mexique bay before. hast thou too forgot thy mission here, proud only of thy wide-spread soil, thy cattle, corn, thy cotton, and thy cloth? wilt thou welcome the hungarian hero, and yet hold slaves, and hunt poor negroes through thy land? thou art the ally of the despot, thyself out-heathening the heathen turk. yea, every christian king may taunt thee with thy slaves. dost thou forget thine own great men,--thy washington, thy jefferson? forget thine own proud words prayed forth to god in thy great act of prayer? is it to protect thy wealth alone that thou hast formed a state? and shall thy wealth be slaves? no, thou art mad. it shall not be. one day thou wilt heed the lessons of the past, practise thy prayer, wilt turn to god, and rend out of thy book the hated page where slavery is writ. thy sons who led thee astray in thy madness, where shall they appear? and thou our god, the father of us all, father and mother too, parent of freemen, parent also of the slave, look down upon us in our sad estate. look down upon thy saints, and bless them; yea, bless thy sinners too; save from the wicked heart. bless this town by thy chastisement; this state by thine afflictions; this nation by thy rod. teach us to resist evil and with good, till we break the fetters from every foot, the chains from every hand, and let the oppressed go free. so let thy kingdom come; so may thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. footnotes: [ ] the above paragraph refers to cases which had then recently occurred, and were known to everybody. [ ] mr. peleg sprague. [ ] the above paragraph was written in april, , and was only historical, not also prophetic. [ ] it was well known that the laws of massachusetts were violated, but no prosecution of the offenders was ever begun. the committee to whom the matter was referred, thought that the supreme court of massachusetts was not to be trusted to vindicate the laws of the state, against kidnappers in boston. [ ] in november, , the city marshal reports to the board of aldermen, the following facts:--there are fifteen hundred places in boston, where intoxicating drinks are sold, in violation of the laws of massachusetts. kept by americans, kept by foreigners, open on sunday, groceries that keep intoxicating drink, other places, all the "first class hotels," except four, have open bars, for the sale of intoxicating drink. the government of boston, which violated the laws of massachusetts, to kidnap a man, and deliver him to his tormentors, asks the city marshal to give such information as is calculated to check the progress of crime and intemperance. he reports--"execute the laws!" in , boston has the honor of kidnapping one of her inhabitants, and sending him to slavery, and of supporting fifteen hundred rum-shops, in continual violation of the laws of massachusetts. [ ] while these volumes are getting printed, one of the sectarian newspapers of boston publishes the following paragraph:-- "the english railways are all in use on the sabbath, and all evidently under a curse. their stock is ruinously low. three hundred and fifty millions of dollars have been embarked in these enterprises, and the average dividends which they pay is but three per cent. and more than this, a large number of fatal accidents have occurred of late. while we regret that the business men of england, who control these lines, have not wisdom enough to see the folly of making haste to be rich, in defiance of the ordinances of god, we rejoice that so many of the railroad operators in this country, rest on the sabbath day, according to the commandment." see note [b]** on p. . [ ] the tattered garment is still kept as a melancholy monument of the civilization of boston in the middle of the nineteenth century. [ ] mr. sims was sent off to bondage in the barque acorn by the city authorities of boston. i believe he is the first man ever returned as a fugitive slave from massachusetts by the form of law since the adoption of the constitution. arrived at savannah, he was immediately conducted to prison. his mother and other relatives were not allowed to see him. he was cruelly and repeatedly scourged. meantime the citizens of boston, who had aided in kidnapping him, and had accompanied him to savannah, were publicly feasted by the inhabitants of georgia. the present fate of mr. sims is unknown to me. nov. th, . vii. the three chief safeguards of society.--considered in a sermon at the melodeon, on sunday, july , . proverbs xiv. . righteousness exalteth a nation. this is the first sunday after the anniversary of the national birth-day. it seems proper, on this occasion, to go beyond matters merely personal, and affecting us only as individuals. i will speak of the duties of man in a wider sphere; of political affairs. so i ask your attention to a sermon of the safeguards of society. i choose this subject, because some men profess a fear that american society is in danger, and because some persons are busily teaching doctrines which seem hostile to the very design of society itself. i shall not speak of politics as economy, but as morality, and look at the affairs of state from a religious point of view. we are often told, that human society is of divine appointment,--society meaning the mass of men living together in a certain fellowship. if this means that man is by nature a social being, and in their progressive development men must unite and form societies, then, it is true, society is of divine appointment. but so is a farm; for man is by nature and position an agricultural being, and in their progressive development men make farms and practise agriculture. agriculture is as necessary as society.--but it does not follow from this, that the egyptian, the flemish, or the american mode of agriculture is of divine appointment, and men bound by god to practise that, or to limit themselves thereto; and it no more follows that the egyptian, the flemish, or the american mode of society is of divine appointment, and men bound by god to limit themselves to it. it would be thought ridiculous to claim divinity for dutch farming, or any other special mode of farming; but it is just as ridiculous to claim divinity for dutch society, or any other society. the farm and the society are alike and equally the work of men. then we are often told, that human government is of divine appointment, and men morally bound to submit to it,--government being used as a collective term to include the political, ecclesiastical, and social establishments of a people, and the officers who administer them. if this means, that, at a certain stage of man's progressive political development, it is necessary to have certain political, ecclesiastical, and social establishments, such as a monarchy or an aristocracy, with persons to administer them, then it is true, and government is of divine appointment.--but the fence of a farm is just as necessary to agriculture, at a certain stage of agricultural development, as government to society. however, it does not follow from this, that a stone-wall or a rail-fence is of divine appointment; and it no more follows that a monarchy or an aristocracy is of divine appointment. it would be thought ridiculous for a farmer to claim divinity for his fence; it is just as absurd for a politician to claim it for his government. both are alike and equally the work of men. again it is said that human statutes are of divine appointment, and therefore binding on the conscience of men. if this means, that, at a certain stage of social and political development, men must form certain rules for social and political conduct, then it is true, and human statutes are of divine appointment. but rules for agricultural conduct are just as necessary for the farm and the garden as political rules for society and the state, and so equally divine.--but it does not follow from this, that the agricultural rules for the farm and the garden laid down by columella the roman, or cobbett the briton, are of divine appointment; and it no more follows that the political rules for society and the state laid down by the men of new england or the men of new holland,--by men "fore-ordained" at birth to be lawgivers, or by men "elected" in manhood to make laws,--are of divine appointment. it would be thought ridiculous for a british farmer to claim divinity for tusser's "five hundred points of good husbandry;" but it is just as absurd for a british politician to claim divinity for the british constitution, or the statutes of the realm. rules for farming the land and rules for farming the people are alike and equally the work of men. still further, it is said that human officers to execute the statutes, administer the government, and sustain society, are also of divine appointment; and hence we are morally bound to employ, honor, and obey them. if this means, that at a certain stage of man's social, political, and legal development, it is necessary to have certain persons whose official business it shall be to execute those statutes, then it is true, and human officers are of divine appointment. but it is just as necessary to have certain persons, whose official business it shall be to execute the rules for farming the land; and so the agricultural officers are just as much of divine appointment as the political. but it does not follow that ploughman keith and reaper gibson are such by the grace of god, and therefore we are morally bound to employ, honor, and obey them; and it no more follows that king ferdinand or president fillmore are such by the grace of god, and we morally bound to employ, honor, and obey them. it would be thought ridiculous for keith and gibson to claim divinity for their function of ploughman or reaper; but it is equally absurd for fillmore and ferdinand to claim divinity for their function of president or king. the farm-office and the state-office are alike and equally the work of men. yet it is often taught that society, government, statutes, and officers are peculiarly and especially of divine appointment, in a very different sense from that mentioned just now; and therefore you and i are morally bound to respect all the four. we are told this by men who would be astonished if any one should claim divine appointment for farm-fences, rules of husbandry, for ploughmen and reapers.--this is sometimes done by persons who know no better. in conformity with that fourfold claim of divinity for things of human appointment, we are told that the great safeguard of man's social welfare is this,--entire subordination of the individual to the community, subordination in mind and conscience, heart and soul; entire submission to the government; entire obedience to the statute; entire respect for the officer; in short, the surrender of the individual to the state, of his mind to the public opinion, of his conscience to the public statute, of his religion to some bench of attorneys, and his will to the magistrate. this fourfold subordination of the individual is demanded, no matter what the community, the government, the statutes, or the officers may be.--let us look a little more narrowly into this matter, and see what is the purpose, the end, and aim of individual human life, and of social human life; then we may be the better able to determine what are the safeguards thereof. * * * * * what is man here on earth to accomplish? he is to unfold and perfect himself, as far as possible, in body and spirit; to attain the full measure of his corporeal and spiritual powders, his intellectual, moral, affectional, and religious powers; to develop the individual into a complete man. that, i take it, is the purpose, the end, the scope, and final cause of individual life on earth. accordingly, that is the best form of individual life which does this most completely; that worst which does it least. he is the most fortunate man who gets the greatest development of his body and his spirit in all their several and appropriate functions: all else is means thereto, and this the end thereof. ease, wealth, honor, fame, power, and all the outward things men wish for, and all such things as are valuable, are means to this end, no more. wise men do not account him lucky who comes into the world born to riches, distinction, thrones of power; but him who goes out of it wise, just, good, and holy. accordingly, all else is to be subordinated to the attainment of this purpose; this to nothing. but what faculties of the individual are to rule and take precedence? the highest over the lowest; the lasting over the transient; the eternal over the perishing. i will wound my hand to save my head, subordinating the less to the greater. not barely to live, but to live nobly, is my purpose. i will wound or sacrifice my body to save the integrity of my spirit, to defend the rights of my mind, of my conscience, of my affections, of my religious faculty--my soul. conscience, when awakened, commands this. prophets of the old testament, and apostles of the new testament, martyrs of all the churches under heaven, are historical witnesses to this instinct of human nature. millions of soldiers have been found ready to sacrifice the life of their body to the integrity of their spirit: they would die, but not run. man is social by nature: gregarious by instinct, he is social with self-conscious will. to develop the individual into the perfect man, men must mix and mingle. society is the condition of individual development. moses or newton, living all alone, would not have attained the human dignity of a clown or a savage; they would never have mastered articulate speech: the gregarious elephant, the lonely eagle, would surpass these men, born to the mightiest genius. society, companionship of men, is both a necessity and a comfort, a good in itself, a means to other good. as the great purpose of human life is to develop the individual into the complete and perfect man in body and spirit, so the purpose of society is to help furnish the means thereto; to defend each, and furnish him an opportunity and all possible help to become a complete and perfect man. individuals are the monads, the primitive atoms, of which society is composed: its power, its perfection, depend primarily on the power and perfection of the individuals, as much so as the weight of a pendulum or of mount sheehallin depends on the primitive atoms thereof. destroy the individuality of those atoms, human or material,--all is gone. to mar the atom is to mar the mass. to preserve itself, therefore, society is to preserve the individuality of the individual. such is its general purpose: this involves several particulars. one is purely negative in its form,--to prevent men from hurting one another. in early ages, that was the chief business of society which men had become conscious of. society was recognized as an instrument to help accomplish two things: first, to defend itself against other societies or collections of men, and so preserve the integrity of the mass. this was done by means of armies, forts, fleets, and all the artillery of war. the next thing was, within itself, to defend the many feeble from the few that are strong, or the few strong from the many weak; to preserve the integrity of the individuals, the atoms which compose the mass. this was done by statutes of prohibition, declaring, "thou shalt not." this defence from foreign or domestic harm involves two things: first, the protection of the person, the substance of the community or the individual; and, next, the protection of the property, the accident of the social or individual person. all this may be comprised in one term as the negative function of society, appearing in two modes, as it protects from foreign or domestic hurt. this function is performed consciously: one community says to other communities, "you shall not hurt me," and to its own members, "you must not hurt one another," and knows what it is about in so doing. some of the nations of europe have scarcely got beyond this; their government seems to acknowledge no function but this negative one. then comes the positive function of society. that is, to furnish opportunities for the mass, as such, to develop itself; and the individual, as such, to develop himself, individually and socially, and exercise all his faculties in his own way; subject only to this rule, that he hurts nobody else. see how this is done abroad between society and society. this community agrees with others, that they, mutually, shall not only not injure each other, but positively help one another. "protect my citizens by your statutes, whilst in your land; and i will do the same with yours," says belgium to france. that is agreed upon. "let my ships into your harbors," says england, "come whence they may, and with what they may bring; and i will do the same by yours." america says, "agreed;" and it is so to the good of both. thus each christian nation secures for itself opportunities for development in all other christian countries, and so helps the person, and also his property. this is done by treaties; and each nation has its ministers and consuls to lie abroad, and help accomplish this work. this is the foreign part of the positive function of society, and is destined to a great expansion in times to come. see how it is done at home, and the whole furnishes positive helps to the special parts. society establishes almshouses, hospitals, schools, colleges, churches, and post-offices; coins money as a standard measure of all values; builds roads of earth, of water, or of iron; carries letters; surveys the land; prints books telling of its minerals, plants, and living things that swim or creep or fly or walk; puts light-houses along the coast, and breakwaters to protect a port. thus society furnishes its members a positive help for the mind, body, and estate; helps the individual become a complete and perfect man, by affording him facilities for the development of his substance, and the possession of his accidents. this is the domestic part of the positive function of society. some men, as the socialists in france, wish to extend it much further, making the government patriarchal to bless,--not, as of old, despotic to curse. this also is done with a distinct self-consciousness of the immediate end and the means thereto. but the greater part of this positive work is done with no such distinct consciousness thereof: it is brought about by the men living together; is done, not by government, but by society. the presence of numbers increases the intellectual temperature, so to say, and quickens the social pulse. machines are invented, science extended, new truths in morals and religion are found out, literature and art create new loveliness, and men become greater and more noble, while society takes no heed; and so all are helped. the government often only checks this work. by most subtle contrivances, though not of you and me, a provision is made for the great. without willing it, we prepare a cradle for every giant, ready to receive him soon as he is born. a young woman has a rare genius for music; no legal and constitutional provision has been made for her, society having no instinctive and prophetic consciousness of such an advent; but men with music in their souls, and spell-bound by their ears, are drawn together, and encourage her sweet soul into all the wildest, sweetest, and most bewildering witchery of song. if some lad of marvellous genius is born in the woods, men seek him out, and train him up with the accumulated wisdom of ten thousand years, that this newest diamond from the mine of god may be appropriately set. so it is with a thousand other things; and thus society calls out the dainties of the cook, the machine of the inventor, the orator's persuasive power, the profound thought of the thinker, the poet's vision and his faculty divine, the piety of the highest saint god sends. thus, spite of all the herods in jerusalem, a crown is got ready for him that is born king of the world; wise men are always waiting for the star which goes before the new-born son of god; and, though that star stand still over a stable, they are ready on the spot with their myrrh, their frankincense, and their gold. society has its shepherds watching their flock, and its angels to proclaim the glad tidings of great joy to all mankind. while society, in its positive function, thus helps the strong, it provides also for the weak, and gives them the benefit of the strong man's protection: thus the individuality of the ablest and the most feeble is defended at the same time. this is done in part by private charity; in part also by the organized public charity. the sick, the poor, the crazy, the lame, the blind, the deaf, are sacredly cared for. even the fool is not left in his folly, but the wisdom of society watches over his impotent and wretched brain. thus the two extremes of the human race are provided for: the man of vast genius and a tough body gets his culture and his place; and from his station in the senate, the pulpit, or the closet, sends out his thunder, his lightning, or his sunshine over all the land, to save the people and to bless; while the lame man, the lunatic woman, the blind boy, the poor and sickly little girl, born with the scrofulous worm feeding on her cheek,--all have the benefit of the manifold power of society. the talent of a webster, the genius of an emerson, the frailty of an unacknowledged child left on the doorstone at night, to die next month in the almshouse, all have their place in the large cradle of society, whose coverlet wraps them all,--the senator, the poet, and the fool. attend a meeting of the alumni of harvard college, of the heads of the railroads or factories of new england, a convention of merchants, naturalists, metaphysicians, of the senate of the nation, you see how society gives place and protection to the best heads in the state. then go to some house of industry, and see the defence afforded for the worst; you see what a wonderful contrivance society itself is. i say a contrivance, yet it is not the contrivance chiefly of solon or charlemagne, but of almighty god; a contrivance for three things,--to prevent men from hurting one another in person or property; to give the strong and the weak the advantage of living together; and thus to enable each to have a fair chance for the development of his person and the acquisition of property. the mechanism of society, with its statical and dynamical laws, is the most marvellous phenomenon in the universe. thereby we are continually building wiser than we know, or rather the providence of the father builds by us, as by the coral insect of pacific seas, foundations for continents which we dream not of. * * * * * these three things are the general end of society, and indispensable to the purpose of life. to attain them, there must be a certain amount of individual variety of action, a certain amount of social unity of action; and the two must be to a certain degree balanced into equilibrium. the larger the amount of individual variety and social unity of action, the more complete the equilibrium of the two, the more completely is the purpose of individual and social life accomplished and attained: the atom is not sacrificed to the mass, nor the mass to the atom; the individual gains from being a citizen, the citizen from his individuality; all are the better for each, and each for all. to accomplish this purpose, men devise certain establishments,--institutions, constitutions, statutes--human machinery for attaining the divine end in the individual and the social form. but here is the condition of existence which all these establishments must conform to. every thing in nature has a certain constant mode of action: this, we call a law of nature. the laws of nature are universal, unchangeable, and perfect as god, whose mind they in part express. to succeed in any thing, we must find out and keep the natural laws relating thereto. there are such laws for the individual,--constant modes of action which belong to human nature, writ therein by god. my mind and conscience are the faculties by which i learn these laws. conscience perceives by instinct; mind sees afterwards by experiment. there are also such laws for society, constant modes of action, which belong to human nature in its social form. they are also written in the nature of man. the mind and conscience of the individuals who make up the society are the faculties by which these laws likewise are found out. these laws, constant modes of individual or social action, are the sole and exclusive basis of human establishments which help attain the end of individual and social life. what conforms to these natural rights is called right; what conforms not, is wrong. a mill-dam or a monument must conform to the statical laws of matter, or not serve the purpose it was meant for; a mill or a steam-engine must conform to the dynamical laws of matter, or it is also useless. so all the social establishments of mankind, designed to further the positive or negative functions of society, must conform to the laws of human nature, or they will fail to achieve the purposes of individual and social life. as i come to individual self-consciousness, i give utterance to these natural laws, or my notion of them, in certain rules of conduct which i make for myself. i say, "this will i do, for it is right; that will i not do, for it is wrong." these are my personal resolutions, personal statutes. i make them in my high act of prayer, and in my common life seek to conform thereto. when i rise higher, in another act of prayer which has a greater experience for its basis and so represents more life, i shall revise the old rules of conduct, and make new ones that are better. the rules of conduct derive all their objective and real value from their conformity with the law of god writ in my nature; all their subjective and apparent value, from their conformity to my notions of the law of god. the only thing which makes it right, and an individual moral duty for me to keep my resolutions, is, that they themselves are right, or i believe them so. now, as i see they are wrong, or think i see it, i shall revise or change them for better. accordingly, i revise them many times in my life: now by a gradual change, the process of peaceful development; now by a sudden change, under conviction of sin, in penitence for the past, and great concern of mind for the future, by the process of personal revolution. but these rules of conduct are always provisional,--my ladder for climbing up to the purposes of individual life. i will throw them away as soon as i can get better. they are amenable subjectively to my notion of right, and objectively to right itself,--to conscience and to god. as the individuals, all, the majority, or some controlling men, come to social self-consciousness, they express these natural laws, or their notion thereof, in certain rules of social conduct. they say, "this shall all men do, for it is right; that shall no man do, for it is wrong." the nation makes its social resolutions, social statutes, in its act of prayer; for legislation is to the state what prayer is to the man,--often an act of penitence, of sorrow, of fear, and yet of faith, hope, and love. when it rises higher, it revises and makes better rules of conduct: they derive all their objective and real value from their conformity with the law of god; all their subjective and apparent value, from their conformity with the nation's notion thereof. the only thing which makes it right, and a social moral duty for society, or any of its members, to keep these social statutes, is that they are right, or thought so. in the progress of society, its rules of conduct get revised a good many times: now it is done by gradual, peaceful development; now by sudden and stormy revolutions, when society is penitent for the sin of the past, and in great anxiety and concern of mind through fear of the future. these social statutes are only provisional, to help men climb up to the purpose of social life. they are all amenable subjectively to the notion of right; objectively to right itself,--to the conscience of the individuals and to god. then society appoints officers whose special conventional function is to see to the execution of these social rules of conduct. they are legally amenable to the rules of conduct they are to carry out; socially amenable to the community that appoints them; individually amenable to their own conscience and to god. to sum up all this in one formula: officers are conventionally amenable to society; society, with its officers and its rules of conduct, amenable to the purpose of society; the design of individual life, to the individuals that compose it; individuals, with their rules of conduct, amenable each to his own conscience; and all to the law of the universe, to the eternal right, which represents the conscience of god. so far as society is right, government right, statutes right, officers right, all may justly demand obedience from each: for though society, government, statutes, and officers are mere human affairs, as much so as farms, fences, top-dressing, and reapers, and are as provisional as they; yet right is divine, is of god, not merely provisional and for to-day, but absolute and for eternity. so, then, the moral duty to respect the government, to keep the statutes, to obey the officers, is all resolvable into the moral duty of respecting the integrity of my own nature, of keeping the eternal law of nature, of obeying god. if government, statutes, officers, command me to do right, i must do it, not because commanded, but because it is right; if they command me to do wrong, i must refuse, not because commanded, but because it is wrong. there is a constitution of the universe: to keep that is to preserve the union between man and man, between man and god. to do right is to keep this constitution: that is loyalty to god. to keep my notion of it is loyalty to my own soul. to be false to my notion thereof is treason against my own nature; to be false to that constitution is treason against god. the constitution of the universe is not amenable to men: that is the law of god, the higher law, the constant mode of action of the infinite father of all. in that he lives and moves, and has his being. * * * * * it is now easy to see what are the safeguards of society, the things which promote the end and aim of society,--the development of the body and spirit of all men after their law,--and thus help attain the purpose of individual life. i will mention three of these safeguards, in the order of their importance. first of all, is righteousness in the people: a religious determination to keep the law of god at all hazards; a sacred and inflexible reverence for right; a determined habit of fidelity each to his own conscience. this, of course, implies a hatred of wrong; a religious and determined habit of disobeying and resisting every thing which contradicts the law of god, of disobeying what is false to this and our conscience. there is no safeguard for society without this. it is to man what impenetrability, with the other primary qualities, is to matter. all must begin with the integral atoms, with the individual mind and conscience; all be tried by that test, personal integrity, at last. what is false to myself i must never do,--at no time, for no consideration, in nowise. this is the doctrine of the higher law; the doctrine of allegiance to god; a doctrine which appears in every form of religion ever taught in the world; a doctrine admitted by the greatest writers on the foundation of human law, from cicero to lord brougham. even bentham comes back to this. i know it is now-a-days taught in the united states, that, if any statute is made after the customary legal form, it is morally binding on all men, no matter what the statute may be; that a command to kidnap a black man and sell him into slavery, is as much morally binding as a command for a man to protect his own wife and child. a people that will practically submit to such a doctrine is not worthy of liberty, and deserves nothing but law, oppressive law, tyrannical law; and will soon get what it deserves. if a people has this notion, that they are morally bound to obey any statute legally made, though it conflict with public morals, with private conscience, and with the law of god, then there is no hope of such a people; and the sooner a tyrant whips them into their shameful grave, the better for the world. trust me, to such a people the tyrant will soon come. where the carcass is thither will the vultures be gathered together. let no man put asunder the carrion and the crow. so much for the first and indispensable safeguard. * * * * * the next is derivative therefrom, righteousness in the establishments of the people. under this name i include three things, namely, institutions, constitutions, and statutes. institutions are certain modes of operation, certain social, ecclesiastical, or political contrivances for doing certain things. thus an agricultural club is a social institution to help farming; a private school is a social institution for educating its pupils; a church is an ecclesiastical institution for the promotion of religion; an aristocracy is a political institution for governing all the people by means of a few, and for the sake of a few; a congress of senators and representatives is a legislative institution for making statutes; a jury of twelve men is a judicial institution to help execute the statutes; universal suffrage is a democratic institution for ruling the state. constitutions are fundamental rules of conduct for the nation, made by the highest human authority in the land, and only changeable thereby, determining what institutions shall be allowed, how administered, by whom and in what manner statutes shall be made. statutes are particular rules of conduct to regulate the action of man with man, of individuals with the state, and of the state with individuals. statutes are amenable to the constitutions; the constitutions to the institutions; they to the people; all subjectively to the conscience of the individual, and objectively to the conscience of god. establishments are the machinery which a people contrives wherewith to carry out its ideas of the right or the expedient. in the present state of mankind, they are indispensable to accomplish the purpose of individual life. there are indeed a few men who for their good conduct, after they are mature, require no human laws whatever. they regulate themselves by their idea of right, by their love of truth, of justice, of man and god. they see the law of god so clear that they need no prohibitive statutes to restrain them from wrong. they will not lie nor steal, though no statutes forbid, and all other men both lie and steal; not if the statutes command falsehood and theft. these men are saints. the wealth of athens could not make aristides unjust. were all men like jesus of nazareth, statutes forbidding wrong would be as needless as sails to a shark, a balloon to a swallow, or a railroad to the lightning of heaven. this is always a small class of men, but one that continually increases. we all look to the time when this will include all men. no man expects to find law books and courts in the kingdom of heaven. then there is a class, who need these statutes as a well-known rule of conduct to encourage them to do right, by the assurance that all other men will likewise be made to do so, even if not willing. they see the law of god less clear and strong, and need human helps to keep it. this class comprises the majority of mankind. the court-house helps them, though they never use it; the jail helps them, though never in it. these are common men. they are very sober in connecticut; not very sober in california. then there is a third class who will do wrong, unless they are kept from it by punishment or the fear thereof. they do not see the law of god, or will not keep it if they do. the court-house helps them; so does the jail, keeping them from actual crime while there, deterring while out of it. take away the outward restraints, their seeming virtue falls to pieces like a barrel without its hoops. these are knaves. i think this class of men will continually diminish with the advance of mankind; that the saints will grow common, and the knaves get scarce. good establishments promote this end; those of new england, especially the schools, help forward this good work, to convert the knaves to common men, to transfigure the common men to saints. bad establishments, like many in austria, ireland, and south carolina, produce the opposite effect: they hinder the development of what is high and noble in man, and call out what is mean and low; for human laws are often instruments to debauch a nation. if a nation desires to keep the law of god, good establishments will help the work; if it have none such, it must make them before it can be at peace. they are as needful as coats and gowns for the body. sometimes the consciousness of the people is far in advance of its establishments, and there must be a revolution to restore the equilibrium. it is so at rome, in austria and prussia. all these countries are on the brink of revolution, and are only kept down by the bayonet. it was so here seventy-five years ago, and our fathers went through fire and blood to get the establishments they desired. they took of the righteousness in the people, and made therefrom institutions, constitutions, and statutes. so much for the second and derivative safeguard. * * * * * the third is righteousness in the public officers, good men to administer the establishments, manage the institutions, expound and enforce the constitutions and execute the statutes, and so represent the righteousness of the people. in the hands of such men as see the purpose of social and individual life, and feel their duty to keep the integrity of their conscience and obey the law of god, even bad establishments are made to work well, and serve the purpose of human life; because the man puts out the evil of the institution, constitution, or statute, and puts his own righteousness in its place. there was once a judge in new england who sometimes had to administer bad laws. in these cases, he told the jury, "such is the law, common or enacted; such are the precedents; such the opinions of judge this and judge that; but justice demands another thing. i am bound by my oath as judge to expound to you the law as it is; you are bound by oath as jurors to do justice under it; that is your official business here to-day." such a man works well with poor tools; with good ones he would work much better. by the action of such men, aided by public opinion which they now follow and now direct, without any change of legislation, there is a continual progress of justice in the establishments of a nation. bad statutes are dropped or corrected, constitutions silently ameliorated, all institutions made better. thus wicked laws become obsolete. there is a law in england compelling all men to attend church. nobody enforces it. put a bad man to administer the establishments, one who does not aim at the purpose of society, nor feel bound to keep the higher law of god, the best institutions, constitutions, statutes, become ineffectual, because the man puts out the good thereof, and puts in his own evil. the best establishments will be perverted to the worst of purposes. rome had all the machinery of a commonwealth; with cæsar at the head it became a despotism. in , france had the establishments of a republic; with napoleon for first consul, you know what it became: it soon was made an empire, and the constitution was trodden under foot. in , france has the institutions of a democracy; with louis napoleon as chief, you see what is the worth of the provisions for public justice. what was the constitution of england good for under the thumb of charles i. and james ii.? what was the value of the common law, of the trial by jury, of magna charta, "such a fellow as will have no sovereign," with a george jeffries for judge, a james ii. for king, and such juries as corrupt sheriffs brought together? they were only a mockery. what were the charters of new england against a wicked king and a corrupt cabinet? connecticut went out of the court and into the charter oak for self-preservation. what were all the institutions of christianity when alexander vi. dishonored the seat even of the pope? put a saint, who feels his duty to keep the law of god, in office, even bad rules will work well. but put a man who recognizes no law of god, not into a jail, but in a great office; give him courts and courtiers, fleets and armies, nay, only newspapers and "union committees" to serve him, you see what will be done. the resolute determination of the people to obey the law of god, the righteousness of their establishments, will be of small avail, frustrated by the wickedness of the men in power. the english parliament once sent a fleet to aid the huguenots at rochelle. king charles i. gave the admiral secret orders to surrender his ships to the enemy he was sent to oppose! the purpose of all human life may be as foully betrayed by wicked men in a high place. in a monarchy, the king is answerable for it with his neck; in a republic there is the same danger; but, where all seems to proceed from the people, it may be more difficult to do justice to a wicked officer. so much for the third safeguard, also derivative from the first. to make a good house, you want good materials,--solid stone, sound bricks, sound timber; a good plan, and also good builders. so, as safeguards of society, to achieve its purpose, you want good material,--a righteous people who will be faithful to their own conscience, and obey god and reverence the law of nature; a good plan,--righteous establishments, institutions, constitutions, statutes conformable to the laws of god; and you want good builders,--righteous officers to represent the eternal justice of the father. you want this threefold righteousness. * * * * * how are we provided with these three safeguards just now? have we this righteousness in the people?--which is the first thing. perhaps there is no nation with a higher reverence for justice, and more desire to keep the law of god; at least we have been told so, often enough. i think the nation never had more of it than now; never so much. but here are whole classes of men who practically seem to have no reverence for god's law; who declare there is no such thing; whose conduct is most shamefully unrighteous in all political matters. they seek to make us believe there is no law above the caprice of man. of such i will speak by and by. it is plain there is not righteousness enough in the people to hinder us from doing what we know is contrary to the law of god. thus, we keep one sixth part of the people in a state of slavery. this we do in violation of our own axiom, declared to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. we have here three millions of slaves: if things go on as now, there will be twelve millions before the century ends. we need not say we cannot help it. slavery in america is as much our work as democracy, as free schools, as the protestant form of religion. at the declaration, we might have made the slaves free; at the time of the confederation; at the formation of the constitution. but no! there was not righteousness enough in the people to resist the temptation of eating the bread which others earn. american slavery has always been completely in the power of the american people. we may abolish it any time we will. we might have restricted it to the old states, which had it before, and so have kept it out of kentucky, tennessee, louisiana, mississippi, alabama, florida, and all that mighty realm west of the great river. no! we took pains to extend it there. we fought with mexico to carry slavery into the "halls of the montezumas," whence a half-barbarous people drove it away. we long to seize on cuba, and yet other lands, to plant there our "american institution." we are indignant when austria unjustly seizes an american in hungary, and hales him to prison; but have nothing to say when slave states systematically confine the colored freemen of the north, or when georgia offers a large reward for the head of a citizen of boston. we talk of the "pauper labor of europe." it is pauper labor, very much of it. i burn with indignation at the men who keep it so. but it is not slave labor. paupers spin cotton at manchester, and at glasgow, say the whigs. who raises cotton at south carolina and mississippi? the spoil of the slave is in our houses. we are a republic, but the only nation of the christian world whose fields are tilled by chattel slaves. to such a degree has covetousness blinded the eyes of the whole nation. in saying all this, i will not say that we are less righteous than other nations. no other people has had the same temptation. it has been too great for america. slavery is loved as well in boston as in new orleans. the love of liberty is strong with us; but it is liberty for ourselves we love, not for our brother man whom we can oppress and enthrall. this vice is not confined to the south. i look on some of the clergymen of the north as only chaplains of the slave-driver. look at the next safeguard of society. setting aside the institution of slavery, and the statutes relating thereto, i think we have the most righteous establishments in the world. by no means perfect, they produce the greatest variety of action in the individuals, the greatest unity of action in society, and afford an opportunity to achieve the purpose of social and individual life. here is the great institution of democracy, the government of all, by all, and for all, resting on the american idea, that all men have natural rights which only the possessor can alienate; that all are equal in their rights; that it is the business of government to preserve them all for each man. under this great institution of a free state, there naturally come the church, the school, the press,--all free. in politics, and all depending thereon, we are coming to recognize this principle, that restraint is only to be exercised for the good of all, the restrainer and the restrained. let me single out two excellent institutions, not wholly american,--the contrivance for making laws, and that for executing them. to make laws, the people choose the best men they can find and confide in, and set them to this work. they aim to take all the good of past times, of the present times, and add to it their private contribution of justice. each state legislature is a little political academy for the advancement of jural science and art. they get the wisest and most humane men to aid them. then after much elaboration the law is made. if it works well in one state it is soon tried in others; if not, it is repealed and ceases to be. the experience of mankind has discovered no better way than this of popular legislation, for organizing the ideal justice of the people into permanent forms. if there is a man of moral and political genius in the community, he can easily be made available to the public. the experiment of popular legislation has been eminently successful in america. then, still further, we have officers chosen by the people for a limited time, to enforce the laws when made,--the executive; others to expound them,--the judiciary. it is the official business of certain officers to punish the man who violates the laws. in due and prescribed form, they arrest the man charged with the offence. now, two things are desirable: one to protect society, in all its members, from injury by any one acting against its just laws; the other is, to protect the man complained of from being hurt by government when there is no law against him, or when he has not done the deed alleged, or from an unjust punishment, even if it be legal. in despotic countries, little is thought of this latter; and it goes hard with a man whom the government complains of, even if there is no positive statute against the crime charged on him, or when he is innocent of the deed alleged. nothing can screen him from the lawful punishment, though that be never so unjust. the statute and its administration are a rule without mercy. but in liberal governments a contrivance has been devised to accomplish both these purposes,--the just desire of society to execute its laws; the just desire of the individual to have justice done. that is the trial by a jury of twelve men, not officers of the government, but men taken for this purpose alone from the bosom of the community, with all their human sympathies and sense of responsibility to god about them. the jury are to answer in one word "guilty" or "not guilty." but it is plain they are to determine three things: first, did the prisoner do the deed alleged, and as alleged? next, if so, is there a legal and constitutional statute forbidding it, and decreeing punishment therefor? and then, if so, shall the prisoner for that deed suffer the punishment denounced by that law?[ ] human statutes partake of human imperfections. see the checks against sudden, passionate, or unjust legislation. we choose legislators, and divide them into two branches, a senate and a house of representatives, each to aid and check the other. if a bill pass one house, and seem unjust to the other, it is set aside. if both approve of it, a third person has still a qualified negative; and, if it seems unjust to him, he sets it aside. if it passes this threefold ordeal, it becomes a statute of the land. see the checks in the execution of the laws which relate to offences. before they can be brought against any man, in any matter beyond a trifle, a jury of his peers indict him for the offence. then, before he can be punished, twelve men of his peers must say with one accord, "you shall inflict the penalties of the statute upon this man." this trial by jury has long been regarded as one of the most important of the secondary safeguards of society. it has served to defend the community against bad citizens, and the citizens against an evil establishment,--bad institutions, bad constitutions, bad statutes; against evil officers, bad rulers, bad judges, bad sheriffs. if the community has much to fear from bad citizens, here is the offensive armor, and the jury do not bear the sword in vain. if its citizens have much to fear from a wicked government, oppressive, grasping, tyrannical, desirous of pretending law where there is none, declaring "ship-money" and other enormities constitutional, or pressing a legal statute beyond justice, making it treason to tell of the wickedness of officers,--here is the defensive armor, and the jury do not bear in vain the shield of the citizen. sometimes the citizens have more to fear from the government than from all other foes. louis xiv. was a great robber, and plundered and murdered more of his subjects than all the other alleged felons in the sixteen millions of frenchmen. the honest burghers of paris had more to fear from the monarch in the tuileries than from the murderer in the faubourg st. antoine, or the cut-purse in the rue st. jacob. charles i. was a more dangerous enemy to our fathers in england and america than all the other thieves and murderers in the realm. what were all the indians in new england, for peril to its christian citizens, compared to charles ii. and his wicked brother? what was a foot-pad to henry viii.? he plundered a province, while the robber only picked a pocket. the trial by jury has done manly service. it was one of the first bulwarks of human society, then barbarous and feeble, thrown up by the germanic tribe which loved order, but loved justice too. it is a line of circumvallation against the loose, unorganized wickedness of the private ruffian; a line of contravallation also against the organized wickedness of the public government. it began before there were any regular courts or written laws; and, ever since, it has done great service when corrupt men in high places called a little offence "treason"; when corrupt judges sought to crush down the people underneath oppressive laws to advance themselves; and when corrupt witnesses were ready to "enlarge" their testimony so as to "dispatch" the men accused; yea, to swear black was black, and then, when the case seemed to require it, swear white was black. any man who reads the history of england under the worst of kings, the worst of ministers, the worst of judges, and with the worst of witnesses, and compares it with other nations, will see the value of the trial by jury as a safeguard of the people. the bloody mary had to punish the jurors for their verdict of acquittal, before she could accomplish her purposes of shame. george iii., wishing to collect a revenue in the american colonies, without their consent or any constitutional law, found the jury an obstacle he could not pass over. attorneys might try john hancock for smuggling in his "sloop liberty:" no jury would convict. the tea, a vehicle of unjust taxation, went floating out of boston bay in a most illegal style. no attempt was made to try the offenders; the magistrates knew there was a jury who would not convict men for resisting a wicked law. men must be taken "over seas for trial" by a jury of their enemies, before the wicked laws of a wicked ministry could be brought upon the heads of the resolute men of america. it is of great importance to keep this institution pure; to preserve its spirit, with such expansion as the advance of mankind requires. otherwise, the laws may be good, the constitutions good, institutions good, the disposition of the people good; but, with a wicked minister in the cabinet, a wicked judge on the bench, a wicked attorney at the bar, and a wicked witness to forswear himself on the stand,--and all these can easily be had; you can purchase your wicked witnesses; nay, sometimes one will volunteer and "enlarge his testimony,"--a man's life and liberty are not safe for a moment. the administration may grasp any man at will. the minister represents the government; the judge, the attorney, all represent the government. it has often happened that all these had something to gain by punishing unjustly some noble man who opposed their tyranny, and they used their official power to pervert justice and ruin the state, that they might exalt themselves. the jury does not represent the government, but "the country;" that is, the justice, the humanity, the mercy of mankind. this is its great value. have we the third safeguard, righteous officers? i believe no nation ever started with nobler officers than we chose at first. but i think there has been some little change from washington down through the tylers and the polks to the present administration. john adams, in coming to the presidency, found his son in a high office, and asked his predecessor if it were fit for the president to retain his own son in office. washington replied, it would be wrong for you to appoint him; but i hope he will not be discharged from office, and so the country be deprived of his valuable services, merely "because he is your son!" what a satire is this on the conduct of men in power at this day! we have had three "second general washingtons" in the presidential chair since ; two new ones are now getting ready, "standing like greyhounds in the slips, straining upon the start," for that bad eminence. these three past and two future "washingtons" have never displayed any very remarkable family likeness to the original--who left no descendant--in this particular.[ ] i pass over the general conduct of our executive and judicial officers, which does not seem to differ much from that of similar functionaries in england, in france, in italy, austria, turkey, and spain. but i must speak of some special things in the conduct of some of these persons,--things which ought to be looked at on such a day as this, and in the light of religion. attempts have lately been made in this city to destroy the juror's power to protect the citizen from the injustice of government,--attempts to break down this safeguard of individual liberty. we have seen a judge charge the grand jury, that, in case of conflict between the law of god and the statutes made by men, the people must "obey both." then we have seen an attempt made by the government to get a partial jury, who should not represent the country, but should have prejudices against the prisoner at the bar. we have seen a man selected as foreman of the jury who had previously, and before witnesses, declared that all the persons engaged in the case which was to come before him, "ought to be hung." we have seen a man expelled from the jury, after he had taken the juror's oath, because he declared that he had "a general sympathy with the down-trodden and oppressed here and everywhere," and so did not seem likely to "dispatch" the prisoner, as the government desired. this is not all: the judge questions the jurors before their oath, and refuses to allow any one to be impanelled who doubts the constitutionality of the fugitive slave law. even this is not the end: he charges the jury thus selected, packed, picked, and winnowed, that they are to take the law as he lays it down; that they are only judges of the fact, he exclusively of the law; and, if they find that the prisoner did the deed alleged, then they must return him "guilty" of the offence charged. i am no lawyer: i shall not speak here with reference to usages and precedents of the past, only with an eye to the consequences for the future. if the court can thus select a jury to suit itself, mere creatures of its own, what is the use of a jury to try the fact? see the consequences of this decision, that no man shall serve as juror who doubts the constitutionality of a law, and that the jurors are not judges of the law itself, as well as the fact. let me suppose some cases which may happen. the constitution of the united states provides that congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. suppose that congress should pass a law to punish any man with death who should pray to the "father, son, and holy ghost." the government wishes to punish an obnoxious orthodox minister for violating this "form of law." it is clearly unjust; but the judge charges the grand jury they are to "obey both" the laws of god and the statutes of men. the grand jury indict the man. he is brought for trial. the law is obviously unconstitutional; but the judge expels from the jury all who think the law is unconstitutional. he selects the personal enemies of the accused, and finds twelve men foolish enough or wicked enough to believe it is constitutional to do what the constitution declares must not be done; and then proceeds to trial, selecting for foreman the man who has said, "all men that thus pray ought to be hung!" what is the value of your constitution? the jury might convict, the judge sentence, the president issue his warrant, and the man be hanged in twenty-four hours, for doing a deed which the constitution itself allows, and christendom daily practises, and the convictions of two hundred million men require! it is alleged the jury must not judge of the law, but only of the fact. see the consequences of this principle in several cases. the secretary of state has declared the rescuing of shadrach was "treason," and, of course, punishable with death. suppose the court had charged the jury, that to rescue a man out of the hands of an incompetent officer--an offence which in boston has sometimes been punished with a fine of five dollars--was "levying war" against the united states, and they were only to find if the prisoner did the deed; and, if so, return a verdict of guilty. suppose the jury are wicked enough to accept his charge, where is the protection of the citizen? the government may say, to smuggle goods into boston harbor is "levying war" and hang a man for treason who brings on shore an ounce of camphor in his pocket without paying duties! is not the jury, in such a case, to judge what the law makes treason?--to decide for itself? there was once a law making it felony without benefit of clergy to read the bible in the english language. suppose the government, wishing to make away with an obnoxious man, should get him indicted next term for this offence, and the judge should declare that the old law is still in force. is the jury not to judge whether we live under the bloody mary, or the constitution of massachusetts?--whether what was once law is so now? if not, then the laws of king darius or king pharaoh may be revived whenever judge hategood sees fit, and faithful must hang for it.[ ] suppose the judge makes a law himself, declaring that, if any one speaks against the justice of the court, he shall be whipped with forty stripes save one, and gets a man indicted under it and brought to trial--is the jury not to judge if there be such a law? then we might as well give up all legislation, and leave all to the "discretion of the court." a judge of the united states court was once displaced on account of mental imbecility. was judge simpleton to determine what was law, what not, for a jury of intelligent men? another judge, not long ago, in boston, in his place in court, gave an opinion in a most important affair, and was drunk when he gave it. i do not mean he was horizontally drunk, but only so that his friends feared "he would break down in court, and expose himself." was the opinion of a drunken judge to be taken for law by sober men? suppose the judge is not a simpleton nor a drunkard, but is only an ordinary lawyer and a political partisan, and appointed to his office because he is a fawning sycophant, and will interpret the law to suit the ambition of the government--a thing that has happened in this city. is he to lay down the law for the jurors who aim only to live in honorable morality, to hurt no one, and give every man his due? suppose the attorneys at the bar know the law better than the attorney on the bench,--a thing that daily happens,--are not the jurors to decide for themselves? i have chosen fictitious cases to try the principle. extreme cases make shipwreck of a wicked law, but are favoring winds to bring every just statute into its happy harbor at the last. will you say we are not likely to suffer from such usurpation? you know what we have suffered within three months past. god only knows what is to come. but no man is ever to seek for a stick if he wishes to beat a dog, or for a cross if he would murder his saviour. the only way to preserve liberty is by eternal vigilance: we must be jealous of every president, every minister, every judge, every officer, from a king to the meanest commissioner he appoints to kidnap men. you have seen the attempts made to sap and undermine one of the most valuable safeguards of our social welfare,--seen that it excited very little attention; and i wish to warn you of the danger of a false principle. i have waited for this day to speak on this theme. executive tyranny, with soldiers at its command, must needs be open in its deeds of shame. it may waste the money of the public which cleaves to the suspected hands of its officers: it is not so easy to get the necks of those it hates; for we have no star-chamber of democracy, and here the executive has not many soldiers at command, must ask before it can get them. it did ask, and got "no" for answer. legislative tyranny must needs be public, and is easily seen. but judicial tyranny is secret, subtle, unseen in its action; and all experience shows it is one of the most dangerous forms of tyranny. a corrupt judge poisons the wells of human society.[ ] scroggs and jeffries are names deservedly hated by mankind, and there are some american names likely to be added to them. the traditionary respect entertained here for an office which has been graced by some of the noblest men in the land, doubles our danger. but an attack is made on another safeguard of society, yet more important. we have been told that there is no law higher than a human statute, no law of god above an act of the american congress. you know how this doctrine of the supremacy of the lower law has been taught in the high places of the state, in the high places of the church, and in the low places of the public press. you know with what sneers men have been assailed who appealed to conscience, to religion, and said, "the law of god is supreme; above all the enactments of mortal men." you have been witness to attempts to howl down the justice of the almighty. we have had declamation and preaching against the law of god. it is said the french assembly, some fifty or sixty years ago, voted that there should be no public worship of god; that there was no god to worship; but it was left for politicians and preachers of america, in our time, to declare that there is no law above the caprice of mortal men. did the french "philosophers" decree speculative atheism? the american "wise men" put it in practice. they deny the function of god. "he has nothing to do with mankind." this doctrine is one of the foulest ever taught, and tends directly to debauch the conscience of the people. what if there were no law higher than an act of parliament? what would become of the parliament itself? there is such a thing conceivable as personal, speculative atheism. i think it is a very rare thing. i have never known an atheist: for, with all about us speaking of god; all within us speaking of him; every telescope revealing the infinite mind in nebulæ resolved to groups of systems of suns; every microscope revealing the infinite father, yea, mother of the world, in a drop of water, a grain of perishing wood, or an atom of stone; every little pendulum revealing his unchanging law on a small scale; and this whole group of solar systems, in its slow and solemn swing through heavenly space, disclosing the same law on a scale which only genius at first can comprehend,--it is not easy to arrive at personal, speculative atheism. it would be a dreadful thing, the stark denial of a god. to say there is no infinite mind in finite matter, no order in the universe, in providence only a fate, no god for all, no father for any, only an inextinguishable nothing that fills the desert and illimitable ether of space and time, the whence and whither of all that are,--such a belief is conceivable; but i do not believe that there is a single atheist living on the whole round world. there is no general danger of personal, speculative atheism. when m. lalande declared that he saw no god through his telescope, though he meant not to deny the real god of nature, the world rang with indignation at an astronomer undevout and mad. but practical, political atheism has become a common thing in america, in new england. this is not a denial of the essence of god and his being, but of his function as supreme ruler of the church, of the state, of the people, of the universe. of that there is danger. the devil of ambition tempts the great man to it; the devil of covetousness, the little man. both strike hands, and say, "there is no higher law;" and low men lift up their mean foreheads in the pulpits of america and say, "it is the voice of a god, and not of a man. there is no higher law." the greatest understanding of this land, with haughty scorn, has lately said, "the north mountain is very high; the blue ridge, higher still; the alleghanies higher than either; and yet this 'higher law' ranges further than an eagle's flight above the highest peaks of the alleghanies."[ ] the impious taunt was received with "laughter" by men who have long acted on the maxim that there is no law of god, and whose state is impoverished by the attempt to tread his law under foot. i know men in america have looked so long at political economy that they have forgotten political morality, and seem to think politics only national housekeeping, and he the best ruler who buys cheapest and sells dearest. but i confess i am amazed when statesmen forget the lessons of those great men that have gone before us, and built up the social state, whose "deep foundations have been laid with prayer." what! is there no law above the north mountain; above the blue ridge; higher than the alleghanies? why, the old hebrew poet told us of one "which removeth the mountains, and they know not; which overturneth them in his anger; which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. lo! he goeth by me, and i see him not; he passeth on also, but i perceive him not." yes, there is one--his law "an eagle's flight above the alleghanies"--who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, whose strong hand setteth fast the mountains; yea, one who hath weighed the mountains in scales; before whom all nations are as a very little thing. yes, father in heaven! before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art god. yea, thou hast been our dwelling-place in all generations. thy name alone is excellent; thy glory above the earth and heaven! no higher law for states than the poor statutes they enact! "among the assemblies of the great a greater ruler takes his seat; the god of heaven as judge surveys these 'gods of earth' and all their ways:-- 'why will you frame oppressive laws? or why support the unrighteous cause? when will you once defend the poor, that foes may vex the saints no more?' they know not, lord, nor will they know; dark are the ways in which they go; their name of 'earthly gods' is vain, for they shall fall and die like men." it would be a great calamity for this nation to lose all of its mighty riches, and have nothing left but the soil we stand on. but, in seven or eight generations, it would all be restored again; for all the wealth of america has been won in less time. we are not two hundred and fifty years from jamestown and plymouth. it would be a great misfortune to lose all the foremost families of the nation. but england lost hers in the war of the roses; france, in her revolution. nature bore great men anew, and fresh families sprung up as noble as the old. but, if this generation in america could believe that there was no law of god for you and me to keep,--say the acts of congress what they might say,--no law to tame the ambition of men of mountain greatness, and curb the eagle's flight of human tyranny, that would be a calamity which the nation would never recover from. no! then religion would die out; affection fall dead; conscience would perish; intellect give up the ghost, and be no more. no law higher than human will! no watchmaker can make a long pendulum vibrate so quick as a short. in this very body there is that law. i wake and watch and will; my private caprice turns my hand, now here, now there. but who controls my breath? who bids this heart beat all day long, and all the night, sleep i or wake? whose subtle law holds together these particles of flesh, of blood, and bone in marvellous vitality? who gives this eye its power to see, and opens wide the portal of the ear? and who enchants, with most mysterious life, this wondrous commonwealth of dust i call myself? it is the same hand whose law is "higher than the blue ridge," an "eagle's flight above the alleghanies." who rules the state, and, out of a few stragglers that fled here to new england for conscience sake, built up this mighty, wealthy state? was it carver and winthrop who did all this; standish and saltonstall? was it the cunning craftiness of mightiest men that consciously, well knowing what they did, laid the foundations of our new england state and our new england church? why, the boys at school know better. it was the eternal god whose higher law the pilgrim and the puritan essayed to keep, not knowing whereunto the thing would grow. shall the fool say in his heart there is no god? he cannot make a hair grow on his head but by the eternal law of his father in heaven. will the politician say there is no law of god for states? ask the sorrowing world; let austria and hungary make reply. nay, ask the southern states of america to show us their rapid increase in riches, in civilization; to show us their schools and their scholars, their literature, their science, and their art! no law of god for states! it is writ on the iron leaf of destiny, "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a curse to any people." let the wicked hand of the south join with the northern wicked hand, iniquity shall not prosper. but the eye of the wicked shall fail; they shall not escape; their hope shall be as giving up the ghost, because their tongue and their doings are against the lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory. their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust, if they cast away the law of the lord, and despise the word of the holy one. in america the people are strongly attached to the institutions, constitutions, and statutes of the land. on the whole, they are just establishments. if not, we made them ourselves, and can make them better when we will. the execution of laws is also popular. nowhere in the world is there a people so orderly, so much attached to law, as the people of these northern states. but one law is an exception. the people of the north hate the fugitive slave law, as they have never hated any law since the stamp act. i know there are men in the northern states who like it,--who would have invented slavery, had it not existed long before. but the mass of the northern people hate this law, because it is hostile to the purpose of all just human law, hostile to the purpose of society, hostile to the purpose of individual life; because it is hostile to the law of god,--bids the wrong, forbids the right. we disobey that, for the same reason that we keep other laws: because we reverence the law of god. why should we keep that odious law which makes us hated wherever justice is loved? because we must sometimes do a disagreeable deed to accomplish an agreeable purpose? the purpose of that law is to enable three hundred thousand slaveholders to retake on our soil the men they once stole on other soil! most of the city churches of the north seem to think that is a good thing. very well: is it worth while for fifteen million freemen to transgress the plainest of natural laws, the most obvious instincts of the human heart, and the plainest duties of christianity, for that purpose? the price to pay is the religious integrity of fifteen million men; the thing to buy is a privilege for three hundred thousand slaveholders to use the north as a hunting-field whereon to kidnap men at our cost. judge you of that bargain. * * * * * but i must end this long discourse. the other day i spoke of the vices of passion: great and terrible evils they wrought. they were as nothing to the vices of calculation. passion was the flesh, ambition the devil. there are vices of democracy, vices of radicalism; very great vices they are too. you may read of them in hume and alison. they are painted black as night and bloody as battle in tory journals of england, and the more vulgar tory journals of america. democracy wrought terrible evils in britain in cromwell's time; in france at her revolution. but to the vices, the crimes, the sins of aristocracy, of conservatism,--they are what the fleeting lust of the youth is to the cool, hard, calculating, and indomitable ambition of the grown man. radicalism pillaged governor hutchinson's house, threw some tea into the ocean; conservatism set up its stamp act, and drove america into revolution. radicalism helped shadrach out of court; conservatism enacted the fugitive slave bill. radicalism sets up a republic that is red for six months; conservatism sets up a red monarchy covered with blood for hundreds of years. judge you from which we have the most to fear. * * * * * such are the safeguards of society; such our condition. what shall we do? nobody would dare pretend to build a church except on righteousness; that is, the rock of ages. can you build a state on any other foundation--that house upon the sand? what should you think of a minister of the church who got his deacons together, and made a creed, and said, "there is no higher law; no law of god. you, laymen, must take our word for your guidance, and do just as we bid you, and violate the plainest commands of conscience?" what would be atheism in a minister of the church,--is that patriotism in a minister of the state? a bad law is a most powerful instrument to demoralize and debauch the people. if it is a law of their own making, it is all the worse. there is no real and manly welfare for a man, without a sense of religious obligation to god; none in a family, none in a church, none in a state. we want righteousness in the people, in their establishments, in their officers. i adjure you to reverence a government that is right, statutes that are right, officers that are right; but to disobey every thing that is wrong. i entreat you by your love for your country, by the memory of your fathers, by your reverence for jesus christ, yea, by the deep and holy love of god which jesus taught, and you now feel. footnotes: [ ] see note on function of the jury, above, p. . [ ] in these times of political corruption, when a postmaster in a country village is turned out of office for voting for a representative to congress who exposed the wickedness of a prominent member of the cabinet, it is pleasant to read such letters as those of washington to benjamin lincoln, march , , and to bushrod washington, july , , in sparks's writings of washington, vol. ix. p. , _et seq._, and x. p. , _et seq._ [ ] in the pilgrim's progress, bunyan gives a case which it is probable was fictitious only in the names of the parties. faithful was indicted before lord hategood for a capital offence. mr. envy testified. then the judge asked him, hast thou any more to say? envy replied: "my lord, i could say much more, only i would not be tedious to the court. yet, if need be, when the other gentlemen have given in their evidence, rather than any thing should be wanting that will dispatch him, i will enlarge my testimony against him." lord hategood stated the law--there were three statutes against the prisoner: . the act of king pharaoh, in exodus ; . that of king nebuchadnezzar in daniel ; and . that of king darius in daniel . the jury took "the law from the ruling of the court," and, having been carefully packed, to judge from the names, and all just men expelled from their number, they readily found such a verdict as the government had previously determined upon. the same thing, _mutatis mutandis_, has been attempted in america, in boston, and we may fear that in some instances it will succeed. [ ] since the first publication of this sermon we have seen eight-and-thirty men indicted for treason under the fugitive slave law, because they resisted the attempt to kidnap one of their number, and killed one of the kidnappers. this indictment was found at the instigation of an officer of the government, who adds new infamy to the name of the great first murderer. [ ] speech at capon springs. viii. the position and duties of the american scholar.--an address delivered at waterville, august , . men of a superior culture get it at the cost of the whole community, and therefore, at first owe for their education. they must pay back an equivalent, or else remain debtors to mankind, debtors forever; that is, beggars or thieves, such being the only class that are thus perpetually in debt and a burden to the race. it is true that every man, the rudest prussian boor, as well as von humboldt, is indebted to mankind for his culture, to their past history and their existing institutions, to their daily toil. taking the whole culture into the account, the debt bears about the same ratio to the receipt in all men. i speak not of genius, the inborn faculty which costs mankind nothing, only of the education thereof, which the man obtains. the irishman who can only handle his spade, wear his garments, talk his wild brogue, and bid his beads, has four or five hundred generations of ancestors behind him, and is as long descended, and from as old a stock, as the accomplished patrician scholar at oxford and berlin. the irishman depends on them all, and on the present generation for his culture. but he has obtained his development with no special outlay and cost of the human race. in getting that rude culture, he has appropriated nothing to himself which is taken from another man's share. he has paid as he went along, so he owes nothing in particular for his education; and mankind has no claim on him as for value received. but the oxford graduate has been a long time at school and college; not earning, but learning; living therefore at the cost of mankind, with an obligation and an implied promise to pay back when he comes of age and takes possession of his educated faculties. he therefore has not only the general debt which he shares with all men, but an obligation quite special and peculiar for his support while at study. this rule is general, and applies to the class of educated men with some apparent exceptions, and a very few real ones. some men are born of poor but strong-bodied parents, and endowed with great abilities; they inherit nothing except their share of the general civilization of mankind, and the onward impulse which that has given. these men devote themselves to study; and having behind them an ancestry of broad-shouldered, hard-handed, stalwart, temperate men, and deep-bosomed, red-armed and industrious mothers, they are able to do the work of two or three men at the time. such men work while they study; they teach while they learn; they hew their own way through the wood by superior strength and skill born in their bones, with an axe themselves have chipped out from the stone, or forged of metal, or paid for with the result of their first hewings. they are specially indebted to nobody for their culture. they pay as they go, owing the academic ferryman nothing for setting them over into the elysium of the scholar. only few men ever make this heroic and crucial experiment. none but poor men's sons essay the trial. nothing but poverty has whips sharp enough to sting indolent men, even of genius, to such exertion of the manly part. but even this proud race often runs into another debt: they run up long scores with the body, which must one day be paid "with aching head and squeamish heart-burnings." the credit on account of the hardy fathers, is not without limit. it is soon exhausted; especially in a land where the atmosphere, the institutions, and the youth of the people all excite to premature and excessive prodigality of effort. the body takes a mortgage on the spendthrift spirit, demands certain regular periodic payments, and will one day foreclose for breach of condition, impede the spirit's action in the premises, putting a very disagreeable keeper there, and finally expel the prodigal mortgagor. so it often happens, that a man, who in his youth scorned a pecuniary debt to mankind, and would receive no favor even to buy culture with, has yet, unconsciously and against his will, contracted debts which trouble him in manhood, and impede his action all his life; with swollen feet and blear eyes famous griesbach pays for the austere heroism of his penurious and needy youth. the rosy bud of genius, on the poor man's tree, too often opens into a lean and ghastly flower. could not burns tell us this? with the rare exceptions just hinted at, any man of a superior culture owes for it when obtained. sometimes the debt is obvious: a farmer with small means and a large family sends the most hopeful of his sons to college. look at the cost of the boy's culture. his hands are kept from work that his mind may be free. he fares on daintier food, wears more and more costly garments. other members of the family must feed and clothe him, earn his tuition-fees, buy his books, pay for his fuel and room-rent. for this the father rises earlier than of old, yoking the oxen a great while before day of a winter's morning, and toils till long after dark of a winter's night, enduring cold and hardship. for this the mother stints her frugal fare, her humble dress; for this the brothers must forego sleep and pastime, must toil harder, late and early both; for this the sisters must seek new modes of profitable work, must wear their old finery long after it is finery no more. the spare wealth of the family, stinted to spare it, is spent on this one youth. from the father to the daughters, all lay their bones to extraordinary work for him; the whole family is pinched in body that this one youth may go brave and full. even the family horse pays his tax to raise the education fee. men see the hopeful scholar, graceful and accomplished, receiving his academic honors, but they see not the hard-featured father standing unheeded in the aisle, nor the older sister in an obscure corner of the gallery, who had toiled in the factory for the favored brother, tending his vineyard, her own not kept, who had perhaps learned the letters of greek to hear him recite the grammar at home. father and sister know not a word of the language in which his diploma is writ and delivered. at what cost of the family tree is this one flower produced? how many leaves, possible blossoms, yea, possible branches have been absorbed to create this one flower, which shall perpetuate the kind, after being beautiful and fragrant in its own season? yet, while these leaves are growing for the blossom's sake, and the life of the tree is directed thither with special and urgent emphasis, the difference between branch and blossom, leaf and petal, is getting more and more. by and by the two cannot comprehend each other; the acorn has forgotten the leaf which reared it, and thinks itself of another kin. grotius, who speaks a host of languages, talking with the learned of all countries, and of every age, has forgot his mother tongue, and speech is at an end with her that bore him. the son, accomplished with many a science, many an art, ceases to understand the simple consciousness of his father and mother. they are proud of him--that he has outgrown them; he ashamed of them when they visit him amid his scholarly company. to them he is a philosopher; they only clowns in his eyes. he learns to neglect, perhaps to despise them, and forgets his obligation and his debt. yet by their rudeness is it that he is refined. his science and literary skill are purchased by their ignorance and uncouthness of manner and of speech. had the educational cost been equally divided, all had still continued on a level; he had known no latin, but the whole family might have spoken good english. for all the difference which education has made betwixt him and his kinsfolk he is a debtor. in new england you sometimes see extremes of social condition brought together. the blue-frocked father, well advanced, but hale as an october morning, jostles into boston in a milk-cart, his red-cheeked grand-daughter beside him, also coming for some useful daily work, while the youngest son, cultured at the cost of that grand-daughter's sire and by that father's toil, is already a famous man; perhaps also a proud one, eloquent at the bar, or powerful in the pulpit, or mighty in the senate. the family was not rich enough to educate all the children after this costly sort; one becomes famous, the rest are neglected, obscure, and perhaps ignorant; the cultivated son has little sympathy with them. so the men that built up the cathedrals of strasbourg and milan slept in mean hutches of mud and straw, dirty, cold, and wet; the finished tower looks proudly down upon the lowly thatch, all heedless of the cost at which itself arose. it is plain that this man owes for his education; it is plain whom he owes. but all men of a superior culture, though born to wealth, get their education in the same way, only there is this additional mischief to complicate the matter: the burden of self-denial is not borne by the man's own family, but by other fathers and mothers, other brothers and sisters. they also pay the cost of his culture, bear the burden for no special end, and have no personal or family joy in the success; they do not even know the scholar they help to train. they who hewed the topstone of society are far away when it is hoisted up with shouting. most of the youths now-a-days trained at harvard college are the sons of rich men, yet they also, not less, are educated at the public charge; beneficiaries not of the "hopkins' fund," but of the whole community. society is not yet rich enough to afford so generous a culture to all who ask, who deserve, or who would pay for it a hundred-fold. the accomplished man who sits in his well-endowed scholarship at oxford, or rejoices to be "master of trinity," though he have the estate of the westminsters and sutherlands behind him, is still the beneficiary of the public, and owes for his schooling. in the general way among the industrious classes of new england, a boy earns his living after he is twelve years old. if he gets the superior education of the scholar solely by the pecuniary aid of his father or others, when he is twenty-five and enters on his profession, law, medicine, or divinity, politics, school-keeping, or trade, he has not earned his latin grammar; has rendered no appreciable service to mankind; others have worked that he might study, and taught that he might learn. he has not paid the first cent towards his own schooling; he is indebted for it to the whole community. the ox-driver in the fields, the pavior in the city streets, the laborer on the railroad, the lumberer in the woods, the girl in the factory, each has a claim on him. if he despises these persons, or cuts himself off from sympathy with them; if he refuses to perform his function for them after they have done their possible to fit him for it; he is not only the perpetual and ungrateful debtor, but is more guilty than the poor man's son who forgets the family that sent him to college: for that family consciously and willingly made the sacrifice, and got some satisfaction for it in the visible success of their scheme, nay, are sometimes proud of the pride which scorns them, while with the mass of men thus slighted there is no return for their sacrifice. they did their part, faithfully did it; their beneficiary forgets his function. the democratic party in new england does not much favor the higher seminaries of education. there has long been a suspicion against them in the mass of the community, and among the friends of the public education of the people a serious distrust. this is the philosophy of that discontent: public money spent on the higher seminaries is so much taken from the humbler schools, so much taken from the colleges of all for the college of the few; men educated at such cost have not adequately repaid the public for the sacrifice made on their account; men of superior education have not been eminently the friends of mankind, they do not eminently represent truth, justice, philanthropy, and piety; they do not point men to lofty human life, and go thitherward in advance of mankind; their superior education has narrowed their sympathies, instead of widening; they use their opportunities against mankind, and not in its behalf; think, write, legislate, and live not for the interest of mankind, but only for a class; instead of eminent wisdom, justice, piety, they have eminent cunning, selfishness, and want of faith. these charges are matters of allegation; judge you if they be not also matters of fact. now there is a common feeling amongst men that the scholar is their debtor, and, in virtue of this, that they have a right to various services from him. no honest man asks the aid of a farmer or a blacksmith without intending to repay him in money; no assembly of mechanics would ask another to come two hundred miles and give them a month's work, or a day's work. yet they will ask a scholar to do so. what gratuitous services are demanded of the physician, of the minister, of the man of science and letters in general! no poor man in boston but thinks he has a good claim on any doctor; no culprit in danger of liberty or life but will ask the services of a lawyer, wholly without recompense, to plead his cause. the poorest and most neglected class of men look on every good clergyman as their missionary and minister and friend; the better educated and more powerful he is, the juster and greater do they feel their claim on him. a pirate in jail may command the services of any christian minister in the land. most of the high achievements in science, letters and art, have had no apparent pay. the pay came beforehand: in general and from god, in the greater ability, "the vision and the faculty divine," but in particular also and from men, in the opportunity afforded them by others for the use and culture thereof. divinely and humanly they are well paid. men feel that they have this right to the services of the scholar, in part because they dimly know that his superior education is purchased at the general cost. hence, too, they are proud of the few able and accomplished men, feeling that all have a certain property therein, as having contributed their mite to the accumulation, by their divine nature related to the men of genius, by their human toil partners in the acquirements of the scholar. this feeling is not confined to men who intellectually can appreciate intellectual excellence. the little parish in the mountains, and the great parish in the city, are alike proud of the able-headed and accomplished scholar, who ministers to them; though neither the poor clowns of the village nor the wealthy clowns of the metropolis could enter into his consciousness and understand his favorite pursuits or loftiest thought. both would think it insulting to pay such a man in full proportion to his work or their receipt. nobody offers a salary to the house of lords: their lordship is their pay, and they must give back, in the form of justice and sound government, an equivalent for all they take in high social rank. they must pay for their nobility by being noble lords. * * * * * how shall the scholar pay for his education? he is to give a service for the service received. thus the miller and the farmer pay one another, each paying with service in his own kind. the scholar cannot pay back bread for bread, and cloth for cloth. he must pay in the scholar's kind, not the woodman's or the weaver's. he is to represent the higher modes of human consciousness; his culture and opportunities of position fit him for that. so he is not merely to go through the routine of his profession, as minister, doctor, lawyer, merchant, schoolmaster, politician, or maker of almanacs, and for his own advantage; he is also to represent truth, justice, beauty, philanthropy, and religion--the highest facts of human experience; he must be common, but not vulgar, and, as a star, must dwell apart from the vulgarity of the selfish and the low. he may win money without doing this, get fame and power, and thereby seem to pay mankind for their advance to him, while he rides upon their neck; but as he has not paid back the scholar's cost and in the scholar's way, he is a debtor still, and owes for his past culture and present position. * * * * * such is the position of the scholar everywhere, and such his consequent obligation. but in america there are some circumstances which make the position and the duty still more important. beside the natural aristocracy of genius, talent, and educated skill, in most countries there is also a conventional and permanent nobility based on royal or patrician descent and immovable aristocracy. its members monopolize the high places of society, and if not strong by nature are so by position. those men check the natural power of the class of scholars. the descendant of some famous chief of old time, takes rank before the bacons, the shakspeares, and the miltons of new families, born yesterday, to-day gladdened and gladdening with the joy of their genius, usurps their place, and for a time "shoves away the worthy bidden guest" from the honors of the public board. here there is no such class: a man born at all is well born; with a great nature, nobly born; the career opens to all that can run, to all men that wish to try; our aristocracy is movable, and the scholar has scope and verge enough. germany has the largest class of scholars; men of talent, sometimes of genius, of great working power, exceedingly well furnished for their work, with a knowledge of the past and the present. on the whole, they seem to have a greater power of thought than the scholars of any other land. they live in a country where intellectual worth is rated at its highest value. as england is the paradise of the patrician and the millionnaire, so is germany for the man of thought; goethe and schiller, and the humboldts took precedence of the mere conventional aristocracy. the empire of money is for england; that of mind is for germany. but there the scholar is positively hindered in his function by the power of the government, which allows freedom of thought, and by education tends to promote it, yet not its correlative freedom of speech, and still less the consequent of that--freedom of act. revelations of new thought are indeed looked for, and encouraged in certain forms, but the corresponding revolution of old things is forbidden. an idea must remain an idea; the government will not allow it to become a deed, an institution, an idea organized in men. the children of the mind must be exposed to die, or, if left alive, their feet are cramped, so that they cannot go alone; useless, joyless, and unwed, they remain in their father's house. the government seeks to establish national unity of action, by the sacrifice of individual variety of action, personal freedom; every man must be a soldier and a christian, wearing the livery of the government on the body and in the soul, and going through the spiritual exercises of the church, as through the manual exercise of the camp. in a nation so enlightened, personal freedom cannot be wholly sacrificed, so thought is left free, but speech restricted by censorship--speech with the human mouth or the iron lips of the press. now, as of old, is there a controversy between the temporal and the spiritual powers, about the investiture of the children of the soul. then, on the other side, the scholar is negatively impeded by the comparative ignorance of the people, by their consequent lack of administrative power and self-help, and their distrust of themselves. there a great illumination has gone on in the upper heavens of the learned, meteors coruscating into extraordinary glory; it has hardly dawned on the low valleys of the common people. if it shines there at all, it is but as the northern aurora with a little crackling noise, lending a feeble and uncertain light, not enough to walk with, and no warmth at all; a light which disturbs the dip and alters the variation of the old historical compass, bewilders the eye, hides the stars, and yet is not bright enough to walk by without stumbling. there is a learned class, very learned and very large, with whom the scholar thinks, and for whom he writes, most uncouthly, in the language only of the schools, and, if not kept in awe by the government, they are contented that a thought should remain always a thought; while in their own heart they disdain all authority but that of truth, justice, and love, they leave the people subject to no rule but the priest, the magistrate, and old custom, which usurp the place of reason, conscience, and the affections. there is a very enlightened pulpit, and a very dull audience. in america, it is said, for every dough-faced representative there is a dough-faced constituency, but in germany there is not an intelligent people for each intelligent scholar. so on condition a great thought be true and revolutionary, it is hard to get it made a thing. ideas go into a nunnery, not a family. phidias must keep his awful jove only in his head; there is no marble to carve it on. eichhorn and strauss, and kant and hegel, with all their pother among the learned, have kept no boor from the communion-table, nor made him discontented with the despotism of the state. they wrote for scholars, perhaps for gentlemen, for the enlightened, not for the great mass of the people, in whom they had no confidence. there is no class of hucksters of thought, who retail philosophy to the million. the million have as yet no appetite for it. so the german scholar is hindered from his function on either hand by the power of the government, or the ignorance of the people. he talks to scholars and not men; his great ideas are often as idle as shells in a lady's cabinet. in america all is quite different. there are no royal or patrician patrons, no plebeian clients in literature, no immovable aristocracy to withstand or even retard the new genius, talent, or skill of the scholar. there is no class organized, accredited and confided in, to resist a new idea; only the unorganized inertia of mankind retards the circulation of thought and the march of men. our historical men do not found historical families; our famous names of to-day are all new names in the state. american aristocracy is bottomed on money which no unnatural laws make steadfast and immovable. to exclude a scholar from the company of rich men, is not to exclude him from an audience that will welcome and appreciate. then the government does not interfere to prohibit the free exercise of thought. speaking is free, preaching free, printing free. no administration in america could put down a newspaper or suppress the discussion of an unwelcome theme. the attempt would be folly and madness. there is no "tonnage and poundage" on thought. it is seldom that lawless violence usurps the place of despotic government. the chief opponent of the new philosophy is the old philosophy. the old has only the advantage of a few years; the advantage of possession of the ground. it has no weapons of defence which the new has not for attack. what hinders the growth of the new democracy of to-day?--only the old democracy of yesterday, once green, and then full blown, but now going to seed. everywhere else walled gardens have been built for it to go quietly to seed in, and men appointed, in god's name or the states', to exterminate as a weed every new plant of democratic thought which may spring up and suck the soil or keep off the sun, so that the old may quietly occupy the ground, and undisturbed continue to decay and contaminate the air. here it has nothing but its own stalk to hold up its head, and is armed with only such spines as it has grown out of its own substance. here the only power which continually impedes the progress of mankind, and is conservative in the bad sense, is wealth, which represents life lived, not now a-living, and labor accumulated, not now a-doing. thus the obstacle to free trade is not the notion that our meat must be home-grown and our coat home-spun, but the money invested in manufactures. slavery is sustained by no prestige of antiquity, no abstract fondness for a patriarchal institution, no special zeal for "christianity" which the churches often tell us demands it, but solely because the americans have invested some twelve hundred millions of dollars in the bodies and souls of their countrymen, and fear they shall lose their capital. whitney's gin for separating the cotton from its blue seed, making its culture and the labor of the slave profitable, did more to perpetuate slavery than all the "compromises of the constitution." the last argument in its favor is always this: it brings money, and we would not lose our investment. weapon a man with iron he will stand and fight; with gold, he will shrink and run. the class of capitalists are always cowardly; here they are the only cowardly class that has much political or social influence. here gold is the imperial metal; nothing but wealth is consecrated for life: the tonsure gets covered up or grown over; vows of celibacy are no more binding than dicers' oaths; allegiance to the state is as transferable as a cent, and may be alienated by going over the border; church-communion may be changed or neglected; as men will, they sign off from church and state; only the dollar holds its own continually, and is the same under all administrations, "safe from the bar, the pulpit and the throne." obstinate money continues in office spite of the proscriptive policy of polk and taylor; the laws may change, south carolina move out of the nation, the constitution be broken, the union dissolved, still money holds its own. that is the only peculiar weapon which the old has wherewith to repel the new. here, too, the scholar has as much freedom as he will take; himself alone stands in his own light, nothing else between him and the infinite majesty of truth. he is free to think, to speak, to print his word and organize his thought. no class of men monopolize public attention or high place. he comes up to the genius of america, and she asks: "what would you have, my little man?" "more liberty," lisps he. "just as much as you can carry," is the answer. "pay for it and take it, as much as you like, there it is." "but it is guarded!" "only by gilded flies in the daytime; they look like hornets, but can only buzz, not bite with their beak, nor sting with their tail. at night it is defended by daws and beetles, noisy but harmless. here is marble, my son, not classic and famous as yet, but good as the parian stone; quarry as much as you will, enough for a nymph or a temple. say your wisest and do your best thing; nobody will hurt you!" not much more is the scholar impeded by the ignorance of the people, not at all in respect to the substance of his thought. there is no danger that he will shoot over the heads of the people by thinking too high for the multitude. we have many authors below the market; scarce one above it. the people are continually looking for something better than our authors give. no american author has yet been too high for the comprehension of the people, and compelled to leave his writings "to posterity after some centuries shall have passed by." if he has thought with the thinkers and has something to say, and can speak it in plain speech, he is sure to be widely understood. there is no learned class to whom he may talk latin or sanscrit, and who will understand him if he write as ill as immanuel kant; there is not a large class to buy costly editions of ancient classics, however beautiful, or magnificent works on india, egypt, mexico--the class of scholars is too poor for that, the rich men have not the taste for such beauty--but there is an intelligent class of men who will hear a man if he has what is worth listening to and says it plain. it will be understood and appreciated, and soon reduced to practice. let him think as much in advance of men as he will, as far removed from the popular opinion as he may, if he arrives at a great truth he is sure of an audience, not an audience of fellow-scholars, as in germany, but of fellow-men; not of the children of distinguished or rich men--rather of the young parents of such, an audience of earnest, practical people, who, if his thought be a truth, will soon make it a thing. they will appreciate the substance of his thought, though not the artistic form which clothes it. this peculiar relation of the man of genius to the people comes from american institutions. here the greatest man stands nearest to the people, and without a mediator speaks to them face to face. this is a new thing: in the classic nations oratory was for the people, so was the drama, and the ballad; that was all their literature. but this came to the people only in cities: the tongue travels slow and addresses only the ear, while swiftly hurries on the printed word and speaks at once to a million eyes. thucydides and tacitus wrote for a few; virgil sang the labors of the shepherd in old ascræan verse, but only to the wealthy wits of rome. "i hate the impious crowd and stave them off," was the scholar's maxim then. all writing was for the few. the best english literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is amenable to the same criticism, except the dramatic and the religious. it is so with all the permanent literature of europe of that time. the same must be said even of much of the religious literature of the scholars then. the writings of taylor, of barrow, and south, of bossuet, massillon and bourdaloue, clergymen though they were, speaking with a religious and therefore a universal aim, always presuppose a narrow audience of men of nice culture. so they drew their figures from the schoolmen, from the greek anthology, from heathen classics and the christian fathers. their illustrations were embellishments to the scholar, but only palpable darkness to the people. this fact of writing for a few nice judges was of great advantage to the form of the literature thus produced, but a disadvantage to the substance thereof, a misfortune to the scholar himself, for it belittled his sympathies and kept him within a narrow range. even the religious literature of the men just named betrays a lack of freedom, a thinking for the learned and not for mankind; it has breathed the air of the cloister, not the sky, and is tainted with academic and monastic diseases. so the best of it is over-sentimental, timid, and does not point to hardy, manly life. only luther and latimer preached to the million hearts of their contemporaries. the dramatic literature, on the other hand, was for box, pit and gallery; hence the width of poetry in its great masters; hence many of its faults of form; and hence the wild and wanton luxuriance of beauty which flowers out all over the marvellous field of art where shakspeare walked and sung. in the pulpit, excellence was painted as a priest, or monk, or nun, loving nothing but god; on the stage, as a soldier, magistrate, a gentleman or simpleman, a wife and mother, loving also child and friend. only the literature of the player and the singer of ballads was for the people. here all is changed, every thing that is written is for the hands of the million. in three months mr. macaulay has more readers in america than thucydides and tacitus in twelve centuries. literature, which was once the sacrament of the few, only a shew-bread to the people, is now the daily meat of the multitude. the best works get reprinted with great speed; the highest poetry is soon in all the newspapers. authors know this, and write accordingly. it is only scientific works which ask for a special public. but even science, the proudest of the day, must come down from the clouds of the academy, lay off its scholastic garb, and appear before the eyes of the multitude in common work-day clothes. to large and mainly unlearned audiences agassiz and walker set forth the highest teachings of physics and metaphysics, not sparing difficult things, but putting them in plain speech. emerson takes his majestic intuitions of truth and justice, which transcend the experience of the ages, and expounds them to the mechanics' apprentices, to the factory girls at lowell and chicopee, and to the merchants' clerks at boston. the more original the speaker, and the more profound, the better is he relished; the beauty of the form is not appreciated, but the original substance welcomed into new life over the bench, the loom, and even the desk of the counting-house. of a deep man the people ask clearness also, thinking he does not see a thing wholly till he sees it plain. from this new relation of the scholar to the people, and the direct intimacy of his intercourse with men, there comes a new modification of his duty: he is to represent the higher facts of human consciousness to the people, and express them in the speech of the people; to think with the sage and saint, but talk with common men. it is easy to discourse with scholars, and in the old academic carriage drive through the broad gateway of the cultivated class; but here the man of genius is to take the new thought on his shoulders and climb up the stiff, steep hill, and find his way where the wild asses quench their thirst, and the untamed eagle builds his nest. hence our american scholar must cultivate the dialectics of speech as well as thought. power of speech without thought, a long tongue in an empty head, calls the people together once or twice, but soon its only echo is from an audience of empty pews. thought without power of speech finds little welcome here; there are not scholars enough to keep it in countenance. this popularity of intelligence gives a great advantage to the man of letters, who is also a man. he can occupy the whole space between the extremes of mankind; can be at once philosopher in his thought and people in his speech, deliver his word without an interpreter to mediate, and, like king mithridates in the story, talk with the fourscore nations of his camp each in his own tongue. further still, there are some peculiarities of the american mind, in which we differ from our english brothers. they are more inclined to the matter of fact, and appeal to history; we, to the matter of ideas, and having no national history but of a revolution, may appeal at once to human nature. so while they are more historical, fond of names and precedents, enamoured of limited facts and coy towards abstract and universal ideas, with the maxim, "stand by the fixed," we are more metaphysical, ideal, do not think a thing right because actual, nor impossible because it has never been. the americans are more metaphysical than the english; have departed more from the old sensational philosophy, have welcomed more warmly the transcendental philosophy of germany and france. the declaration of independence and all the state constitutions of the north begin with a universal and abstract idea. even preaching is abstract and of ideas. calvinism bears metaphysical fruit in new england. this fact modifies still more the function of the duty of the scholar. it determines him to ideas, to facts for the ideas they cover, not so much to the past as the future, to the past only that he may guide the present and construct the future. he is to take his run in the past to acquire the momentum of history, his stand in the present and leap into the future. in this manner the position and duty of the scholar in america are modified and made peculiar; and thus is the mode determined for him, in which to pay for his education in the manner most profitable to the public that has been at the cost of his training. there is a test by which we measure the force of a horse or a steam-engine: the raising of so many pounds through so many feet in a given time. the test of the scholar's power is his ability to raise men in their development. in america there are three chief modes of acting upon the public, omitting others of small account. the first is the power which comes of national wealth; the next, that of political station; the third, power of spiritual wealth, so to say, eminent wisdom, justice, love, piety, the power of sentiments and ideas, and the faculty of communicating them to other men, and organizing them therein. for the sake of shortness, let each mode of power be symbolized by its instrument, and we have the power of the purse, of the office, and the pen. the purse represents the favorite mode of power with us. this is natural in our present stage of national existence and human development; it is likely to continue for a long time. in all civilized countries which have outgrown the period when the sword was the favorite emblem, the purse represents the favorite mode of power with the mass of men; but here it is so with the men of superior education. this power is not wholly personal, but extra-personal, and the man's centre of gravity lies out of himself, less or more; somewhere between the man and his last cent, the distance being greater or less as the man is less or greater than the estate. this is wielded chiefly by men of little education, except the practical culture which they have gained in the process of accumulation. their riches they get purposely, their training by the way and accidentally. it is a singular misfortune of the country, that, while the majority of the people are better cultivated and more enlightened than any other population in the world, the greater part of the wealth of the nation is owned by men of less education and consequently of less enlightenment than the rich men of any leading nation in europe. in england and france the wealth of this generation is chiefly inherited, and has generally fallen to men carefully trained, with minds disciplined by academic culture. here wealth is new, and mainly in the hands of men who have scrambled for it adroitly and with vigor. they have energy, vigor, forecast, and a certain generosity, but as a class, are narrow, vulgar, and conceited. nine tenths of the property of the people is owned by one tenth of the persons, and these capitalists are men of little culture, little moral elevation. this is an accident of our position unavoidable, perhaps transient; but it is certainly a misfortune that the great estates of the country, and the social and political power of such wealth, should be mainly in the hands of such men. the melancholy result appears in many a disastrous shape: in the tone of the pulpit, of the press, and of the national politics; much of the vulgarity of the nation is to be ascribed to this fact, that wealth belongs to men who know nothing better. the office represents the next most popular mode of power. this also is extra-personal, the man's centre of gravity is out of himself, somewhere between him and the lowest man in the state; the distance depending on the proportion of manhood in him and the multitude, if the office is much greater than the man, then the officer's centre of gravity is further removed from his person. this is sought for by the ablest and best educated men in the land. but there is a large class of educated persons who do not aspire to it from lack of ability, for in our form of government it commonly takes some saliency of character to win the high places of office and use respectably this mode of power, while it demands no great or lofty talents to accumulate the largest fortune in america. it is true the whirlwind of an election, by the pressure of votes, may, now and then, take a very heavy body up to a great height. yet it does not keep him from growing giddy and ridiculous while there, and after a few years lets him fall again into complete insignificance, whence no hercules can ever lift him up. a corrupt administration may do the same, but with the same result. this consideration keeps many educated men from the political arena; others are unwilling to endure the unsavory atmosphere of politics, and take part in a scramble so vulgar; but still a large portion of the educated and scholarly talent of the nation goes to that work. the power of the pen is wholly personal. it is the appropriate instrument of the scholar, but it is least of all desired and sought for. the rich man sends his sons to trade, to make too much of inheritance yet more by fresh acquisitions of superfluity. he does not send them to literature, art or science. you find the scholar slipping in to other modes of action, not the merchants and politicians migrating into this. he longs to act by the gravity of his money or station, not draw merely by his head. the office carries the day before the pen; the purse takes precedence of both. educated men do not so much seek places that demand great powers, as those which bring much gold. self-denial for money or office is common, for scholarship rare and unpopular. to act by money, not mind, is the ill-concealed ambition of many a well-bred man; the desire of this colors his day-dream, which is less of wisdom and more of wealth, or of political station; so a first-rate clergyman desires to be razed to a second-rate politician, and some "tall admiral" of a politician consents to be cut down and turned into a mere sloop of trade. the representative in congress becomes a president of an insurance office or a bank, or the agent of a cotton mill; the judge deserts his station on the bench and presides over a railroad; the governor or senator wants a place in the post-office; the historian longs for a "chance in the custom-house." the pen stoops to the office, that to the purse. the scholar would rather make a fortune by a balsam of wild cherry than write hamlet or paradise lost for nothing; rather than help mankind by making a paradise regained. the well-endowed minister thinks how much more money he might have made had he speculated in stocks and not theology, and mourns that the kingdom of heaven does not pay in this present life fourfold. the professor of greek is sorry he was not a surveyor and superintendent of a railroad, he should have so much more money; that is what he has learned from plato and diogenes. we estimate the skill of an artist like that of a peddler, not by the pictures he has made, but by the money. there is a mercantile way of determining literary merit not by the author's books, but by his balance with the publisher. no church is yet called after a man who is merely rich, something in the new testament might hinder that; but the ministers estimate their brother minister by the greatness of his position, not of his character; not by his piety and goodness, not even by his reason and understanding, the culture he has attained thereby, and the use he makes thereof, but by the wealth of his church and the largeness of his salary; so that he is not thought the fortunate and great minister who has a large outgo of spiritual riches, rebukes the sins of the nation and turns many to righteousness, but he who has a large material income, ministers, though poorly, to rich men, and is richly paid for that function. the well-paid clergymen of a city tell the professor of theology that he must teach "such doctrines as the merchants approve," or they will not give money to the college, and he, it, and "the cause of the lord" will all come to the ground at the same time and in kindred confusion. so blind money would put out the heavenly eyes of science, and lead her also to his own ditch. it must not be forgotten that there are men in the midst of us, rich, respectable and highly honored with social rank and political power, who practically and in strict conformity with their theory, honor judas, who made money by his treachery, far more than jesus who laid down his life for men, whose money is deemed better than manhood. it must indeed be so. any outrage that is profitable to the controlling portion of society is sure to be welcome to the leaders of the state, and is soon pronounced divine by the leaders of the church. it would seem as if the pen ought to represent the favorite mode of power at a college; but even there the waters of pactolus are thought fairer than the castalian, heliconian spring, or "siloa's brook that flowed fast by the oracle of god." the college is named after the men of wealth, not genius. how few professorships in america bear the names of men of science or letters, and not of mere rich men! which is thought the greatest benefactor of a college, he who endows it with money or with mind? even there it is the purse, not the pen that is the symbol of honor, and the university is "up for california," not parnassus. even in politics the purse turns the scale. let a party wrestle never so hard it cannot throw the dollar. money controls and commands talent, not talent money. the successful shopkeeper frowns on and browbeats the accomplished politician, who has too much justice for the wharf and the board of brokers; he notices that the rich men avert their eye, or keep their beaver down, trembles and is sad, fearing that his daughter will never find a fitting spouse. the purse buys up able men of superior education, corrupts and keeps them as its retained attorneys, in congress or the church, not as counsel but advocate, bribed to make the worse appear the better reason, and so help money to control the state and wield its power against the interest of mankind. this is perfectly well known; but no politician or minister, bribed to silence or to speech, ever loses his respectability because he is bought by respectable men,--if he get his pay. in all countries but this the office is before the purse; here the state is chiefly an accessory of the exchange, and our politics only mercantile. this appears sometimes against our will, in symbols not meant to tell the tale. thus in the house of representatives in massachusetts, a codfish stares the speaker in the face--not a very intellectual looking fish. when it was put there it was a symbol of the riches of the state, and so of the commonwealth. with singular and unconscious satire it tells the legislature to have an eye "to the main chance," and, but for its fidelity to its highest instincts and its obstinate silence, might be a symbol good enough for the place. now after the office and the purse have taken their votaries from the educated class, the ablest men are certainly not left behind. three roads open before our young hercules as he leaves college, having respectively as finger-post, the pen, the office, and the purse. few follow the road of letters. this need not be much complained of; nay it might be rejoiced in, if the purse and the office in their modes of power did represent the higher consciousness of mankind. but no one contends it is so. still there are men who devote themselves to some literary callings which have no connection with political office, and which are not pursued for the sake of great wealth. such men produce the greater part of the permanent literature of the country. they are eminently scholars; permanent scholars who act by their scholar-craft, not by the state-craft of the politician, or the purse-craft of the capitalist. how are these men paying their debt and performing their function? the answer must be found in the science and the literature of the land. american science is something of which we may well be proud. mr. liebig in germany has found it necessary to defend himself from the charge of following science for the loaves and fishes thereof, and he declares that he espoused chemistry not for her wealthy dower, not even for the services her possible children might render to mankind, but solely for her own sweet sake. amongst the english race, on both sides of the ocean, science is loved rather for the fruit than the blossom; its service to the body is thought of more value than its service to the mind. a man's respectability would be in danger, in america, if he loved any science better than the money or fame it might bring. it is characteristic of us that a scholar should write for reputation and gold. here, as elsewhere, the unprofitable parts of science fall to the lot of poor men. when the rich man's son has the natural calling that way, public opinion would dissuade him from the study of nature. the greatest scientific attainments do not give a man so high social consideration as a political office or a successful speculation--unless it be the science which makes money. scientific schools we call after merely rich men, not men of wealthy minds. it is true we name streets and squares, towns and counties after franklin, but it is because he keeps the lightning from factories, churches, and barns; tells us not "to give too much for the whistle," and teaches "the way to make money plenty in every man's pocket." we should not name them after cuvier and la place. notwithstanding this, the scientific scholars of america, both the home-born and the adopted sons, have manfully paid for their culture, and done honor to the land. this is true of men in all departments of science,--from that which searches the deeps of the sky to that which explores the shallows of the sea. individuals, states, and the nation have all done themselves honor by the scientific researches and discoveries that have been made. the outlay of money and of genius for things which only pay the head and not the mouth of man, is beautiful and a little surprising in such a utilitarian land as this. time would fail me to attend to particular cases. look at the literature of america. reserving the exceptional portion thereof to be examined in a moment, let us study the instantial portion of it, american literature as a whole. this may be distributed into two main divisions: first comes the permanent literature, consisting of works not designed merely for a single and transient occasion, but elaborately wrought for a general purpose. this is literature proper. next follows the transient literature, which is brought out for a particular occasion, and designed to serve a special purpose. let us look at each. the permanent literature of america is poor and meagre; it does not bear the mark of manly hands, of original, creative minds. most of it is rather milk for babes than meat for men, though much of it is neither fresh meat nor new milk, but the old dish often served up before. in respect to its form, this portion of our literature is an imitation. that is natural enough, considering the youth of the country. every nation, like every man, even one born to genius, begins by imitation. raphael, with servile pencil, followed his masters in his youth, but at length his artistic eye attracted new-born angels from the calm stillness of their upper heaven, and with liberal, free hand, with masterly and original touch, the painter of the newness amazed the world. the early christian literature is an imitation of the hebrew or the classic type: even after centuries had passed by, sidonius, though a bishop of the church, and destined to become a saint, uses the old heathen imagery, referring to triptolemus as a model for christian work, and talks about triton and galatea, to the christian queen of the goths. saint ambrose is a notorious imitator of pagan cicero. the christians were all anointed with jewish nard; and the sour grapes they ate in sacrament have set on edge their children's teeth till now. the modern nations of europe began their literature by the driest copies of livy and virgil. the germans have the most original literature of the last hundred years. but till the middle of the past century their permanent literature was chiefly in latin and french, with as little originality as our own. the real poetic life of the nation found vent in other forms. it is natural therefore, and according to the course of history, that we should begin in this way. the best political institutions of england are cherished here, so her best literature, and it is not surprising that we are content with this rich inheritance of artistic toil. in many things we are independent, but in much that relates to the higher works of man, we are still colonies of england. this appears not only in the vulgar fondness for english fashions, manners and the like, which is chiefly an affectation, but in the servile style with which we copy the great or little models of english literature. sometimes this is done consciously, oftener without knowing it. but the substance of our permanent literature is as faulty as its form. it does not bear marks of a new, free, vigorous mind at work, looking at things from the american point of view, and though it put its thought in antique forms, yet thinking originally and for itself. it represents the average thought of respectable men, directed to some particular subject, and their average morality. it represents nothing more; how could it while the ablest men have gone off to politics or trade? it is such literature as almost anybody might get up if you would give him a little time to make the preliminary studies. there is little in it that is national; little individual and of the writer's own mind; it is ground out in the public literary mill. it has no noble sentiments, no great ideas, nothing which makes you burn; nothing which makes you much worse or much better. you may feed on this literature all your days, and whatsoever you may gain in girth, you shall not take in thought enough to add half an inch to your stature. out of every hundred american literary works printed since the century began, about eighty will be of this character. compare the four most conspicuous periodicals of america with the four great quarterlies of england, and you see how inferior our literature is to theirs--in all things, in form and in substance too. the european has the freedom of a well-bred man--it appears in the movement of his thought, his use of words, in the easy grace of his sentences, and the general manner of his work; the american has the stiffness and limitations of a big, raw boy in the presence of his schoolmaster. they are proud of being english, and so have a certain lofty nationality which appears in their thought and the form thereof, even in the freedom to use and invent new words. our authors of this class seem ashamed that they are americans, and accordingly are timid, ungraceful and weak. they dare not be original when they could. hence this sort of literature is dull. a man of the average mind and conscience, heart and soul, studies a particular subject a short time--for this is the land of brief processes--and writes a book thereof, or thereon; a critic of the same average makes his special study of the book, not its theme, "reviews" the work; is as ready, and able to pass judgment on bowditch's translation of la place in ten days after its appearance as ten years, and distributes praise and blame, not according to the author's knowledge, but the critic's ignorant caprice, and then average men read the book and the critique with no immoderate joy or unmeasured grief. they learn some new facts, no new ideas, and get no lofty impulse. the book was written without inspiration, without philosophy, and is read with small profit. yet it is curious to observe the praise which such men receive, how soon they are raised to the house of lords in english literature. i have known three american sir walter scotts, half a dozen addisons, one or two macaulays, a historian that was hume and gibbon both in one; several burnses, and miltons by the quantity, not "mute," the more is the pity, but "inglorious" enough; nay, even vain-glorious at the praise which some penny-a-liner, or dollar-a-pager foolishly gave their cheap extemporary stuff. in sacred literature it is the same: in a single winter at boston we had two american saint johns, in full blast for several months. though no felix trembles, there are now extant in the united states not less than six american saint pauls, in no manner of peril except the most dangerous--of idle praise. a living, natural, and full-grown literature contains two elements. one is of mankind in general; that is human and universal. the other is of the tribe in special, and of the writer in particular. this is national and even personal: you see the idiosyncracy of the nation and the individual author in the work. the universal human substance accepts the author's form, and the public wine of mankind runs into the private bottle of the author. thus the hebrew literature of the old testament is fresh and original in substance and in form; the two elements are plain enough, the universal and the particular. the staple of the psalms of david is human, of mankind, it is trust in god; but the twist, the die, the texture, the pattern, all that is hebrew--of the tribe, and personal--of david, shepherd, warrior, poet, king. you see the pastoral hill-sides of judea in his holy hymns; nay, "uriah's beauteous wife" now and then sidles in to his sweetest psalm. the old testament books smell of palestine, of its air and its soil. the rose of sharon has hebrew earth about its roots. the geography of the holy land, its fauna and its flora both, even its wind and sky, its early and its latter rain, all appear in the literature of historian and bard. it is so in the iliad. you see how the sea looked from homer's point of view, and know how he felt the west wind, cold and raw. the human element has an ionian form and a homeric hue. the ballads of the people in scotland and england are national in the same way; the staple of human life is wrought into the scottish form. before the germans had any permanent national literature of this character, their fertile mind found vent in legends, popular stories, now the admiration of the learned. these had at home the german dress, but as the stories travelled into other lands, they kept their human flesh and blood, but took a different garb and acquired a different complexion from every country which they visited, and, like the streams of their native swabia, took the color of the soil they travelled through. the permanent and instantial literature of america is not national in this sense. it has little that is american; it might as well be written by some book-wright in leipsic or london, and then imported. the individuality of the nation is not there, except in the cheap, gaudy binding of the work. the nationality of america is only stamped on the lids, and vulgarly blazoned on the back. is the book a history? it is written with no such freedom as you should expect of a writer, looking at the breadth of the world from the lofty stand-point of america. there is no new philosophy of history in it. you would not think it was written in a democracy that keeps the peace without armies or a national jail. mr. macaulay writes the history of england as none but a north-briton could do. astonishingly well-read, equipped with literary skill at least equal to the masterly art of voltaire, mapping out his subject like an engineer, and adorning it like a painter, you yet see, all along, that the author is a scotchman and a whig. nobody else could have written so. it is of mr. macaulay. but our american writer thinks about matters just as everybody else does; that is, he does not think at all, but only writes what he reads, and then, like the good-natured bear in the nursery story, "thinks he has been thinking." it is no such thing, he has been writing the common opinion of common men, to get the applause of men as common as himself. is the book of poetry? the substance is chiefly old, the form old, the allusions are old. it is poetry of society, not of nature. you meet in it the same everlasting mythology, the same geography, botany, zoölogy, the same symbols; a new figure of speech suggested by the sight of nature, not the reading of books, you could no more find than a fresh shad in the dead sea. you take at random eight or ten "american poets" of this stamp, you see at once what was the favorite author with each new bard; you often see what particular work of shelley, or tennyson, or milton, or george herbert, or, if the man has culture enough, of goethe, or uhland, jean paul, or schiller, suggested the "american original." his inspiration comes from literature, not from the great universe of nature or of human life. you see that this writer has read percy's reliques, and the german wunderhorn; but you would not know that he wrote in a republic--in a land full of new life, with great rivers and tall mountains, with maple and oak trees that turn red in the autumn, amongst a people who hold town-meetings, have free schools for everybody, read newspapers voraciously, who have lightning rods on their steeples, ride in railroads, are daguerreotyped by the sun, and who talk by lightning from halifax to new orleans, who listen to the whippoorwill and the bobolink, who believe in slavery and the declaration of independence, in the devil and the five points of calvinism. you would not know where our poet lived, or that he lived anywhere. reading the iliad, you doubt that homer was born blind; but our bard seems to have been deaf also, and for expressing what was national in his time, might likewise have been dumb. is it a volume of sermons? they might have been written at edinburgh, madrid, or constantinople as well as in new england; as well preached to the "homo sapiens" of linnæus, or the man in the moon, as to the special audience that heard, or heard them not, but only paid for having the things preached. there is nothing individual about them; the author seems as impersonal as spinoza's conception of god. the sermons are like an almanac calculated for the meridian of no place in particular, for no time in special. there is no allusion to any thing american. the author never mentions a river this side of the jordan; knows no mountain but lebanon, zion, and carmel, and would think it profane to talk of the alleghanies and the mississippi, of monadnock and the androscoggin. he mentions babylon and jerusalem, not new york and baltimore; you would never dream that he lived in a church without a bishop, and a state without a king, in a democratic nation that held three million slaves, with ministers chosen by the people. he is surrounded, clouded over, and hid by the traditions of the "ages of faith" behind him. he never thanks god for the dew and snow, only for "the early and the latter rain" of a classic sacred land; a temperance man, he blesses god for the wine because the great psalmist did so thousands of years ago. he speaks of the olive and the fig-tree which he never saw, not of the apple-tree and the peach before his eyes all day long, their fruit the joy of his children's heart. if you guessed at his time and place, you would think he lived, not under general taylor, but under king ahab, or jeroboam; that his audience rode on camels or in chariots, not in steam-cars; that they fought with bows and arrows against the children of moab; that their favorite sin was the worship of some graven image, and that they made their children pass through the fire unto moloch, not through the counting-house unto mammon. you would not know whether the preacher was married or a bachelor, rich or poor, saint or sinner; you would probably conclude he was not much of a saint, nor even much of a sinner. the authors of this portion of our literature seem ashamed of america. one day she will take her revenge. they are the parasites of letters, and live on what other men have made classic. they would study the holy land, greece, etruria, egypt, nineveh, spots made famous by great and holy men, and let the native races of america fade out, taking no pains to study the monuments which so swiftly pass away from our own continent. it is curious that most of the accounts of the indians of north america come from men not natives here, from french and germans; and characteristic that we should send an expedition to the dead sea, while wide tracts of this continent lie all untouched by the white man's foot; and, also, that while we make such generous and noble efforts to christianize and bless the red, yellow, and black heathens at the world's end, we should leave the american indian and negro to die in savage darkness, the south making it penal to teach a black man to write or read. yet, there is one portion of our permanent literature, if literature it may be called, which is wholly indigenous and original. the lives of the early martyrs and confessors are purely christian, so are the legends of saints and other pious men: there was nothing like this in the hebrew or heathen literature; cause and occasion were alike wanting for it. so we have one series of literary productions that could be written by none but americans, and only here: i mean the lives of fugitive slaves. but as these are not the work of the men of superior culture, they hardly help to pay the scholar's debt. yet all the original romance of america is in them, not in the white man's novel. * * * * * next is the transient literature, composed chiefly of speeches, orations, state papers, political and other occasional pamphlets, business reports, articles in the journals, and other productions designed to serve some present purpose. these are commonly the work of educated men, though not of such as make literature a profession. taking this department as a whole, it differs much from the permanent literature; here is freshness of thought and newness of form. if american books are mainly an imitation of old models, it would be difficult to find the prototype of some american speeches. they "would have made quintilian stare and gasp." take the state papers of the american government during the administration of mr. polk, the speeches made in congress at the same time, the state papers of the several states--you have a much better and more favorable idea of the vigor and originality of the american mind, than you would get from all the bound books printed in that period. the diplomatic writings of american politicians compare favorably with those of any nation in the world. in eloquence no modern nation is before us, perhaps none is our equal. here you see the inborn strength and manly vigor of the american mind. you meet the same spirit which fells the forest, girdles the land with railroads, annexes texas and covets cuba, nicaragua, all the world. you see that the authors of this literature are workers also. others have read of wild beasts; here are the men that have seen the wolf. a portion of this literature represents the past, and has the vices already named. it comes from human history and not human nature; as you read it, you think of the inertia and the cowardliness of mankind; nothing is progressive, nothing noble, generous or just, only respectable. the past is preferred before the present; money is put before men, a vested right before a natural right. such literature appears in all countries. the ally of despotism, and the foe of mankind, it is yet a legitimate exponent of a large class of men. the leading journals of america, political and commercial, or literary, are poor and feeble; our reviews of books afford matter for grave consideration. you would often suppose them written by the same hand which manufactures the advertisements of the grand caravan, or some patent medicine; or when unfavorable, by some of the men who write defamatory articles on the eve of an election. but a large part of this transient literature is very different in its character. its authors have broken with the traditions of the past; they have new ideas, and plans for putting them in execution; they are full of hope; are national to the extreme, bragging and defiant. they put the majority before institutions; the rights of the majority before the privilege of a few; they represent the onward tendency and material prophecy of the nation. the new activity of the american mind here expresses its purpose and its prayer. here is strength, hope, confidence, even audacity; all is american. but the great idea of the absolute right does not appear, all is more national than human; and in what concerns the nation, it is not justice, the point where all interests are balanced, and the welfare of each harmonizes with that of all, which is sought; but the "greatest good of the greatest number;" that is, only a privilege had at the cost of the smaller number. here is little respect for universal humanity; little for the eternal laws of god which override all the traditions and contrivances of men; more reverence for a statute, or constitution, which is indeed the fundamental law of the political state, but is often only an attempt to compromise between the fleeting passions of the day and the immutable morality of god. amid all the public documents of the nation and the several states, in the speeches and writings of favorite men, who represent and so control the public mind, for fifty years, there is little that "stirs the feelings infinite" within you; much to make us more american, not more manly. there is more head than heart; native intellect enough; culture that is competent, but little conscience, or real religion. how many newspapers, how many politicians in the land go at all beyond the whig idea of protecting the property now accumulated, or the democratic idea of ensuring the greatest material good of the greatest number? where are we to look for the representative of justice, of the unalienable rights of all the people and all the nations? in the triple host of article-makers, speech-makers, lay and clerical, and makers of laws, you find but few who can be trusted to stand up for the unalienable rights of men; who will never write, speak, nor vote in the interests of a party, but always in the interest of mankind, and will represent the justice of god in the forum of the world. this literature, like the other, fails of the high end of writing and of speech: with more vigor, more freedom, more breadth of vision, and an intense nationality, the authors thereof are just as far from representing the higher consciousness of mankind, just as vulgar as the tame and well-licked writers of the permanent literature. here are the men who have cut their own way through the woods, men with more than the average intelligence, daring and strength, but with less than the average justice which is honesty in the abstract, less than the average honesty which is justice concentrated upon small particulars. examine both these portions of american literature, the permanent and the fleeting--you see their educated authors are no higher than the rest of men. they are the slaves of public opinion, as much as the gossip in her little village. it may not be the public opinion of a coterie of crones, but of a great party; that makes little odds, they are worshippers of the same rank, idolaters of the same wealth; the gossiping granny shows her littleness the size of life, while their deformity is magnified by the solar microscope of high office. many a popular man exhibits his pigmy soul to the multitude of a whole continent, idly mistaking it for greatness. they are swayed by vulgar passions, seek vulgar ends, address vulgar motives, use vulgar means; they may command by their strength, they cannot refine by their beauty or instruct by their guidance, and still less inspire by any eminence of manhood which they were born to or have won. they build on the surface-sand for to-day, not on the rock of ages forever. with so little conscience, they heed not the solemn voice of history, and respect no more the prophetic instincts of mankind. to most men the approbation of their fellows, is one of the most desirable things. this approbation appears in the various forms of admiration, respect, esteem, confidence, veneration and love. the great man obtains this after a time, and in its highest forms, without seeking it, simply by faithfulness to his nature. he gets it, by rising and doing his work, in the course of nature, as easily and as irresistibly as the sun gathers to the clouds the evaporation of land and sea, and like the sun to shed it down in blessings on mankind. little men seek this, consciously or not knowing it, by stooping, cringing, flattering the pride, the passion, or the prejudice of others. so they get the approbation of men, but never of man. sometimes this is sought for by the attainment of some accidental quality, which low-minded men hold in more honor than the genius of sage or poet, or the brave manhood of some great hero of the soul. in england though money is power, it is patrician birth which is nobility, and valued most; and there, accordingly, birth takes precedence of all, of genius and even of gold. men seek the companionship or the patronage of titled lords, and social rank depends upon nobility of blood. the few bishops in the upper house do more to give conventional respectability to the clerical profession there, than all the solid intellect of hooker, barrow, and of south, the varied and exact learning of philosophic cudworth, the eloquence and affluent piety of taylor, and butler's vast and manly mind. in america social rank depends substantially on wealth, an accident as much as noble birth, but movable. here gold takes precedence of all,--of genius, and even of noble birth. "though your sire had royal blood within him, and though you possess the intellect of angels too, 'tis all in vain;--the world will ne'er inquire on such a score:--why should it take the pains? 'tis easier to weigh purses, sure, than brains." wealth is sought, not merely as a means of power but of nobility. when obtained, it has the power of nobility: so poor men of superior intellect and education, powerful by nature, not by position, fear to disturb the opinion of wealthy men, to instruct their ignorance or rebuke their sin. hence the aristocracy of wealth, illiterate and vulgar, goes unrebuked, and debases the natural aristocracy of mind and culture which bows down to it. the artist prostitutes his pencil and his skill, and takes his law of beauty from the fat clown, whose barns and pigs and wife he paints for daily bread. the preacher does the same; and though the stench of the rum-shop infests the pulpit, and death hews down the leaders of his flock, the preacher must cry "peace, peace," or else be still, for rum is power! but this power of wealth has its antagonistic force--the power of numbers. much depends on the dollar. nine tenths of the property is owned by one tenth of all these men--but much also on the votes of the million. the few are strong by money, the many by their votes. each is worshipped by its votaries, and its approbation sought. he that can get the men controls the money too. so while one portion of educated men bows to the rich, and consecrates their passion and their prejudice, another portion bows, equally prostrate, to the passions of the multitude of men. the many and the rich have each a public opinion of their own, and both are tyrants. here the tyranny of public opinion is not absolutely greater than in england, germany or france, but is far greater in comparison with other modes of oppression. it seems inherent in a republic; it is not in a republic of noble men. but here this sirocco blows flat to the ground full many an aspiring blade. wealth can establish banks, or factories; votes can lift the meanest man into the highest political place, can dignify any passion with the name and force of human law; so it is thought by the worshippers of both, seeking the approbation of the two, that public opinion can make truth of lies, and right even out of foulest wrong. politicians begin to say, there is no law of god above the ephemeral laws of men. there are few american works of literature which appeal to what is best in men; few that one could wish should go abroad and live. america has grown beyond hope in population, the free and bond, in riches, in land, in public material prosperity, but in a literature that represents the higher elements of manliness far less than wise men thought. they looked for the fresh new child; it is born with wrinkles and dreadfully like his grandmother, only looking older and more effete. our muse does not come down from an american parnassus, with a new heaven in her eye, men not daring to look on the face of anointed beauty, coming to tell of noble thought, to kindle godlike feelings with her celestial spark, and stir mankind to noble deeds. she finds parnassus steep and high and hard to climb; the air austere and cold, the light severe, too stern for her effeminate nerves. so she has a little dwelling in the flat and close-pent town, hard by the public street; breathes its boeotian breath; walks with the money-lenders at high change; has her account at the bank, her pew in the most fashionable church and least austere; she gets approving nods in the street, flattery in the penny-prints, sweetmeats and sparkling wine in the proper places. what were the inspirations of all god's truth to her? he "taunts the lofty land with little men." * * * * * there still remains the exceptional literature; some of it is only fugitive, some meant for permanent duration. here is a new and different spirit: a respect for human nature above human history, for man above all the accidents of man, for god above all the alleged accidents of god; a veneration for the eternal laws which he only makes and man but finds; a law before all statutes, above all constitutions, and holier than all the writings of human hands. here you find most fully the sentiments and ideas of america, not such as rule the nation now, but which, unconsciously to the people, have caused the noble deeds of our history, and now prophesy a splendid future for this young giant here. these sentiments and ideas are brought to consciousness in this literature. here a precedent is not a limitation; a fact of history does not eclipse an idea of nature; an investment is not thought more sacred than a right. here is more hope than memory; little deference to wealth and rank, but a constant aspiration for truth, justice, love and piety; little fear of the public opinion of the many or the few, rather a scorn thereof, almost a defiance of it. it appears in books, in pamphlets, in journals, and in sermons, sorely scant in quantity as yet. new and fresh, it is often greatly deficient in form; rough, rude and uncouth, it yet has in it a soul that will live. its authors are often men of a wide and fine culture, though mainly tending to underrate the past achievements of mankind. they have little reverence for great names. they value the greek and hebrew mind for no more than it is worth. with them a wrong is no more respected because well descended, and supported by all the riches, all the votes; a right, not less a right because unjustly kept out of its own. these men are american all through; so intensely national, that they do not fear to tell the nation of the wrong it does. the form of this literature is american. it is indigenous to our soil, and could come up in no other land. it is unlike the classic literature of any other nation. it is american as the bible is hebrew, and the odyssey is greek. it is wild and fantastic, like all fresh original literature at first. you see in it the image of republican institutions--the free school, free state, free church; it reflects the countenance of free men. so the letters of old france, of modern england, of italy and spain reflect the monarchic, oligarchic, and ecclesiastic institutions of those lands. here appears the civilization of the nineteenth century, the treasures of human toil for many a thousand years. more than that, you see the result of a fresh contact with nature, and original intuitions of divine things. acknowledging inspiration of old, these writers of the newness believe in it now not less, not miraculous, but normal. here is humanity that overleaps the bounds of class and of nation, and sees a brother in the beggar, pirate, slave, one family of men variously dressed in cuticles of white or yellow, black or red. here, too, is a new loveliness, somewhat akin to the savage beauty of our own wild woods, seen in their glorious splendor an hour before autumnal suns go down and leave a trail of glory lingering in the sky. here, too, is a piety somewhat heedless of scriptures, liturgies, and forms, and creeds; it finds its law written in nature, its glorious everlasting gospel in the soul of man; careless of circumcision and baptismal rites, it finds the world a temple, and rejoices everywhere to hold communion with the infinite father of us all, and keep a sacrament in daily life, conscious of immortality, and feeding continually on angel's bread. the writers of this new literature are full of faults; yet they are often strong, though more by their direction than by native force of mind; more, by their intuitions of the first good, first perfect and first fair, than through their historical knowledge or dialectic power. their ship sails swift, not because it is sharper built, or carries broader sails than other craft, but because it steers where the current of the ocean coincides with the current of the sky, and so is borne along by nature's wind and nature's wave. uninvited, its ideas steal into parlor and pulpit, its kingdom coming within men and without observation. the shoemaker feels it as he toils in his narrow shop; it cheers the maiden weaving in the mill, whose wheels the merrimac is made to turn; the young man at college bids it welcome to his ingenuous soul. so at the breath of spring new life starts up in every plant; the sloping hills are green with corn, and sunny banks are blue and fragrant with the wealth of violets, which only slept till the enchanter came. the sentiments of this literature burn in the bosom of holy-hearted girls, of matrons and of men. ever and anon its great ideas are heard even in congress, and in the speech of old and young, which comes tingling into most unwilling ears. this literature has a work to do, and is about its work. let the old man crow loud as he may, the young one will crow another strain, for it is written of god, that our march is continually onward, and age shall advance over age forever and forever. already america has a few fair specimens from this new field to show. is the work history? the author writes from the stand-point of american democracy; i mean philanthropy, the celestial democracy, not the satanic; writes with a sense of justice and in the interest of men; writes to tell a nation's purpose in its deeds, and so reveal the universal law of god, which overrules the affairs of states as of a single man. you wonder that history was not before so writ that its facts told the nation's ideas, and its labors were lessons, and so its hard-won life became philosophy. is it poetry the man writes? it is not poetry like the old. the poet has seen nature with his own eyes, heard her with his own mortal, bodily ears, and felt her presence, not vicariously through milton, uhland, ariosto, but personally, her heart against his heart. he sings of what he knows, sees, feels, not merely of what he reads in others' song. common things are not therefore unclean. in plain new england life he finds his poetry, as magnets iron in the blacksmith's dust, and as the bee finds dew-bright cups of honey in the common woods and common weeds. it is not for him to rave of parnassus, while he knows it not, for the soul of song has a seat upon monadnock, wachusett, or katahdin, quite as high. so scottish burns was overtaken by the muse of poetry, who met him on his own bleak hills, and showed him beauty in the daisy and the thistle, and the tiny mouse, till to his eye the hills ran o'er with loveliness, and caledonia became a classic land. is it religion the author treats of? it is not worship by fear, but through absolute faith, a never-ending love; for it is not worship of a howling and imperfect god, grim, jealous and revengeful, loving but a few, and them not well, but of the infinite father of all mankind, whose universal providence will sure achieve the highest good of all that are. these men are few; in no land are they numerous, or were or will be. there were few hebrew prophets, but a tribe of priests; there are but few mighty bards that hover o'er the world; but here and there a sage, looking deep and living high, who feels the heart of things, and utters oracles which pass for proverbs, psalms and prayers, and stimulate a world of men. they draw the nations, as conjoining moon and sun draw waters shore-ward from the ocean-springs; and as electrifying heat they elevate the life of men. under their influence you cannot be as before. they stimulate the sound, and intoxicate the silly, but in the heart of noble youths their idea becomes a fact, and their prayer a daily life. scholars of such a stamp are few and rare, not without great faults. for every one of them there will be many imitators, as for each lion a hundred lion-flies, thinking their buzz as valiant as his roar, and wondering the forest does not quake thereat, and while they feed on him fancy they suck the breasts of heaven. * * * * * such is the scholars' position in america: such their duty, and such the way in which they pay the debt they owe. will men of superior culture not all act by scholar-craft and by the pen? it were a pity if they did. if a man work nobly, the office is as worthy, and the purse as blessed in its work. the pen is power; the office is power; the purse is power; and if the purse and office be nobly held, then in a high mode the cultivated man pays for his bringing up, and honors with wide sympathies the mass of men who give him chance to ride and rule. if not; if these be meanly held, for self and not for man, then the scholar is a debtor and a traitor too. the scholar never had so fair a chance before; here is the noblest opportunity for one that wields the pen; it is mightier than the sword, the office, or the purse. all things concede at last to beauty, justice, truth and love, and these he is to represent. he has what freedom he will pay for and take. let him talk never so heroic, he will find fit audience, nor will it long be few. men will rise up and welcome his quickening words as vernal grass at the first rains of spring. a great nation which cannot live by bread alone, asks for the bread of life; while the state is young, a single great and noble man can deeply influence the nation's mind. there are great wrongs which demand redress; the present men who represent the office and the purse will not end these wrongs. they linger for the pen, with magic touch to abolish and destroy this ancient serpent-brood. shall it be only rude men and unlettered who confront the dragons of our time which prowl about the folds by day and night, while the scholar, the appointed guardian of mankind, but "sports with amaryllis in the shade, or with the tangles of neæra's hair?" the nation asks of her scholar better things than ancient letters ever brought; asks his wonders for the million, not the few alone. great sentiments burn now in half-unconscious hearts, and great ideas kindle their glories round the heads of men. unconscious electricity, truth and right, flashes out of the earth, out of the air. it is for the scholar to attract this ground-lightning and this lightning of the sky, condense it into useful thunder to destroy the wrong, then spread it forth a beauteous and a cheering light, shedding sweet influence and kindling life anew. a few great men of other times tell us what may be now. nothing will be done without toil--talent is only power of work, and genius greater power for higher forms of work--nothing without self-denial; nothing great and good save by putting your idea before yourself, and counting it dearer than your flesh and blood. let it hide you, not your obesity conceal the truth god gave you to reveal. the quality of intellectual work is more than the quantity. out of the cloudy world homer has drawn a spark that lasts three thousand years. "one, but a lion," should be the scholar's maxim; let him do many things for daily need; one great thing for the eternal beauty of his art. a single poem of dante, a book for the bosom, lives through the ages, surrounding its author with the glory of genius in the night of time. one sermon on the mount, compact of truths brought down from god, all molten by such pious trust in him, will stir men's hearts by myriads, while words dilute with other words are a shame to the speaker, and a dishonor to men who have ears to hear. it is a great charity to give beauty to mankind; part of the scholar's function. how we honor such as create mere sensuous loveliness! mozart carves it on the unseen air; phidias sculptures it out from the marble stone; raphael fixes ideal angels, maidens, matrons, men, and his triple god upon the canvas, and the lofty angelo, with more than amphionic skill, bids the hills rise into a temple which constrains the crowd to pray. look, see how grateful man repays these architects of beauty with never-ending fame! such as create a more than sensuous loveliness, the homers, miltons, shakspeares, who sing of man in never-dying and creative song--see what honors we have in store for such; what honor given for what service paid! but there is a beauty higher than that of art, above philosophy and merely intellectual grace: i mean the loveliness of noble life; that is a beauty in the sight of man and god. this is a new country, the great ideas of a noble man are easily spread abroad; soon they will appear in the life of the people, and be a blessing in our future history to ages yet unborn. a few great souls can correct the licentiousness of the american press, which is now but the type of covetousness and low ambition; correct the mean economy of the state, and amend the vulgarity of the american church, now the poor prostitute of every wealthy sin. oh ingenuous young maid or man, if such you are,--if not, then let me dream you such; seek you this beauty, complete perfection of a man, and having this, go hold the purse, the office, or the pen, as suits you best; but out of that life, writing, voting, acting, living in all forms, you shall pay men back for your culture, and in the scholar's noble kind, and represent the higher facts of human thought. will men still say, "this wrong is consecrated; it has stood for ages and shall stand for ever!" tell them, "no. a wrong, though old as sin, is not now sacred, nor shall it stand!" will they say, "this right can never be; that excellence is lovely but impossible!" show them the fact, who will not hear the speech; the deed goes where the word fails, and life enchants where rhetoric cannot persuade. past ages offer their instruction, much warning and a little guidance, many a wreck along the shore of time, a beacon here and there. far off in the dim distance, present as possibilities, not actual as yet, future generations, with broad and wishful eyes, look at the son of genius, talent, educated skill, and seem to say, "a word for us; it will not be forgot!" truth and beauty, god's twin daughters, eternal both, yet ever young, wait there to offer each faithful man a budding branch, in their hands budding, in his to blossom and mature its fruit, wherewith he sows the field of time, gladdening the millions yet to come. end of vol. iii. speeches, addresses, and occasional sermons, by theodore parker, minister of the twenty-eighth congregational church in boston. in three volumes. vol. ii. boston: horace b. fuller, (successor to walker, fuller, and company,) , washington street. . entered according to act of congress, in the year , by theodore parker, in the clerk's office of the district court of the district of massachusetts. contents of volume ii. i. a sermon of the spiritual condition of boston.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, february , page ii. some thoughts on the most christian use of the sunday.--a sermon preached at the melodeon, on sunday, january , iii. a sermon of immortal life.--preached at the melodeon on sunday, september , iv. the public education of the people.--an address delivered before the onondaga teachers' institute at syracuse, new york, october , v. the political destination of america, and the signs of the times.--an address delivered before several literary societies in vi. a discourse occasioned by the death of john quincy adams.--delivered at the melodeon, on sunday, march , vii. a speech at a meeting of the american anti-slavery society, to celebrate the abolition of slavery by the french republic, april , viii. a speech at faneuil hall, before the new england anti-slavery convention, may , ix. some thoughts on the free soil party, and the election of general taylor, december, a sermon of the spiritual condition of boston.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, february , . matthew viii. . by their fruits ye shall know them. last sunday i said something of the moral condition of boston; to-day i ask your attention to a sermon of the spiritual condition of boston. i use the word spiritual in its narrower sense, and speak of the condition of this town in respect to piety. a little while since, in a sermon of piety, i tried to show that love of god lay at the foundation of all manly excellence, and was the condition of all noble, manly development; that love of truth, love of justice, love of love, were respectively the condition of intellectual, moral, and affectional development, and that they were also respectively the intellectual, moral, and affectional forms of piety; that the love of god as the infinite father, the totality of truth, justice, and love was the general condition of the total development of man's spiritual powers. but i showed, that sometimes this piety, intellectual, moral, affectional or total, did not arrive at self-consciousness; the man only unconsciously loving the infinite in one or all these modes, and in such cases the man was a loser by frustrating his piety, and allowing it to stop in the truncated form of unconsciousness. now what is in you will appear out of you; if piety be there in any of these forms, in either mode, it will come out; if not there, its fruits cannot appear. you may reason forward or backward: if you know piety exists, you may foretell its appearance; if you find fruits thereof, you may reason back and be sure of its existence. piety is love of god as god, and as we only love what we are like, and in that degree, so it is also a likeness to god. now it is a general doctrine in christendom that divinity must manifest itself; and, in assuming the highest form of manifestation known to us, divinity becomes humanity. however, that doctrine is commonly taught in the specific and not generic form, and is enforced by an historical and concrete example, but not by way of a universal thesis. it appears thus: the christ was god; as such he must manifest himself; the form of manifestation was that of a complete and perfect man. i reject the concrete example, but accept the universal doctrine on which the special dogma of the trinity is erected. from that i deduce this as a general rule: if you follow the law of your nature, and are simple and true to that, as much of godhead as there is in you, so much of manhood will come out of you, and, as much of manhood comes out of you, so much of godhead was there within you; as much subjective divinity, so much objective humanity. such being the case, the demands you can make on a man for manliness must depend for their answer on the amount of piety on deposit in his character; so it becomes important to know the condition of this town in respect of piety, for if this be not right in the above sense, nothing else is right; or, to speak more clerically, "unless the lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain," and unless piety be developed or a-developing in men, it is vain for the minister to sit up late of a saturday night to concoct his sermon, and to rise up early of a sunday morning to preach the same; he fights but as one that beateth the air, and spends his strength for that which is nought. they are in the right, therefore, who first of all things demand piety: so let us see what signs or proof we have, and of what amount of piety in boston. to determine this, we must have some test by which to judge of the quality, distinguishing piety from impiety, and some standard whereby to measure the quantity thereof; for though you may know what piety is in you, i what is in me, and god what is in both and in all the rest of us, it is plain that we can only judge of the existence of piety in other men, and measure its quantity by an outward manifestation thereof, in some form which shall serve at once as a trial test and a standard measure. now, then, as i mentioned in that former sermon, it is on various sides alleged that there are two outward manifestations of piety, a good deal unlike: each is claimed by some men as the exclusive trial test and standard measure. let me say a word of each. i. some contend for what i call the conventional standard; that is, the manifestation of piety by means of certain prescribed forms. of these forms there are three modes or degrees: namely, first, the form of bodily attendance on public worship; second, the belief in certain doctrines, not barely because they are proven true, or known without proof, but because they are taught with authority; and third, a passive acquiescence in certain forms and ceremonies, or an active performance thereof. ii. the other i call the natural standard; that is, the manifestation of piety in the natural form of morality in its various degrees and modes of action. * * * * * it is plain, that the amount of piety in a man or a town, will appear very different when tested by one or the other of these standards. it may be that very little water runs through the wooden trough which feeds the saw-mill at niagara, and yet a good deal, blue and bounding, may leap over the rock, adown its natural channel. in a matter of this importance, when taking account of a stock so precious as piety, it is but fair to try it by both standards. * * * * * let us begin with the conventional standard, and examine piety by its manifestation in the ecclesiastical forms. here is a difficulty at the outset, in determining upon the measure, for there is no one and general ecclesiastical standard, common to all parties of christians, from the catholic to the quaker; each measures by its own standard, but denies the correctness of all the others. it is as if a foot were declared the unit of long measure, and then the actual foot of the chief justice of a state, were taken as the rule by which to correct all measurements; then the foot would vary as you went from north carolina to south, and, in any one state, would vary with the health of the judge. however, to do what can be done with a measure thus uncertain, it is plain, that, estimated by any ecclesiastical standard, the amount of piety is small. there is, as men often say, "a general decline of piety;" that is a common complaint, recorded and registered. but what makes the matter worse to the ecclesiastical philosopher, and more appalling to the complainers, is this: it is a decline of long standing. the disease which is thus lamented is said to be acute, but is proved to be chronic also; only it would seem, from the lamentations of some modern jeremiahs, that the decline went on with accelerated velocity, and, the more chronic the disease was, the acuter it also became. tried by this standard, things seem discouraging. to get a clearer view, let us look a little beyond our own borders, at first, and then come nearer home. the catholic church complains of a general defection. the majority of the christian church confesses that the protestant reformation was not a revival of religion, not a "great awakening," but a great falling to sleep; the faith of luther and calvin was a great decline of religion--a decline of piety in the ecclesiastical form; that modern philosophy, the physics of galileo and newton, the metaphysics of descartes and of kant, mark another decline of religion--a decline of piety in the philosophical form; that all the modern democracy of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, marks a yet further decline of religion--a decline of piety in the political form; that all the modern secular societies, for removing the evils of men and their sins, mark a yet fourth decline of religion--a decline of piety in the philanthropic form. certainly, when measured by the mediæval standard of catholicism, these mark four great declensions of piety, for, in all four, the old principle of subordination to an external and personal authority is set aside. all over europe this decline is still going on; ecclesiastical establishments are breaking down; other establishments are a-building up. pius the ninth seems likely to fulfil his own prophecy, and be the last of the popes; i mean the last with temporal power. there is a great schism in the north of europe; the germans will be catholics, but no longer roman. the old forms of piety, such as service in latin, the withholding of the bible from the people, compulsory confession, the ungrateful celibacy of a reluctant priesthood--all these are protested against. it is of no avail that the holy coat of jesus, at treves, works greater miracles than the apostolical napkins and aprons; of no avail that the virgin mary appeared on the nineteenth of september, , to two shepherd-children, at la salette, in france. what are such things to ronge and wessenberg? neither the miraculous coat, nor the miraculous mother, avails aught against this untoward generation, charm they never so wisely. the decline of piety goes on. by the new constitution of france, all forms of religion are equal; the catholic and the protestant, the mahometan and the jew, are equally sheltered under the broad shield of the law. even spain, the fortress walled and moated about, whither the spirit of the middle ages retired and shut herself up long since, womanning her walls with unmanly priests and kings, with unfeminine queens and nuns--even spain fails with the general failure. british capitalists buy up her convents and nunneries, to turn them into woollen mills. monks and nuns forget their beads in some new handicraft; sister mary, who sat still in the house, is now also busy with serving, careful, indeed, about more things than formerly, but not cumbered nor troubled as before. meditative rachels, and hannahs, long unblest, who sat in solitude, have now become like practical dorcas, making garments for the poor; the bank is become more important than the inquisition. the order of st. francis d'assisi, of st. benedict, even of st. dominic himself, is giving way before the new order of arkwright, watt, and fulton,--the order of the spinning jenny and the power-loom. it is no longer books on the miraculous conception, or meditations on the five wounds of the saviour, or commentaries on the song of songs which is solomon's, that get printed there: but fiery novels of eugene sue, and george sand; and so extremes meet. protestant establishments share the same peril. a new sect of protestants rises up in germany, who dissent as much from the letter and spirit of protestantism, as the protestants from catholicism; men that will not believe the infallibility of the bible, the doctrine of the trinity, the depravity of man, the eternity of future punishment, nor justification by faith--a justification before god, for mere belief before men. the new spirit gets possession of new men, who cannot be written down, nor even howled down. excommunication or abuse does no good on such men as bauer, strauss, and schwegler; and it answers none of their questions. it seems pretty clear, that in all the north of germany, within twenty years, there will be entire freedom of worship, for all sects, protestant and catholic. in england, protestantism has done its work less faithfully than in germany. the protestant spirit of england came here two hundred years ago, so that new and protestant england is on the west of the ocean; in england, an established church lies there still, an iceberg in the national garden. but even there, the decline of the ecclesiastical form of piety is apparent: the new bishops must not sit in the house of lords, till the old ones die out, for the number of lords spiritual must not increase, though the temporal may; the new attempt, at oxford and elsewhere, to restore the middle ages, will not prosper. bring back all the old rites and forms into leeds and manchester; teach men the theology of thomas aquinas, or of st. bernard; bid them adore the uplifted wafer, as the very god, men who toil all day with iron mills, who ride in steam-drawn coaches, and talk by lightning in a whisper, from the irk to the thames,--they will not consent to the philosophy or the theology of the middle ages, nor be satisfied with the old forms of piety, which, though too elevated for their fathers in the time of elizabeth, are yet too low for them, at least too antiquated. dissenters have got into the house of commons; the test-act is repealed, and a man can be a captain in the army, or a postmaster in a village, without first taking the lord's supper, after the fashion of the church of england. some men demand the abandonment of tithes, the entire separation of church and state, the return to "the voluntary principle" in religion. "the battering ram which levelled old sarum," and other boroughs as corrupt, now beats on the church, and the "church is in danger." men complain of the decline of piety in england. an intelligent and very serious writer, not long ago, lamenting this decline, in proof thereof, relates, that formerly men began their last wills, "in the name of god, amen;" and headed bills of lading with, "shipped in good order, by the grace of god;" that indictments for capital crimes charged the culprit with committing felony, "at the instigation of the devil," and now, he complains, these forms have gone out of use. in america, in new england, in boston, when measured by that standard, the same decline of piety is apparent. it is often said that our material condition is better than our moral; that in advance of our spiritual condition. there is a common clerical complaint of a certain thinness in the churches; men do not give their bodily attendance, as once they did; they are ready enough to attend lectures, two or three in a week, no matter how scientific and abstract, or how little connected with their daily work, yet they cannot come to the church without teasing beforehand, nor keep awake while there. it is said the minister is not respected as formerly. true, a man of power is respected, heard, sought, and followed, but it is for his power, for his words of grace and truth, not for his place in a pulpit; he may have more influence as a man, but less as a clergyman. ministers lament a prevalent disbelief of their venerable doctrines; that there is a concealed skepticism in regard to them, often not concealed. this, also, is a well-founded complaint; the well-known dogmas of theology were never in worse repute; there was never so large a portion of the community in new england who were doubtful of the trinity, of eternal damnation, of total depravity, of the atonement, of the godhead of jesus, of the miracles of the new testament, and of the truth of every word of the bible. a complaint is made, that the rites and forms which are sometimes called "the ordinances of religion," are neglected; that few men join the church, and though the old hedge is broken down before the altar, yet the number of communicants diminishes, and it is no longer able-headed men, the leaders of society, who come; that the ordinances seem haggard and ghastly to young men, who cannot feed their hungry souls on such a thin pittance of spiritual aliment as these afford; that the children are not baptized. these things are so; so in europe, catholic and protestant; so in america, so in boston. notwithstanding the well-founded complaint that our modern churches are too costly for the times, we do not build temples which bear so high a proportion to our wealth as the early churches of boston; the attendance at meeting does not increase as the population; the ministers are not prominent, as in the days of wilson, of cotton, and of norton; their education is not now in the same proportion to the general culture of the times. harvard college, dedicated to "christ and the church," designed at first chiefly for the education of the clergy, graduates few ministers; theological literature no longer overawes all other. the number of church members was never so small in proportion to the voters as now; the number of protestant births never so much exceeded the number of protestant baptisms. young men of superior ability and superior education have little affection for the ministry; take little interest in the welfare of the church. nay, youths descended from a wealthy family seldom look that way. it is poor men's sons, men of obscure family, who fill the pulpits; often, likewise, men of slender ability, eked out with an education proportionately scant. the most active members of the churches are similar in position, ability, and culture. these are undeniable facts. they are not peculiar to new england. you find them wherever the voluntary principle is resorted to. in england, in catholic countries, you find the old historic names in the established church; there is no lack of aristocratic blood in clerical veins; but there and everywhere the church seems falling astern of all other craft which can keep the sea. since these things are so, men who have only the conventional standard wherewith to measure the amount of piety, only that test to prove its existence by, think we are rapidly going to decay; that the tabernacle is fallen down, and no man rises to set it up. they complain that zion is in distress; theological newspapers lament that there are no revivals to report; that "the lord has withheld his arm," and does not "pour out his spirit upon the churches." ghastly meetings are held by men with sincere and noble heart, but saddened face; speeches are made which seem a groan of linked wailings long drawn out. men mourn at the infidelity of the times, at the coldness of some, at the deadness of others. all the sects complain of this, yet each loves to attribute the deadness of the rival sects to their special theology; it is unitarianism which is choking the unitarians, say their foes, and the unitarians know how to retort after the same fashion. the less enlightened put the blame of this misfortune on the good god who has somehow "withheld his hand," or omitted to "pour out his spirit,"--the people perishing for want of the open vision. others put the blame on mankind; some on "poor human nature," which is not what might have been expected, not perceiving that if the fault be there it is not for us to remedy, and if god made man a bramble-bush, that no wailing will make him bear figs. yet others refer this condition to the use made of human nature, which certainly is a more philosophical way of looking at the matter. now there is one sect which has done great service in former days, which is, i think, still doing something to enlighten and liberalize the land, and, i trust, will yet do more, more even than it consciously intends. the name of unitarian is deservedly dear to many of us, who yet will not be shackled by any denominational fetters. this sect has always been remarkable for a certain gentlemanly reserve about all that pertained to the inward part of religion; other faults it might have, but it did not incur the reproach of excessive enthusiasm, or a spirituality too sublimated and transcendental for daily use. this sect has long been a speckled bird among the denominations, each of which has pecked at her, or at least cawed with most unmelodious croak against this new-fledged sect. it was said the unitarians had "denied the lord that bought them;" that theirs was the church of unbelief--not the church of christ, but of no-christ; that they had a bible of their own, and a thin, poor bible, too; that their ways were ways of destruction; "touch not, taste not, handle not," was to be written on their doctrines; that they had not even the grace of lukewarmness, but were moral and stone-cold; that they looked fair on the side turned towards man, but on the godward side it was a blank wall with no gate, nor window, nor loop-hole, nor eyelet for the holy ghost to come through; that their prayers were only a show of devotion to cover up the hard rock of the flinty heart, or the frozen ground of morality. their faith, it was said, was only a conviction after the case was proven by unimpeachable evidence, and good for nothing; while belief without evidence, or against proof, seems to be the right ecclesiastical talisman. for a long time the unitarian sect did not grumble unduly, but set itself to promote the cultivation of reason and apply that to religion; to cultivate morality and apply it to life; and to demand the most entire personal freedom for all men in all matters pertaining to religion. hence came its merits; they were very great merits, too, and not at all the merits of the times, held in common with the other sects. i need not dwell on this, and the good works of unitarianism, in this the most unitarian city in the world; but as a general thing the unitarians, it seems to me, did neglect the culture of piety; and of course their morality, while it lasted, would be unsatisfactory, and in time would wither and dry up because it had no deepness of earth to grow out of. the unitarians, as a general thing, began outside, and sought to work inward, proceeding from the special to the general, by what might be called the inductive mode of religious culture; that was the form adopted in pulpits, and in families so far as there was any religious education attempted in private. that is not the method of nature, where all growth is the development of a living germ, which by an inward power appropriates the outward things it needs, and grows thereby. hence came the defects of unitarianism, and they were certainly very great defects; but they came almost unavoidably from the circumstances of the times. the sensational philosophy was the only philosophy that prevailed; the orthodox sects had always rejected a part of that philosophy, not in the name of science, but of piety, and they supplied its place not with a better philosophy, but with tradition, speaking with an authority which claimed to be above human nature. it was not in the name of reason that they rejected a false philosophy, but in the name of religion often denounced all philosophy and the reason which demanded it. the unitarians rejected that portion of orthodoxy, became more consistent sensationalists, and arrived at results which we know. now it is easy to see their error; not difficult to avoid it; but forty or fifty years ago it was almost impossible not to fall into this mistake. sometimes it seems as if the unitarians were half conscious of this defect, and so dared not be original, but borrowed orthodox weapons, or continued to use trinitarian phrases long after they had blunted those weapons of their point, and emptied the phrases of their former sense. in the controversy between the orthodox and unitarians, neither party was wholly right: the unitarians had reason to charge the orthodox with debasing man's nature, and representing god as not only unworthy, but unjust, and somewhat odious; the trinitarians were mainly right in charging us with want of conscious piety, with beginning to work at the wrong end; but at the same time it must be remembered, that, in proportion to their numbers, the unitarians have furnished far more philanthropists and reformers than any of the other sects. it is time to confess this on both sides. for a long time the unitarian sect did not complain much of the decline of piety; it did not care to have an organization, loving personal freedom too well for that, and it had not much denominational feeling; indeed, its members were kept together, not so much by an agreement and unity of opinion among themselves, as by a unity of opposition from without; it was not the hooks on their shields that held the legion together with even front, but the pressure of hostile shields crowded upon them from all sides. they did not believe in spasmodic action; if a body was dead, they gave it burial, without trying to galvanize it into momentary life, not worth the spark it cost; they knew that a small cloud may make a good many flashes in the dark, but that many lightnings cannot make light. they stood apart from the violent efforts of other churches to get converts. the converts they got commonly adhered to their faith, and in this respect differed a good deal from those whom "revivals" brought into other churches; with whom christianity sprung up in a night, and in a night also perished. some years ago, when this city was visited and ravaged by revivals, the unitarians kept within doors, gave warning of the danger, and suffered less harm and loss from that tornado than any of the sects. unitarianism seems, in this city, to have done its original work; so the company is breaking up by degrees, and the men are going off, to engage in other business, to weed other old fields, or to break up new land, each man following his own sense of duty, and for himself determining whether to go or stay. but at the same time, an attempt is made to keep the company together; to cultivate a denominational feeling; to put hooks and staples on the shields which no longer offer that formidable and even front; to teach all trumpets to give the same sectarian bray, all voices to utter the same war-cry. the attempt does not succeed; the ranks are disordered, the trumpets give an uncertain sound, and the soldiers do not prepare themselves for denominational battle; nay, it often happens that the camp lacks the two sinews of war--both money, and men. hence the denominational view of religious affairs has undergone a change; i make no doubt a real and sincere change, though i know this has been denied, and the change thought only official. the men i refer to are sincere and devout men; some of them quite above the suspicion of mere official conduct. this sect is now the loudest in its wailing; these christian jeremiahs tell us that we do not realize spiritual things, that we are all dead men, that there is no health in us. these cold unitarian thomases crowd unwontedly together in public to bewail the spiritual weather, the dearth of piety in boston, the "general decline of religion" in new england. church unto church raises the macedonian cry, "come over and help us!" the opinion seems general that piety is in a poor way, and must have watchers, the strongest medicine, and nursing quite unusual, or it will soon be all over, and unitarianism will give up the ghost. various causes have i heard assigned for the malady; some think that there has been over-much preaching of philosophy, though perhaps there is not evidence to convict any one man in particular of the offence; that philosophy is the dog in the manger, who keeps the hungry unitarian flock from their spiritual hay, and cut-straw, which are yet of not the smallest use to him. but look never so sharp, and you do not find this dangerous beast in the neighborhood of the fold. others think that there has been also an excess of moral preaching, against the prevalent sins of the nation, i suppose--but few individuals seem liable to conviction on that charge. yet others think this decline comes from the fact that the terrors have not been duly and sufficiently administered from the pulpit; that while catholics and methodists thrive under such influences, the unitarian widows are neglected in the weekly ministration of terror and of threat; that there has not been so much an excess of lightning in the form of philosophy or morality, but only a lack of thunder. this temporary movement among the unitarians of boston is natural; in some respects it is what our fathers would have called "judicial." the unitarians have been cold, have looked more at the outward manifestations of goodness than at the inward spirit of piety which was to make the manifestations; they have not had an excess of philosophy, or of morality, but a defect of piety. they have been more respectable than pious. they have not always quite rightly appreciated the enthusiasm of sterner and more austere sects; not always done justice to the inwardness of religion those sects sought to promote. when their churches get a little thin, and their denominational affairs a little disturbed, it is quite natural these unitarians should look after the cause and pass over to lamentations at the present state of things; while looking at the community from the new point of view, it is quite natural that they should suppose piety on the decline, and religion dying out. yes, in general it is plain that, if men have no eyes but conventional eyes, no spirit but that of the ecclesiastical order they serve in, and of the denomination they belong to, it is natural for them to think that because piety does not flow in the old ecclesiastical channel, it does not flow anywhere, and there is none at all to run. thus it is easy to explain the complaint of the catholics at the great defection of the most enlightened nations of europe; the lamentation of the protestants at the heresy of the most enlightened portion of their sect; and the unitarian wail over the general decline of piety in the city of boston. some men can only judge the present age by the conventional standard of the past, and as the old form of piety does not appear, they must conclude there is no piety. * * * * * let us now recur to the other or natural standard, and look at the manifestation of piety in the form of morality. last sunday i spoke of our moral condition; and it appeared that morals were in a low state here when compared with the ideal morals of christianity. now as the outward deed is but the manifestation of the inward life, and objective humanity the index of subjective divinity, so the low state of morals proves a low state of piety; if the heart of this town was right towards god, then would its hand also be right towards man. i am one of those who for long years have lamented the want of vital piety in this people. we not only do not realize spiritual things, but we do not make them our ideals. i see proofs of this want of piety in the low morals of trade, of the public press; in poverty, intemperance, and crime; in the vices and social wrongs touched on the last sunday. i judge the tree by its fruit. but it is not on this ground that the ecclesiastical complaint is based. men who make so much ado about the absence of piety, do not appeal for proof thereof to the great vices and prominent sins of the times; they see no sign of that in our trade and our politics; in the misery that festers in putrid lanes, one day to breed a pestilence, which it were even cheaper to hinder now, than cure at a later time; nobody mentions as proof the mexican war, the political dishonesty of officers, the rapacity of office-seekers, the servility of men who will tamely suffer the most sacred rights of three millions of men to be trodden into the dust. matters which concern millions of men came up before your congress; the great senator of massachusetts loitered away the time of the session here in boston, managing a lawsuit for a few thousand dollars, and no fault was publicly found with such neglect of public duty; but men see no lack of piety indicated by this fact, and others like it; they find signs of that lack in empty pews, in a deserted communion-table, in the fact that children, though brought up to reverence truth and justice, to love man and to love god, are not baptized with water; or in the fact that unitarianism or trinitarianism is on the decline! how many wailings have we all heard or read, because the puritan churches of boston have not kept the faith of their grim founders; what lamentations at the rising up of a sect which refuses the doctrine of the trinity, or at the appearance of a few men who, neglecting the common props of christianity, rest it, for its basis, on the nature of man and the nature of god: though almost all the eminent philanthropy of the day is connected with these men, yet they are still called "infidel," and reviled on all hands! the state of things mentioned in the last sermon does indicate a want of piety, a deep and a great want. i do not see signs of that in the debt and decay of churches, in absence from meetings, in doubt of theological dogmas, in neglect of forms and ceremonies which once were of great value; but i do see it in the low morals of trade, of the press; in the popular vices. on a national scale i see it in the depravity of political parties, in the wicked war we have just fought, in the slavery we still tolerate and support. yes, as i look on the churches of this city, i see a want of piety in the midst of us. if eminent piety were in them, and allowed to follow its natural bent, it would come out of them in the form of eminent humanity; they would lead in the philanthropies of this day, where they hardly follow. in this condition of the churches i see a most signal proof of the low estate of piety; they do not manifest a love of truth, which is the piety of the intellect; nor a love of justice, which is the piety of the moral sense; nor a love of love, which is the piety of the affections; nor a love of god as the infinite father of all men, which is the total piety of the whole soul. for lack of this internal divinity there is a lack of external humanity. who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? this is what i complain of, what i mourn over. the clergymen of this city are most of them sincere men, i doubt not; some of them men of a superior culture; many of them laborious men; most, perhaps all of them, deeply interested in the welfare of the churches, and the promotion of piety. but how many of them are marked and known for their philanthropy, distinguished for their zeal in putting down any of the major sins of our day, zealous in any work of reform? i fear i can count them all on the fingers of a single hand; yet there are enough to bewail the departure of monastic forms, and of the theology which led men in the dimness of a darker age, but cannot shine in the rising light of this. i find no fault with these men; i blame them not; it is their profession which so blinds their eyes. they are as wise and as valiant as the churches let them be. what sect in all this land ever cared about temperance, education, peace betwixt nations, or even the freedom of all men in our own, so much as this sect cares for the baptizing of children with water, and that for the baptizing of men; this for the doctrine of the trinity, and all for the infallibility of the bible? do you ask the sects to engage in the work of extirpating concrete wrong? it is in vain; each reformer tries it--the mild sects answer, "i pray thee have me excused;" the sterner sects reply with awful speech. a distinguished theological journal of another city thinks the philanthropies of this day are hostile to piety, and declares that true spiritual christianity never prevails where men think slavery is a sin. a distinguished minister of a highly respectable sect declares the temperance societies unchristian, and even atheistical. he reasons thus: the church is an instrument appointed by god and christ, to overcome all forms of wrong, intemperance among the rest; to neglect this instrument and devise another, a temperance society, to wit, is to abandon the institutions of god and christ, and so it is unchristian and atheistical. in other words, here is intemperance, a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, in our way; there is an old wooden beetle, which has done great service of old time, and is said to have been made by god's own hand; men smite therewith the stone or smite it not; still it lies there a stone of stumbling and a stone of shame; other men approach, and with a sledge-hammer of well-tempered steel smite the rock, and break off piece after piece, smoothing the rough impracticable way; they call on men to come to their aid, with such weapons as they will. but our minister bids them beware; the beetle is "of the lord," the iron which breaks the rock in pieces is an unchristian and atheistical instrument. yet was this minister an earnest, a pious, and a self-denying man, who sincerely sought the good of men. he had been taught to know no piety but in the church's form. i would not do dishonor to the churches; they have done great service, they still do much; i would only ask them to be worthy of their christian name. they educate men a little, and allow them to approach emancipation, but never to be free and go alone. * * * * * i see much to complain of in the condition of piety; yet nothing to be alarmed at. when i look back, it seems worse still, far worse. there has not been "a decline of piety" in boston of late years. religion is not sick. last sunday, i spoke of the great progress made in morality within fifty years; i said it was an immense progress within two hundred years. now, there cannot be such a progress in the outward manifestation without a corresponding and previous development of the inward principle. morality cannot grow without piety more than an oak without water, earth, sun, and air. let me go back one hundred years; see what a difference between the religious aspect of things then and now! certainly there has been a great growth in spirituality since that day. i am not to judge men's hearts; i may take their outward lives as the test and measure of their inward piety. will you say the outward life never completely comes up to that? it does so as completely now as then. compare the toleration of these times with those; compare the intelligence of the community; the temperance, sobriety, chastity, virtue in general. look at what is now done in a municipal way by towns and states for mankind; see the better provision made for the poor, for the deaf, the dumb, the blind, for the insane, even for the idiot; see what is done for the education of the people--in schools, academies, colleges, and by public lectures; what is done for the criminal to prevent the growth of crime. see what an amelioration of the penal laws; how men are saved and restored to society, who had once been wholly lost. see what is done by philanthropy still more eminent, which the town and state have not yet overtaken and enacted into law; by the various societies for reform--those for temperance, for peace, for the discipline of prisons, for the discharged convicts, for freeing the slave. see this anti-slavery party, which, in twenty years, has become so powerful throughout all the northern states, so strong that it cannot be howled down, and men begin to find it hardly safe to howl over it; a party which only waits the time to lift up its million arms, and hurl the hateful institution of slavery out of the land! all these humane movements come from a divine piety in the soul of man. a tree which bears such fruits is not a dead tree; is not wholly to be despaired of; is not yet in a "decline," and past all hope of recovery. is the age wanting in piety, which makes such efforts as these? yes, you will say, because it does no more. i agree to this, but it is rich in piety compared to other times. ours is an age of faith; not of mere belief in the commandments of men, but of faith in the nature of man and the commandments of god. this prevailing and contagious complaint about the decline of religion is not one of the new things of our time. in the beginning of the last century, dr. colman, first minister of the church in brattle street, lamented in small capitals over the general decline of piety:--"the venerable name of religion and of the church is made a sham pretence for the worst of villanies, for uncharitableness and unnatural oppression of the pious and the peaceable;" "the perilous times are come, wherein men are lovers only of their own selves." "ah, calamitous day," says he, "into which we are fallen, and into which the sins of our infatuated age have brought us!" he looks back to the founders of new england; they "were rich in faith, and heirs of a better world," "men of whom the world was not worthy;" "they laid in a stock of prayers for us which have brought down many blessings on us already." samuel willard bewailed "the checkered state of the gospel church;" it was "in every respect a gloomy day, and covered with thick clouds." we retire yet further back, to the end of the seventeenth century; a hundred and sixty or seventy years ago, dr. increase mather, not only in his own pulpit, but also at "the great and thursday lecture," lamented over "the degeneracy and departing glory of new england." he complained that there was a neglect of the sabbath, of the ordinances, and of family worship; he groaned at the lax discipline of the churches, and looked, says another, "as fearfully on the growing charity as on the growing vices of the age." he called the existing generation "an unconverted generation." "atheism and profaneness," says he, "have come to a prodigious height;" "god will visit" for these things; "god is about to open the windows of heaven, and pour down the cataracts of his wrath ere this generation ... is passed away." if a comet appeared in the sky, it was to admonish men of the visitation, and make "the haughty daughters of zion reform their pride of apparel." "the world is full of unbelief" (that is, in the malignant aspect and disastrous influence of comets), "but there is an awful scripture for them that do profanely condemn such signal works!" one of the present and well-known indications of the decline of piety, that is often thought a modern luxury, and ridiculously denounced in the pulpit, which has done its part in fostering the enjoyment, was practised to an extent that alarmed the prim shepherds of the new england flock in earlier days. the same dr. mather preached a series of sermons "tending to promote the power of godliness," and concludes the whole with a discourse "of sleeping at sermons," and says: "to sleep in the public worship of god is a thing too frequently and easily practised; it is a great and a dangerous evil." "sleeping at a sermon is a greater sin than speaking an idle word. therefore, if men must be called to account for idle words, much more for this!" "gospel sermons are among the most precious talents which any in this world have conferred upon them. but what a sad account will be given concerning those sermons which have been slept away! as light as thou makest of it now, it may be conscience will roar for it upon a death-bed!" "verily, there is many a soul that will find this to be a dismal thought at the day of judgment, when he shall remember so many sermons i might have heard for my everlasting benefit, but i slighted and slept them all away. therefore consider, if men allow themselves in this evil their souls are in danger to perish." "it is true that a godly man may be subject unto this as well as unto other infirmities; but he doth not allow himself therein." "the name of the glorious god is greatly prophaned by this inadvertency." "the support of the evangelical ministry is ... discouraged." he thought the character of the pulpit was not sufficient explanation of this phenomenon, and adds, in his supernatural way, "satan is the external cause of this evil;" "he had rather have men wakeful at any time than at sermon time." the good man mentions, by way of example, a man who "had not slept a wink at a sermon for more than twenty years together," and also, but by way of warning, the unlucky youth in the acts who slept at paul's long sermon, and fell out of the window, and "was taken up dead." sleeping was "adding something of our own to the worship of god;" "when nadab and abihu did so, there went out fire from the lord and consumed them to death." "the holy god hath not been a little displeased for this sin." "it is not punished by men, but therefore the lord himself will visit for it." "tears of blood will trickle down thy dry and damned cheeks forever and ever, because thou mayest not be so happy as to hear one sermon, or to have one offer of grace more throughout the never-ending dayes of eternity." other men denounced their "wo to sleepy sinners," and issued their "proposals for the revival of dying religion." dr. mather thought there was "a deluge of prophaneness," and bid men "be much in mourning and humiliation that god's bottle may be filled with tears." he thought piety was going out because surplices were coming in; it was wicked to "consecrate a church;" keeping christmas was "like the idolatry of the calf." the common-prayer, an organ, a musical instrument in a church, was "not of god." such things were to our worthy fathers in the ministry what temperance and anti-slavery societies are to many of their sons--an "abomination," "unchristian and atheistic!" the introduction of "regular singing" was an indication to some that "all religion is to cease;" "we might as well go over to popery at once." inoculation for the smallpox was as vehemently and ably opposed as the modern attempt to abolish the gallows; it was "a trusting more to the machinations of men than to the all-wise providence of god." "when the enchantments of this world," says the ecclesiastical historian, "caused the rising generation more sensibly to neglect the primitive designs and interests of religion propounded by their fathers; a change in the tenor of the divine dispensation towards this country was quickly the matter of every one's observation." "our wheat and our pease fell under an unaccountable blast." "we were visited with multiplied shipwrecks;" "pestilential sicknesses did sometimes become epidemic among us." "indians cruelly butchered many hundreds of our inhabitants, and scattered whole towns with miserable ruins." "the serious people throughout the land were awakened by these intimations of divine displeasure to inquire into the causes and matters of the controversie." accordingly, , a synod was convened at boston, to "inquire into the causes of the lord's controversie with his new england people," who determined the matter.[ ] a little later, in , the general court considered the subject anew, and declared, that "a corruption of manners, attended with inexcusable degeneracies and apostacies ... is the cause of the controversie." we "are now arriving at such an extremity, that the axe is laid to the root of the trees, and we are in eminent danger of perishing, if a speedy reformation of our provoking evils prevent it not." in , cotton mather complains that "our manifold indispositions to recover the dying power of godliness, were successive calamities, under all of which, our apostacies from that godliness, have rather proceeded than abated." "the old spirit of new england has been sensibly going out of the world, as the old saints in whom it was have gone; and, instead thereof, the spirit of the world, with a lamentable neglect of strict piety, has crept in upon the rising generation." you go back to the time of the founders and fathers of the colony, and it is no better. in , mr. wilson, who had "a singular gift in the practice of discipline," on his death-bed declared, that "god would judge the people for their rebellion and self-willed spirit, for their contempt of civil and ecclesiastical rulers, and for their luxury and sloth," and before that he said, "people rise up as corah, against their ministers." "and for our neglect of baptizing the children of the church,... i think god is provoked by it. another sin i take to be the making light ... of the authority of the synods." john norton, whose piety was said to be "grace, grafted on a crab-stock," in , growled, after his wont, on account of the "heart of new england, rent with the blasphemies of this generation." john cotton, the ablest man in new england, who "liked to sweeten his mouth with a piece of calvin, before he went to sleep," and was so pious that another could not swear while he was under the roof, mourned at "the condition of the churches;" and, in , on his death-bed, after bestowing his blessing on the president of harvard college, who had begged it of him, exhorted the elders to "increase their watch against those declensions, which he saw the professors of religion falling into."[ ] in , such was the condition of piety in boston, that it was thought necessary to banish a man, because he did not believe in original sin. in , a fast was appointed, "to deplore the prevalence of the small-pox, the want of zeal in the professors of religion, and the general decay of piety." "the church of god had not been long in this wilderness," thus complains a minister, one hundred and fifty years ago, "before the dragon cast forth several floods to devour it; but not the least of these floods was one of the antinomian and familistical heresies." "it is incredible what alienations of mind, and what a very calenture the devil raised in the country upon this odd occasion." "the sectaries" "began usually to seduce women into their notions, and by these women, like their first mother, they soon hooked in the husbands also." so, in , the synod of cambridge was convened, to despatch "the apostate serpent:" one woman was duly convicted of holding "about thirty monstrous opinions," and subsequently, by the civil authorities, banished from the colony. the synod, after much time was "spent in ventilation and emptying of private passions," condemned eighty-two opinions, then prevalent in the colony, as erroneous, and decided to "refer doubts to be resolved by the great god." even in , john wilson lamented "the dark and distracted condition of the churches of new england." "the good old times," when piety was in a thriving state, and the churches successful and contented, lay as far behind the "famous johns," as it now does behind their successors in office and lamentation. then, as now, the complaint had the same foundation: ministers and other good men could not see that new piety will not be put into the old forms, neither the old forms of thought, nor the old forms of action. in the days of wilson, cotton, and norton, there was a gradual growth of piety; in the days of the mathers, of colman, and willard, and from that time to this, there has been a steady improvement of the community, in intellectual, moral, and religious culture. some men could not see the progress two hundred years ago, because they believed in no piety, except as it was manifested in their conventional forms. it is so now. mankind advances by the irresistible law of god, under the guidance of a few men of large discourse, who look before and after, but amid the wailing of many who think each advance is a retreat, and every stride a stumble. now-a-days nobody complains at "the ungodly custom of wearing long hair;" no dandy is dealt with by the church, for his dress; the weakest brother is not offended by "regular singing,"--so it be regular,--"by organs and the like;" nobody laments at "the reading of scripture lessons," or "the use of the lord's prayer" in public religious services, or is offended, because a clergyman makes a prayer at a funeral, and solemnizes a marriage,--though these are "prelatical customs," and were detested by our fathers. yet, other things, now as much dreaded, and thought "of a bad and dangerous tendency," will one day prove themselves as innocent, though now as much mourned over. many an old doctrine will fade out, and though some think a star has fallen out of heaven, a new truth will rise up and take its place. it is to be expected that ministers will often complain of "the general decay of religion." the position of a clergyman, fortunate in many things, is unhappy in this: he seldom sees the result of his labors, except in the conventional form mentioned above. the lawyer, the doctor, the merchant and mechanic, the statesman and the farmer, all have visible and palpable results of their work, while the minister can only see that he has baptized men, and admitted them to his church; the visible and quotable tokens of his success, are a large audience, respectable and attentive, a thriving sunday school, or a considerable body of communicants. if these signs fail, or become less than formerly, he thinks he has labored in vain; that piety is on the decline, for it is only by this form that he commonly tests and measures piety itself. hence, a sincere and earnest minister, with the limitations which he so easily gets from his profession and social position, is always prone to think ill of the times, to undervalue the new wine which refuses to be kept in the old bottles, but rends them asunder; hence he bewails the decline of religion, and looks longingly back to the days of his fathers. but you will ask, why does not a minister demand piety in its natural form? blame him not; unconsciously he fulfils his contract, and does what he is taught, ordained, and paid for doing. it is safe for a minister to demand piety of his parish, in the conventional form; not safe to demand it in the form of morality--eminent piety, in the form of philanthropy: it would be an innovation; it would "hurt men's feelings;" it might disturb some branches of business; at the north, it would interfere with the liquor-trade; at the south, with the slave-trade; everywhere it would demand what many men do not like to give. if a man asks piety in the form of bodily attendance at church, on the only idle day in the week, when business and amusement must be refrained from; in the form of belief in doctrines which are commonly accepted by the denomination, and compliance with its forms,--that is customary; it hurts nobody's feelings; it does not disturb the liquor-trade, nor the slave-trade; it interferes with nothing, not even with respectable sleep in a comfortable pew. a minister, like others loves to be surrounded by able and respectable men; he seeks, therefore, a congregation of such. if he is himself an able man, it is well; but there are few in any calling, whom we designate as able. our weak man cannot instruct his parishioners; he soon learns this, and ceases to give them counsel on matters of importance. they would not suffer it, for the larger includes the less, not the less the larger. he is not strong by nature; their position overlooks and commands his. he must speak and give some counsel; he wisely limits himself to things of but little practical interest, and his parishioners are not offended: "that is my sentiment exactly," says the most worldly man in the church, "religion is too pure to be mixed up with the practical business of the street." the original and effectual preaching in such cases, is not from the pulpit down upon the pews, but from the pews up to the pulpit, which only echoes, consciously or otherwise, but does not speak. in a solar system, the central sun, not barely powerful from its position, is the most weighty body; heavier than all the rest put together; so with even swing they all revolve about it. our little ministerial sun was ambitious of being amongst large satellites; he is there, but the law of gravitation amongst men is as certain as in matter; he cannot poise and swing the system; he is not the sun thereof, not even a primary planet, only a little satellite revolving with many nutations round some primary, in an orbit that is oblique, complicated, and difficult to calculate; now waxing in a "revival," now waning in a "decline of piety," now totally eclipsed by his primary that comes between him and the light which lighteth every man. put one of the cold thin moons of saturn into the centre of the solar system,--would the universe revolve about that little dot? loyal matter with irresistible fealty gravitates towards the sun, and wheels around the balance-point of the world's weight, be it where it may, called by whatever name. while ministers insist unduly on the conventional manifestation of piety, it is not a thing unheard of for a layman to resolve to go to heaven by the ecclesiastical road, yet omit resolving to be a good man before he gets there. such a man finds the ordinary forms of piety very convenient, and not at all burdensome; they do not interfere with his daily practice of injustice and meanness of soul; they seem a substitute for real and manly goodness; they offer a royal road to saintship here and heaven hereafter. is the man in arrears with virtue, having long practised wickedness and become insolvent? this form is a new bankrupt law of the spirit, he pays off his old debts in the ecclesiastical currency--a pennyworth of form for a pound of substantial goodness. this bankrupt sinner, cleared by the ecclesiastical chancery, is a solvent saint; he exhorts at meetings, strains at every gnat, and mourns over "the general decay of piety," and teaches other men the way in which they should go--to the same end. "so morning insects that in muck begun, shine, buzz, and fly-blow in the evening sun." i honor the founders of new england; they were pious men--their lives proved it; but domineered over by false opinions in theology, they put their piety into very unnatural and perverted forms. they had ideas which transcended their age; they came here to make those ideas into institutions. that they had great faults, bigotry, intolerance, and superstition, is now generally conceded. they were picked men, "wheat sifted out of three kingdoms," to plant a new world withal. they have left their mark very deep and very distinct in this town, which was their prayer and their pride. it may seem unjust to ourselves to compare a whole community like our own with such a company as filled boston in the first half century of its existence,--men selected for their spiritual hardihood; but here and now, in the midst of boston, are men quite as eminent for piety who as far transcend this age, as the puritans and the pilgrims surpassed their time. the puritan put his religion into the ecclesiastical form; not into the form of the roman or the english church, but into a new one of his own. his descendant, inheriting his father's faith in god, and stern self-denial, but sometimes without his bigotry, intolerance, and superstition, with little fear but with more love of god, and consequently with more love of man, puts his piety into a new form. it is not the form of the old church; the church of the puritans is to him often what the church of the pope and the prelates was to his ungentle sire. he puts his piety into the form of goodness; eminent piety becomes philanthropy, and takes the shape of reform. in such men, in many of their followers, i see the same trust in god, the same scorn of compromising right and truth, the same unfaltering allegiance to the eternal father, which shone in the pilgrims who founded this new world, which fired the reformers of the church; yes, which burned in the hearts of paul and john. piety has not failed and gone out; each age has its own forms thereof; the old and passing can never understand the new, nor can they consent to decrease with the increase of the new. once, men put their piety into a church, catholic or protestant; they made creeds and believed them; they devised rites and symbols, which helped their faith. it was well; but we cannot believe those creeds, nor be aided by such symbols and such rites. why pretend to drag a weighty crutch about because it helped your father once, wandering alone and in the dark, sounding on his dim and perilous way? once earthen roads were the best we knew, and horses' feet had shoes of swiftness; now we need not, out of reverence, refuse the iron road, the chariot and the steed of flame; nor out of irreverence need we spurn the path our fathers trod; sorely bested and hunted after, tear-bedewed and travel-stained, they journeyed there, passing on to their god. if the mother that bore us were never so rude, and to our eyes might seem never so graceless now, still she was our mother, and without her we should not have been born. wives and children may men have, and manifold; each has but one mother. the great institution we call the christian church has been the mother of us all; and though in her own dotage she deny our piety, and call us infidel, far be it from me to withhold the richly earned respect. behind a decent veil, then, let us hide our mother's weakness, and ourselves pass on. once piety built up a theocracy, and men say it was divine; now piety, everywhere in christendom, builds up democracies; it is a diviner work. * * * * * the piety of this age must manifest itself in morality, and appear in a church where the priests are men of active mind and active hand; men of ideas, who commune with god and man through faith and works, finding no truth is hostile to their creed, no goodness foreign to their litany, no piety discordant with their psalm. the man who once would have built a convent and been its rigorous chief, now founds a temperance society, contends against war, toils for the pauper, the criminal, the madman, and the slave, for men bereft of senses and of sense. the synod of dort and of cambridge, the assembly of divines at westminster, did what they could with what piety they had; they put it into decrees and platforms, into catechisms and creeds. but the various conventions for reform put their piety into resolves and then into philanthropic works. i do not believe there has ever been an age when piety bore so large a place in the whole being of new england as at this day, or attendance on church-forms so small a part. the attempts made and making for a better education of the people, the lectures on science and literature abundantly attended in this town, the increased fondness for reading, the better class of books which are read--all these indicate an increased love of truth, the intellectual part of piety; societies for reform and for charity show an increase of the moral and affectional parts of piety; the better, the lovelier idea of god which all sects are embracing, is a sign of increased love of god. thus all parts of piety are proving their existence by their work. the very absence from the churches, the disbelief of the old sour theologies, the very neglect of outward forms and ceremonies of religion, the decline of the ministry itself, under the present circumstances, shows an increase of piety. the baby-clothes were well and wide for the baby; now, the fact that he cannot get them on, shows plainly that he has outgrown them, is a boy and no longer a baby. once piety fled to the church as the only sanctuary in the waste wide world, and was fondly welcomed there, fed and fostered. when power fled off from the church--"wilt thou also go away?" said she; "lord," said piety, "to whom shall we go? thou only hast the words of everlasting life." once convents and cathedrals were what the world needed as shelter for this fair child of god; then she dwelt in the grim edifice that our fathers built, and for a time counted herself "lodged in a lodging where good things are." now is she grown able to wander forth fearless and free, lodging where the night overtakes her, and doing what her hands find to do, not unattended by the providence which hitherto has watched over and blessed her. i respect piety in the hebrew saints, prophets, and bards, who spoke the fiery speech, or sung their sweet and soul-inspiring psalm: "out from the heart of nature rolled the burdens of the bible old." i honor piety among the saints of greece, clad in the form of philanthropy and art, speaking still in dramas, in philosophies, and song, and in the temple and the statue too: "not from a vain and shallow thought his awful jove young phidias brought." i admire at the piety of the middle ages, which founded the monastic tribes of men, which wrote the theologies, scholastic and mystic both, still speaking to the mind of men, or in poetic legends insinuated truth; which built that heroic architecture, overmastering therewith the sense and soul of man: "the passive master lent his hand to the vast soul that o'er him planned: and the same power that reared the shrine, bestrode the tribes that knelt therein." but the piety which i find now, in this age, here in our own land, i respect, honor, and admire yet more; i find it in the form of moral life; that is the piety i love, piety in her own loveliness. would i could find poetic strains as fit to sing of her--but yet such "loveliness needs not the foreign aid of ornament, but is, when unadorned, adorned the most." let me do no dishonor to other days, to hebrew or to grecian saints. unlike and hostile though they were, they jointly fed my soul in earliest days. i would not underrate the mediæval saints, whose words and works have been my study in a manlier age; yet i love best the fair and vigorous piety of our own day. it is beautiful, amid the strong, rank life of the nineteenth century, amid the steam-mills and the telegraphs which talk by lightning, amid the far-reaching enterprises of our time, and 'mid the fierce democracies, it is beautiful to find this fragrant piety growing up in unwonted forms, in places where men say no seed of heaven can lodge and germinate. so in a june meadow, when a boy, and looking for the cranberries of another year, faded and tasteless, amid the pale but coarse rank grass, and discontented that i found them not, so i have seen the crimson arethusa or the cymbidium shedding an unexpected loveliness o'er all the watery soil and all the pale and coarse rank grass, a prophecy of summer near at hand. so in october, when the fields are brown with frost, the blue and fringed gentian meets your eye, filling with thankful tears. there is no decline of piety, but an increase of it; a good deal has been done in two hundred years, in one hundred years, yes, in fifty years. let us admit, with thankfulness of heart, that piety is in greater proportion to all our activity now than ever before: but then compare ourselves with the ideal of human nature, our piety with the ideal piety, and we must confess that we are little and very low. boston is the most active city in the world, the most enterprising. in no place is it so easy to obtain men's ears and their purses for any good word and work. but think of the evils we know of and tolerate; think of an ideal christian city, then think of boston; of a christian man, aye of christ himself, and then think of you and me, and we are filled with shame. if there were a true, manly piety in this town, in due proportion to our numbers, wealth, and enterprise, how long would the vices of this city last? how long would men complain of a dead body of divinity and a dead church, and a ministry that was dead? how long would intemperance continue, and pauperism, in boston; how long slavery in this land? * * * * * last sunday, in the name of the poor, i asked you for your charity. to-day i ask for dearer alms: i ask you to contribute your piety. it will help the town more than the little money all of us can give. your money will soon be spent; it feeds one man once; we cannot give it twice, though the blessing thereof may linger long in the hand which gave. few of us can give much money to the poor; some of us none at all. this we can all give: the inspiration of a man with a man's piety in his heart, living it out in a man's life. your money may be ill spent, your charity misapplied, but your piety never. after all, there is nothing you can give which men will so readily take and so long remember as this. mothers can give it to their daughters and their sons; men, after spending thereof profusely at home, can coin their inexhausted store into industry, patience, integrity, temperance, justice, humanity, a practical love of man. a thousand years ago, it was easy to excuse men if they chiefly showed religion in the conventional pattern of the church. forms then were helps, and the nun has been mother to much of the charity of our times. it is easy to excuse our fathers for their superstitious reverence for rites and forms. but now, in an age which has its eyes a little open, a practical and a handy age, we are without excuse if our piety appears not in a manly life, our faith in works. to give this piety to cheer and bless mankind, you must have it first, be cheered and blessed thereby yourself. have it, then, in your own way; put it into your own form. do men tell you, "this is a degenerate age," and "religion is dying out?" tell them that when those stars have faded out of the sky from very age, when other stars have come up to take their place, and they too have grown dim and hollow-eyed and old, that religion will still live in man's heart, the primal, everlasting light of all our being. do they tell you that you must put piety into their forms; put it there if it be your place; if not, in your place. let men see the divinity that is in you by the humanity that comes out from you. if they will not see it, cannot, god can and will. take courage from the past, not its counsel; fear not now to be a man. you may find a new eden where you go, a river of god in it, and a tree of life, an angel to guard it; not the warning angel to repel, but the guiding angel to welcome and to bless. * * * * * it was four years yesterday since i first came here to speak to you; i came hesitatingly, reluctant, with much diffidence as to my power to do what it seemed to me was demanded. i did not come merely to pull down, but to build up, though it is plain much theological error must be demolished before any great reform of man's condition can be brought about. i came not to contend against any man, or sect, or party, but to speak a word for truth and religion in the name of man and god. i was in bondage to no sect; you in bondage to none. when a boy i learned that there is but one religion though many theologies. i have found it in christians and in jews, in quakers and in catholics. i hope we are all ready to honor what is good in each sect, and in rejecting its evil not to forget our love and wisdom in our zeal. when i came i certainly did not expect to become a popular man, or acceptable to many. i had done much which in all countries brings odium on a man, though perhaps less in boston than in any other part of the world. i had rejected the popular theology of christendom. i had exposed the low morals of society, had complained of the want of piety in its natural form. i had fatally offended the sect, small in numbers, but respectable for intelligence and goodness, in which i was brought up. i came to look at the signs of the times from an independent point of view, and to speak on the most important of all themes. i thought a house much smaller than this would be much too large for us. i knew there would be fit audience; i thought it would be few, and the few would soon have heard enough and go their ways. i know i have some advantages above most clergymen: i am responsible to no sect; no sect feels responsible for me; i have rejoiced at good things which i have seen in all sects; the doctrines which i try to teach do not rest on tradition, on miracles, or on any man's authority; only on the nature of man. i seek to preach the natural laws of man. i appeal to history for illustration, not for authority. i have no fear of philosophy. i am willing to look a doubt fairly in the face, and think reason is sacred as conscience, affection, or the religious faculty in man. i see a profound piety in modern science. i have aimed to set forth absolute religion, the ideal religion of human nature, free piety, free goodness, free thought. i call that christianity, after the greatest man of the world, one who himself taught it; but i know that this was never the christianity of the churches, in any age. i have endeavored to teach this religion and apply it to the needs of this time. these things certainly give me some advantages over most other ministers. of the disadvantages which are personal to myself, i need not speak in public, but some which come from my position, ought to be noticed with a word. the walls of this house, the associations connected with it, furnish little help to devotion; we must rely on ourselves wholly for that. other clergymen, by their occasional exchanges, can present their hearers with an agreeable variety in substance and in form. a single man, often heard, becomes wearisome and unprofitable, for "no man can feed us always." this i feel to be a great disadvantage which i labor under. your kindness and affectionate indulgence make me feel it all the more. but one man cannot be twenty men. when i came here i knew i should hurt men's feelings. my theology would prove more offensive and radical than men thought; the freedom of speech which men liked at a distance would not be pleasing when near at hand; my doctrines of morality i knew could not be pleasing to all men; not to all good men. i saw by your looks that in my abstractions i did not go too far for your sympathy, or too fast for your following. i soon found that my highest thought and most pious sentiment were most warmly welcomed as such; but when i came to put abstract thought and mystical piety into concrete goodness, and translate what you had accepted as christian faith into daily life; when i came to apply piety to trade, politics, life in general, i knew that i should hurt men's feelings. it could not be otherwise. yet i have had a most patient and faithful hearing. one thing i must do in my preaching: i must be in earnest. i cannot stand here before you and before god, attempting to teach piety and goodness, and not feel the fire and show the fire. the greater the wrong, the more popular, the more must i oppose it, and with the clearer, abler speech. it is not necessary for me to be popular, to be acceptable, even to be loved. it is necessary that i should tell the truth. but let that pass. you come hither week after week, it is now year after year that you come, to listen to one humble man. do you get poor in your souls? does your religion become poor and low? are you getting less in the qualities of a man? if so, then leave me, to empty seats, to cold and voiceless walls; go elsewhere, and feed your souls with a wise passiveness, or an activity wiser yet. such is your duty; let no affection for me hinder you from performing it. the same theology, the same form suits not all men. but if it is not so, if i do you good, if you grow in mind and conscience, heart and soul, then i ask one thing--let your piety become natural life, your divinity become humanity. footnotes: [ ] the synod declared: "that god hath a controversie with his new england people is undeniable." "there are visible manifest evils, which without doubt the lord is provoked by." . "a great and visible decay of the power of godliness amongst many professors in these churches." . "pride doth abound in new england. many have offended god by strange apparel." . "church fellowship and other divine institutions are grossly neglected." "quakers are false worshippers," "and anabaptists ... do no better than set up an altar against the lord's altar." . "the holy and glorious name of god hath been polluted;" "because of swearing the land mourns." "it is a frequent thing for men to sit in prayer-time ... and to give way to their own sloth and sleepiness." "we read of but one man in scripture that slept at a sermon, and that sin had like to have cost him his life." . "there is much sabbath-breaking; since there are multitudes that do profanely absent themselves from the public worship of god,... walking abroad and travelling ... being a common practice on the sabbath day." "worldly unsuitable discourses are very common upon the lord's day." "this brings wrath, fires, and other judgments upon a professing people." . "as to what concerns families and government thereof, there is much amiss." "children and servants ... are not kept in due subjection." "this is a sin which brings great judgments, as we see in eli's and david's family." . "inordinate passions, sinful heats and hatreds, and that amongst church members." . "there is much intemperance:" "it is a common practice for town-dwellers, yea, and church members, to frequent public houses, and there to misspend precious time." . "there is much want of truth amongst men." "the lord is not wont to suffer such an iniquity to pass unpunished." . "inordinate affection unto the world." "there hath been in many professors an insatiable desire after land and worldly accommodations; yea, so as to forsake churches and ordinances, and to live like heathen, only so that they might have elbow-room in the world. farms and merchandisings have been preferred before the things of god." "such iniquity causeth war to be in the gate, and cities to be burned up." "when lot did forsake the land of canaan and the church which was in abraham's family, that so he might have better worldly accommodations in sodom, god fired him out of all." "there are some traders that sell their goods at excessive rates; day-laborers and mechanics are unreasonable in their demands." . "there hath been opposition to the work of reformation." . "a public spirit is greatly wanting in the most of men." . "there are sins against the gospel, whereby the lord has been provoked." "christ is not prized and embraced in all his offices and ordinances as ought to be." [ ] in , mr. samuel symonds wrote to governor winthrop, as follows: "i will also mention the text preached upon at our last fast, and the propositions raised thereupon, because it was so seasonable to new england's condition. jeremiah : ; for i will restore health to thee, and heal thee of thy wounds, saith the lord; because they called thee an outcast, saying, this is zion, whom noe man careth for. " . prop. that sick tymes doe passe over zion. " . that sad and bitter neglect is the portion, aggravation and affliction of zion in the tyme of his sicknesse and wounds, but especially in the neglect of those that doe neglect it, and yet, notwithstanding, doe acknowledge it to be zion. " . that the season of penitent zion's passion, is the season of god's compassion. "this sermon tended much to the settling of godly minds here in god's way, and to raise their spirits, and, as i conceive, hath suitable effects." ii. some thoughts on the most christian use of the sunday.--a sermon preached at the melodeon, on sunday, january , . mark ii. . the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. from past ages we have received many valuable institutions, that have grown out of the transient wants or the permanent nature of man. amongst these are two which have done a great service in promoting the civilization of mankind, which still continue amongst us. i speak now of the institution of sunday, and that of preaching. by the one, a seventh part of the time is separated from the common pursuits of life, in order that it may be devoted to bodily relaxation, and to the culture of the spiritual powers of man; by the other, a large body of men, in most countries the best educated class, are devoted to the cultivation of these spiritual powers. such at least is the theory of those two institutions, be their effect in practice what it may. this morning, let us look at one of them, and so i invite your attention to some thoughts relative to the sunday--to the most christian and profitable use of that day. there is a stricter party of christians amongst us, who speak out their opinions concerning the sunday; this comprises what are commonly called the more "evangelical" sects. there is a party less strict in many particulars, comprising what are commonly called the more "liberal" sects. they have hitherto been comparatively silent on this theme. their opinions about the sunday have not usually been so plainly spoken out, but have been made apparent by their actions, by occasional and passing words, rather than by full, distinct, and emphatic declarations. the stricter party, of late years, have been growing a little more strict; the party less strict likewise advance in the opposite direction. recently, a call has been published by a few men, for a convention to consult and take some steps towards the less rigid course, for the purpose, as i understand it, of making the sunday even more valuable than it is now. i take it for granted that both parties desire to make the best possible use of the sunday--the use most conducive to the highest interests of mankind; that they desire this equally. there are good men on both sides, the more and the less strict; pious men, in the best sense of that word, may be found on both sides. there is no need of imputing bad motives to either party in order to explain the difference between the two. such is the aspect of the two parties in the field, looking opposite ways, but at one another. it seems likely that there will be a quarrel, and, as is usual in such cases, hard words on each side, hard thoughts and unkind feelings on both sides. before the quarrel begins, and our eyes are blinded by the dust of controversy; before our blood is fired, and we become wholly incapable of judgment--let us look coolly at the matter, and ask, do we need any change in respect to the observance of the sunday? are the present opinions respecting the origin, nature, and original design of that institution just and true? is the present mode of observing it the most profitable that can be devised? the inquiry is one of great importance. to answer these questions, it is necessary to go back a little into the history of the hebrew sabbath and the christian sunday. however, it is not needful to go much into detail, or consume this precious hour in a learned discussion on antiquarian matters which concern none but scholars. with the hebrews the actual observance of saturday--the sabbath--as a day rest, seems to be of pretty late origin. the first mention of it in authentic hebrew history, as actually observed, occurs about two hundred years after samuel, and about six hundred after moses--a little less than nine hundred before christ. the passage is found in kings : ; a child had died, as the narrative relates--the mother wished to send for elisha, "the man of god." her husband objects, saying, "wherefore wilt thou go to him to-day? it is neither new moon nor sabbath." this connection with the new moon is significant. in the earlier historical books of joshua, judges, the two books of samuel, and the first of kings, there is no mention of the sabbath, not the least allusion to it. this seems to have been the origin of its observance:--the worship of one god, with the distinctive name jehovah, gradually got established in the hebrew nation; for this they seem largely indebted to moses. gradually this worship of jehovah became connected with a body of priests, who were regularly organized at length, and claimed descent from levi--some of them from aaron, his celebrated descendant, the elder brother of moses. the rise of the levitical priesthood is remarkable, and easily traced in the old testament. some books are entirely destitute of a levitical spirit, such as genesis and judges; others are filled with it, as leviticus, deuteronomy, and the books of chronicles. with the priesthood it seems there came the observance of certain days for religious or festal purposes--new moon days, full moon days, and the like. these seem to have been derived from the nations about them, with whom the moon--deified as astarte, the queen and mother of heaven, and under other names--was long an object of worship. the observance of those days points back to the period when fetichism, the worship of nature, was the prominent form of religion. with the other days of religious observance came the seventh day, called the sabbath. no one knows its true historical origin. the statement respecting its origin, in the fourth commandment, and elsewhere in the old testament, can hardly be accepted as literally true by any one in this century. no scientific man, in the present stage of philosophic inquiry, will believe that god created the universe in six days, and then rested on the seventh. did other nations observe this day before the hebrews; was it also connected with some fetichistic form of worship; what was the historical event which led to the selection of that day in special? this it is easy to ask, but perhaps not possible to answer. these are curious questions; they are of little practical importance to us at this moment. after the hebrew institutions of religion got fixed--the worship of jehovah, the levitical priesthood, and the peculiar forms of sacrifice--it became common to refer their origin back to the time of moses, who lived fourteen or fifteen hundred years before christ. since few memorials from his age have come down to us, it is plain we can know little of him. but from the impression which his character left on his nation, and through them on the whole world; from the myths so early connected with his name, it seems pretty clear that he was one of the greatest and most extraordinary men that ever lived. mankind seldom tell great things of little men. it is difficult to say what share he had in making the laws of the hebrew nation which are commonly referred to him,--and, as it is popularly taught, revealed to him directly by jehovah. perhaps we are not safe in referring to him even the whole of the ten commandments; surely not in any one of their present forms.[ ] was the sabbath observed as a day of rest before moses? was its observance enforced by him? was it even known to him? these questions are not easily answered. this is only certain: from the time of moses to that of jehoram, a period of about six hundred years, there is no historical mention of its observance, not the least allusion to it. yet we have documents which treat of that period,--the books of joshua, judges, samuel, and the kings,--some of them historical documents, which go into the minute detail of the national peculiarities, and were evidently written with a good deal of concern for strict integrity and truth; they refer to the national rite of circumcision. now, if the sabbath had been observed during that period, it is difficult to believe it would have received no passing notice in those historical books. but not only is there no mention of it therein, none even in the times of david and solomon, who favored the priesthood so strongly; but in the book of chronicles, the most levitical book in the bible, at a date more than two hundred years later than the time of jehoram, it is distinctly declared that the sabbath had not been kept for nearly five hundred years.[ ] but even if this statement is true, which is scarcely probable, it is plain from the frequent mention of the sabbath in the writings of the latter part of that period--isaiah, jeremiah, and others--that the institution was one well known and highly regarded by religious men. after the return from the babylonian exile, it seems to have been kept with considerable rigor; this we learn from the book of nehemiah. the hebrew law, as it is contained in the pentateuch, is a singular mixture of conflicting statutes, evidently belonging to different ages, many of them wholly unsuitable to the condition of the people when the laws are alleged to have been given. however, they are all referred back to the time of moses in the pentateuch itself, and by the popular theology at the present day. in the law the command is given to keep the seventh day as a day of rest, and that command is referred distinctly to jehovah himself. the reason is given for choosing that day:--"for in six days the lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed;" the sabbath, therefore, was to be kept in commemoration of the fact, that after jehovah had spent the week in creating the world, "he rested and was refreshed." it was to be a day of rest for master and slave, for man and beast. a special sacrifice was offered on that day, in addition to the usual ceremonies, but no provision was made for the religious instruction of the people. the sabbath was what its hebrew name implies, a rest from all labor. the law, in general terms, forbade all work; but, not content with that, it descends to minute details, specifically prohibiting by statute the gathering or preparation of food on the sabbath, even of food to be consumed on that day itself; the lighting of a fire, or the removal from one's place; and, by a decision where the statute did not apply, forbade the gathering of sticks of wood. the punishment for violating the sabbath in general, or in any one of these particulars, was death: "whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." however, amusement was not prohibited, nor eating and drinking, only work. the command, "let no man go out of his place on the seventh day," at a later period, was liberally interpreted, and a man was allowed to go two thousand cubits, a sabbath-day's journey. long after the time of moses, some of the hebrews returned from exile amongst a more civilized and refined people. it seems probable that only the stricter portion returned and established themselves in the land of their fathers. nehemiah, their leader, enforced the observance of the sabbath with a strictness and rigor of which earlier times afford no evidence. but the nation was not content with making it a day of idleness. they established synagogues, where the people freely assembled on the sabbath and other public days, for religious instruction, and thus founded an excellent institution which has shown itself fruitful of good results. so far as i know, that is the earliest instance on record of provision being made for the regular religious instruction of the whole people. experience has shown its value, and now all the most highly civilized nations of the earth have established similar institutions. however, in the synagogues the business of religious instruction was not at all in the hands of the priests, but in those of the people, acting in their primary character without regard to levitical establishments. a priest, as such, is never an instructor of the people; he is to go through his ritual, not beyond it. it is easy to learn from the new testament what were the current opinions about the sabbath in the time of christ. it was unlawful to gather a head of wheat on the sabbath, as a man walked through the fields; it was unlawful to cure a sick man, though that cure could be effected by a touch or a word; unlawful for a man to walk home and carry the light cushion on which he had lain. what was unlawful was reckoned wicked also; for what is a crime in the eyes of the priest, he commonly pretends is likewise a sin before the eyes of god. yet it was not unlawful to eat, drink, and be merry on the sabbath; nor to lift a sheep out of the ditch; nor to quarrel with a man who came to deliver mankind from their worst enemies. it was lawful to perform the rite of circumcision on the sabbath, but unlawful to cure a man of any sickness. jesus once placed these two, the allowing of that ritual mutilation and the prohibition of the humane act of curing the sick on the sabbath, in ridiculous contrast. in the fourth gospel he goes further, and actually denies the alleged ground for the original institution of the sabbath; he denies that god had ever ceased from his work, or rested: "my father worketh hitherto."[ ] however, in effecting these cures he committed a capital offence; the pharisees so regarded it, and took measures to insure his punishment. it does not appear that they were illegal measures. it is probable they took regular and legal means to bring him to condign punishment as a sabbath-breaker. he escaped by flight. such was the sabbath with the hebrews, such the recorded opinion of jesus concerning it. there were also other days in which labor was forbidden, but with them we have nothing to do at present. jesus taught piety and goodness without the hebrew limitations; of course, then, the new wine of christianity could not be put into the old bottles of the jews. their fast days and sabbath days, their rites and forms, were not for him. * * * * * now, not long after the death of christ, his followers became gradually divided into two parties. first, there were the jewish christians; that was the oldest portion, the old school of christians. they are mentioned in ecclesiastical history as the ebionites, nazarines, and under yet other names. peter and james were the great men in that division of the early christians. matthew, and the author of the gospel according to the hebrews, were their evangelists. the church at jerusalem was their strong-hold. they kept the whole hebrew law; all its burdensome ritual, its circumcision and its sacrifices, its new-moon days and its full-moon days, sabbath, fasts, and feasts; the first fifteen bishops of the church at jerusalem were circumcised jews. it seems to me they misunderstood jesus fatally; counting him nothing but the messiah of the old testament, and christianity, therefore, nothing but judaism brightened up and restored to its original purity. i have often mentioned how strongly matthew, taking him for the author of the first gospel, favors this way of thinking. he represents jesus as commanding his disciples to observe all the mosaic law, as the pharisees interpreted that law,[ ] though such a command is utterly inconsistent with the general spirit of christ's teachings, and even with his plain declaration, as preserved in other parts of the same gospel. it is worthy of note, that this command is peculiar to matthew. but there is another instance of the same jewish tendency, though not so obvious at first sight. matthew represents jesus as saying, "the son of man," that is, the messiah, "is lord even of the sabbath day." accordingly, he is competent to expound the law correctly, and determine what is lawful to do on that day. in matthew, therefore, jesus, in his character of messiah, is represented as giving a judicial opinion, and ruling that it "is lawful to do well on the sabbath days." now, mark and luke represent it a little different. in mark, jesus himself declares that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." matthew entirely omits that remarkable saying. according to mark, jesus declares in general terms, that man is of more consequence than the observance of the sabbath, while matthew only considers that the messiah is "lord of the sabbath day." the cause of this diversity is quite plain. matthew was a jewish christian, and thought christianity was nothing but restored judaism. * * * * * the other party may be called liberal christians, though they must not be confounded with the party which now bears that name. they were the new school of the early christians. they rejected the hebrew law, so far as it did not rest on human nature, and considered that christianity was a new thing; christ, not a mere jew, but a universal man, who had thrown down the wall of partition between jews and gentiles. all the old, artificial distinctions, therefore, were done away with at once. paul was the head of the liberal party among the primitive christians. he was considered a heretic; and though he was more efficient than any of the other early preachers of christianity, yet the author of the apocalypse thought him not worthy of a place in the foundation of the new jerusalem, which rests on the twelve apostles.[ ] the fourth gospel with peculiarities of its own, is written wholly in the interest of this party; james is not mentioned in it at all, and peter plays but quite a subordinate part, and is thrown into the shade by john. the disciples are spoken of as often misunderstanding their great teacher. these peculiarities cannot be considered as accidental; they are monuments of the controversy then going on between the two parties. paul stood in direct opposition to the jewish christians. this is plain from the epistle to the galatians, in which the heads of the rival sects appear very unlike the description given of them in the book of acts. the observance of jewish sacred days was one of the subjects of controversy. let us look only at the matter of the sabbath, as it came in question between the two parties. paul exalts christ far above the messianic predictions of the old testament, calling him an image of the invisible god, and declaring that all the fulness of divinity dwells in him, and adds, that he had annulled the old hebrew law. "therefore," says paul, "let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath."[ ] here he distinctly states the issue between the two christian sects. elsewhere he speaks of the jewish party, as men that "would pervert the gospel of christ," by teaching that a man was "justified by the works of the law;" that is, by a minute observance of the hebrew ritual.[ ] paul rejects the authority of the old testament. the law of moses was but a schoolmaster's servant, to bring us to christ; man had come to christ, and needed that servant no longer; the law was a taskmaster and guardian set over man in his minority, now he had come of age, and was free; the law was a shadow of good things, and they had come; it was a law of sin and death, which no man could bear, and now the law of the spirit of life, as revealed by jesus christ, had made men free from the law of sin and death. such was the work of the glorious gospel of the blessed god. thus sweeping off the authority of the old law in general, he proceeds to particulars: he rejects circumcision, and the offering of sacrifices; rejects the distinction of nations as jew and gentile; the distinction of meats as clean and unclean, and all distinction of days, as holy and not holy. if one man thought one day holier than another day; if another man thought all days equally holy, he would have each man true to his conviction, but not seek to impose that conviction on his brothers. such was paul's opinion of "the law of moses;" such, of the sabbath; the christians were not "subject to ordinances." * * * * * let us come now to the common practice of the early christians. the apostles went about and preached christianity, as they severally understood it. they spoke as they found opportunity; on the sabbath to the jews in the synagogues, and on other days, as they found time and hearers. it does not appear from the new testament, that they limited themselves to any particular day; they were missionaries, some of them remained but a little while in a place, making the most of their time. it seems that the early christians, who lived in large towns, met every day for religious purposes. but as that would be found inconvenient, one day came to be regarded as the regular time of their meetings. the jewish christians observed the sabbath with pharisaic rigor, while the liberal christians neglected it. but both parties of christians observed, at length, the first day of the week as a peculiar day. no one knows when this observance of the sunday began; it is difficult to find proof in the new testament, that the apostles regarded it as a peculiar day; it seems plain that paul did not. but it is certain that in the second century after jesus, the christians in general did so regard it, and perhaps all of them. why was the sunday chosen as the regular day for religious meeting? it was regarded as the day on which jesus rose from the dead; and, following the mythical account in genesis, it was the day on which god began the creation, and actually created the light. here there were two reasons for the selection of that day; both are frequently mentioned by the early christian writers. sunday, therefore, was to them a symbol of the new creation, and of the light that had come into the world. the liberal christians, in separating from the jewish sabbath, would naturally exalt the new religious day. athanasius, i think, is the first who ascribes a divine origin to the institution of sunday. he says, "the lord changed this day from the sabbath to the sunday;" but athanasius lived three centuries after christ, and seems to have known little about the matter. the officers and the order of services in the churches on the sunday seem derived from the usages of the jewish synagogues. the sunday was thus observed: the people came together in the morning; the exercises consisted of readings from the old testament and such writings of the christians as the assembly saw fit to have read to them. in respect to these writings there was a wide difference in the different churches, some accepting more and others less. the overseer, or bishop, made an address, perhaps an exposition of the passage of scripture. prayers were said and hymns chanted; the lord's supper was celebrated. the form no doubt differed, and widely, too, in different places. it was not the form of servitude but the spirit of freedom, they observed. but all these things were done, likewise, on other days; the lord's supper could be celebrated on any day, and is on every day by the catholic church, even now; for the catholics have been true to the early practices in more points than the protestants are willing to admit. in some places it is certain there was a "communion" every day. sunday was regarded holy by the early christians, just as certain festivals are regarded holy by the catholics, the episcopalians, and the lutherans, at this day; as the new englanders regard thanksgiving day as holy. other days, likewise, were regarded as holy; were used in the same manner as the sunday. such days were observed in honor of particular events in the life of jesus, or in honor of saints and martyrs, or they were days consecrated by older festivals belonging to the more ancient forms of religion. in the catholic church such days are still numerous. it is only the puritans who have completely rejected them, and they have been obliged to substitute new ones in their place. however, there was one peculiarity of the sunday which distinguished it from most or all other days. it was a day of religious rejoicing. on other days the christians knelt in prayer; on the sunday they stood up on joyful feet, for light had come into the world. sunday was a day of gladness and rejoicing. the early christians had many fasts; they were commonly held on wednesdays and fridays, often on saturday also, the more completely to get rid of the jewish superstition which consecrated that day; but on sunday there must be no fast. he would be a heretic who should fast on sunday. it is strictly forbidden in the "canons of the apostles;" a clergyman must be degraded and a layman excommunicated, for the offence. says st. ignatius, in the second century, if the epistle be genuine, "every lover of christ feasts on the lord's day." "we deem it wicked," says tertullian in the third century, "to fast on the sunday, or to pray on our knees." "oh," says st. jerome, "that we could fast on the sunday, as paul did and they that were with him." st. ambrose says, the "manichees were damned for fasting on the lord's day." at this day the catholic church allows no fast on sunday, save the sunday before the crucifixion; even lent ceases on that day. it does not appear that labor ceased on sunday, in the earliest age of christianity. but when sunday became the regular and most important day for holding religious meetings, less labor must of course be performed on that day. at length it became common in some places to abstain from ordinary work on the sunday. it is not easy to say how early this was brought about. but after christianity had become "respectable," and found its way to the ranks of the wealthy, cultivated and powerful, laws got enacted in its favor. now, the romans, like all other ancient nations, had certain festal days in which it was not thought proper to labor unless work was pressing. it was disreputable to continue common labor on such days without an urgent reason; they were pretty numerous in the roman calendar. courts did not sit on those days; no public business was transacted. they were observed as christmas and the more important saints' days in catholic countries; as thanksgiving day and the fourth of july with us. in the year three hundred and twenty-one, constantine, the first christian emperor of rome, placed sunday among their ferial days. this was perhaps the first legislative action concerning the day. the statute forbids labor in towns, but expressly excludes all prohibition of field-labor in the country.[ ] about three hundred and sixty-six or seven, the council of laodicea decreed that christians "ought not to judaize and be idle on the sabbath, but to work on that day; especially observing the lord's day, and if it is possible, as christians, resting from labor." afterwards the emperor theodosius forbade certain public games on sunday, christmas, epiphany, and the whole time from easter to pentecost. justinian likewise forbade theatrical exhibitions, races in the circus, and the fights of wild beasts, on sunday, under severe penalties. this was done in order that the religious services of the christians might not be disturbed. by his laws the sunday continued to be a day in which public business was not to be transacted. but the christmas days, the fifteen days of easter, and numerous other days previously observed by christians or pagans, were put in the same class by the law. all this it seems was done from no superstitious notions respecting those days, but for the sake of public utility and convenience. however, the rigor of the jewish sabbatical laws was by no means followed. labors of love, _opera caritatis_, were considered as suitable business for those days. the very statute of theodosius recommended the emancipation of slaves on sunday. all impediments to their liberation were removed on that day, and though judicial proceedings in all other matters were forbidden on sunday, an exception was expressly made in favor of emancipating slaves. this statute was preserved in the code of justinian.[ ] all these laws go to show that there were similar customs previously established among the christians, without the aid of legislation. about the middle of the sixth century the council of orleans forbade labor in the fields, though it did not forbid travelling with cattle and oxen, the preparation of food, or any work necessary to the cleanliness of the house or the person--declaring that rigors of that sort belong more to a jewish than to a christian observance of the day. that, i think, is the earliest ecclesiastical decree which has come down to us forbidding field-labor in the country; a decree unknown till five hundred and thirty-eight years after christ. but before that, in the year three hundred and thirteen, the council of elvira in spain decreed, that if any one in a city absented himself three sundays consecutively from the church, he should be suspended from communion for a short time. such a regulation, however, was founded purely on considerations of public utility. many church establishments have thought it necessary to protect themselves from desertion by similar penal laws. in catholic countries, at the present day, the morning of sunday is appropriated to public worship, the people flocking to church. but the afternoon and evening are devoted to society, to amusement of various kinds. nothing appears sombre, but every thing has a festive air; even the theatres are open. sunday is like christmas, or a thanksgiving day in boston, only the festive demonstrations are more public. it is so in the protestant countries on the continent of europe. work is suspended, public and private, except what is necessary for the observance of the day; public lectures are suspended; public libraries closed; but galleries of paintings and statues are thrown open and crowded; the public walks are thronged. in southern germany, and, doubtless, elsewhere, young men and women have i seen in summer, of a sunday afternoon, dancing on the green, the clergyman, protestant or catholic, looking on and enjoying the cheerfulness of the young people. americans think their mode of keeping sunday is unholy; they, that ours is jewish and pharisaical. in paris, sometimes, courses of scientific lectures are delivered after the hours of religious services, to men who are busy during the week with other cares, and who gladly take the hours of their only leisure day to gain a little intellectual instruction. when england was a catholic country, catholic notions of sunday of course prevailed. labor was suspended; there was service in the churches, and afterwards there were sports for the people, but they were attended with quarrelling, noise, uproar, and continual drunkenness. it was so after the reformation. in the time of elizabeth, the laws forbade labor except in time of harvest, when it was thought right to work, if need were, and "save the thing that god hath sent." some of the protestants wished to reform those disorders, and convert the sunday to a higher use. the government, and sometimes the superior clergy, for a long time interfered to prevent the reform, often to protect the abuse. the "book of sports," appointed to be read in churches, is well known to us from the just indignation with which it filled our fathers. now, it is plain, that in england, before the reformation, the sunday was not appropriated to its highest use; not to the highest interests of mankind; no, not to the highest concerns, which the people, at that time, were capable of appreciating. the attempts, made then and subsequently, by government, to enforce the observance of the day, for purposes not the highest, led to a fearful reaction; that to other and counter reactions. the ill consequences of those movements have not yet ceased on either side of the ocean. the puritans represented the spirit of reaction against ecclesiastical and other abuses of their time, and the age before them. let me do these men no injustice. i honor the heroic virtues of our fathers not less because i see their faults; see the cause of their faults, and the occasion which demanded such masculine and terrible virtues as the puritans unquestionably possessed. i speak only of their doctrine of the sunday. they were driven from one extreme to the other, for oppression makes wise men mad. they took mainly the notions of the sabbath, which belong to the later portions of the old testament; they interpreted them with the most pharisaical rigor, and then applied them to the sunday. did they find no warrant for that rigor in the new testament? they found enough in the old; enough in their own character, and their consequent notions of god. they thus introduced a set of ideas respecting the sunday, which the christian church had never known before, and rigidly enforced an observance thereof utterly foreign both to the letter and spirit of the new testament. they made sunday a terrible day; a day of fear, and of fasting, and of trembling under the terrors of the lord. they even called it by the hebrew name--the sabbath. the catholics had said it was not safe to trust the scriptures in the hands of the people, for an inspired word needed an expositor also inspired. the abuse which the puritans made of the bible by their notions of the sunday, seemed a fulfilment of the catholic prophecy. but the catholics did not see what is plain to all men now--that this very abuse of sunday and scripture was only the reaction against other abuses, ancient, venerated, and enforced by the catholic church itself. every sect has some institution which is the symbol of its religious consciousness, though not devised for that purpose. with the early christians, it was their love-feasts and communion; with the catholics, it is their gorgeous ritual with its ancient date and divine pretensions--a ritual so imposing to many; with the quakers, who scorn all that is symbolic, the symbol equally appears in the plain dress and the plain speech, the broad brim, and _thee_ and _thou_. with the puritans, this symbol was the sabbath, not the sunday. their sabbath was like themselves, austere, inflexible as their "divine decrees;" not human and of man, but hebrew and of the jews, stern, cold, and sad. the puritans were possessed with the sentiment of fear before god; they had ideas analogous to that sentiment, and wrought out actions akin to those ideas. they brought to america their ideas and sentiments. behold the effect of their actions. let us walk reverently backward, with averted eyes to cover up their folly, their shame, and their sin, as they could not walk to conceal the folly of their progenitors. the puritans are the fathers of new england and her descendant states; the fathers of the american idea; of most things in america that are good; surely, of most that is best. they seem made on purpose for their work of conquering a wilderness and founding a state. it is not with gentle hands, not with the dalliance of effeminate fingers, that such a task is done. the work required energy the most masculine, in heart, head, and hands. none but the puritans could have done such a work. they could fast as no men; none could work like them; none preach; none pray; none could fight as they fought. they have left a most precious inheritance to men who have the same greatness of soul, but have fallen on happier times. yet this inheritance is fatal to mere imitators, who will go on planting of vineyards, where the first planter fell intoxicated with the fruit of his own toil. this inheritance is dangerous to men who will be no wiser than their ancestors. let us honor the good deeds of our fathers; and not eat, but reverently bury their honored bones. the puritans represented the natural reaction of mankind against old institutions that were absurd or tyrannical. the catholic church had multiplied feast days to an extreme, and taken unnecessary pains to promote fun and frolic. the puritans would have none of the saints' days in their calendar; thought sport was wicked; cut down maypoles, and punished a man who kept christmas after the old fashion. the catholic church had neglected her golden opportunities for giving the people moral and religious instruction; had quite too much neglected public prayer and preaching, but relied mainly on sensuous instruments--architecture, painting, music. in revenge, the puritan had a meeting-house as plain as boards could make it; tore the pictures to pieces; thought an organ "was not of god," and had sermons long and numerous, and prayers full of earnestness, zeal, piety, and faith, in short, possessed of all desirable things except an end. did the catholics forbid the people the bible, emphatically the book of the people--the puritan would read no other book; called his children hebrew names, and reënacted "the laws of god" in the old testament, "until we can make better." did henry and elizabeth underrate the people and overvalue the monarchy, nature had her vengeance for that abuse, and the puritan taught the world that kings, also, had a joint in their necks. the puritans went to the extreme in many things: in their contempt for amusements, for what was graceful in man or beautiful in woman; in their scorn of art, of elegant literature, even of music; in their general condemnation of the past, from which they would preserve little excepting what was hebrew, which, of course, they over-honored as much as they undervalued all the rest. in their notions respecting the sunday they went to the same extreme. the general reason is obvious. they wished to avoid old abuses, and thought they were not out of the water till they were in the fire. but there was a special reason, also: the english are the most empirical of all nations. they love a fact more than an idea, and often cling to an historical precedent rather than obey a great truth which transcends all precedents. the national tendency to external things, perhaps, helped lead them to these peculiar notions of the sabbath. the precedent they found in "the chosen people," and established, as they thought, by god himself. * * * * * the ideas of the puritans respecting the sunday are still cherished in the popular theology of new england. there is one party in our churches possessed of many excellences, which has always had the merit of speaking out fully what it thinks and feels. at this day that party still represents the puritanic opinions about the sunday, though a little modified. they teach that god created the world in six days, and rested the seventh; that he commanded mankind, also, to rest on that day; commanded a man to be stoned to death for picking up sticks of a saturday; that by divine authority the first day of the week was substituted for the seventh, and therefore that it is the religious duty of all men to rest from work on that day, for the hebrew law of the sabbath is binding on christians for ever. it is maintained that abstinence from work on sunday is as much a religious duty as abstinence from theft or hatred; that the day must be exclusively devoted to religion, in the technical sense of that word, to public or private worship, to religious reading, thought, or conversation. to attend church on that day is thought to be a good in itself, though it should lead to no further good, and therefore a duty as imperative as the duty of loving man and god. the preacher may not edify, still the duty of attending to his ministration of the word remains the same; for the attendance is a good in itself. it is taught that work, that amusement, common conversation, the reading of a book not technically religious, is a sin, just as clearly a sin as theft or hatred, though perhaps not so great. writing a letter, even, is denounced as a sin, though the letter be written for the purpose of arresting the progress of a war, and securing life and freedom to millions of men. now, it is very plain that such ideas are not consistent with the truth. in the language of the church, they are a heresy. as we learn the facts of the case we must give up such ideas concerning the sunday. it is like any other day. christianity knows no classes of days, as holy or profane; all days are the lord's days, all time holy time. * * * * * but then comes the other question, what is the best use to be made of the day; the use most conducive to the highest interests of mankind? will it be most profitable to "give up the sunday," to use it as the catholics do, as the puritans did, or to adopt some other method? to answer these questions fairly, let us look and see the effects of the present notions about the sunday, and the stricter mode of observing it here in new england. the experience of two hundred years is worth looking at. let us look at the good effects first. the good and evil of any age are commonly bound so closely together, that in plucking up the tares, there is danger lest the wheat also be uprooted, at least trodden down. in america, especially in new england, every thing is intense, with of course a tendency to extravagance, to fanaticism. look at some of the most obvious signs of that intensity. no conservatism in the world is so bigoted as american conservatism; no democracy so intense. nowhere else can you find such thorough-going defenders of the existing state of things, social, ecclesiastical, civil; such defenders of drunkenness, ignorance, superstition, slavery, and war; nowhere such radical enemies to the existing state of things; such foes of drunkenness, ignorance, superstition, slavery, and war. no "revivals of religion" are like the american; none of old were like these. see how the american soldiers fight; how the american men will work. puritanism was intense enough in england; in the new world it was yet more so. our fathers were intense calvinists; more calvinistic than calvin--they became hopkinsian. they hated the pope; kings and bishops were their aversion. they feared god. did they love him--love him as much? they had an intense religious activity, but they had another intensity. it is better that we should say it, rather than men who do not honor them. that intensity of action, when turned towards material things, or, as they called them, "carnal things," needed some powerful check. it was found in their bigotry and superstition. in such an age as theirs, when the reformation broke down all the ordinary restraints of society, and rent asunder the golden ties which bound man to the past; when the anglican church ended in fire, and the english monarchy in blood; when men full of piety thanked god for the fire and the bloodshed, and felt the wrongs of a thousand years driving them almost to madness--what was there to keep such men within bounds, and restrain them from the wildest license and unbridled anarchy? nothing but superstition; nothing short of fear of hell. they broke down the monarchy; they trod the church under their feet. she who had once been counted as the queen and mother of society, was now to be regarded only as the apocalyptical woman in scarlet, the mother of abominations, bride of the devil, and queen of hell. the old testament wrought on the minds of these men like a charm, to stimulate and to soothe. "one day," said they, "is made holy by god; in it shall no work be done by man or beast, or thing inanimate. on that day all must attend church as an act of religion." here, then, was a bar extending across the stream of worldliness, filling one seventh part of its channel, wide and deep, and wonderfully interrupting its whelming tide. i admire the divine skill which compounds the gases in the air; which balances centripetal and centrifugal forces into harmonious proportions,--those fair ellipses in the unseen air; but still more marvellous is that same skill, diviner now, which compounds the folly and the wisdom of mankind; balances centripetal and centrifugal forces here, stilling the noise of kings and the tumult of the people, making their wrath to serve him, and the remnant thereof restraining forever. on sunday, master and man, the slave stolen from the wilderness, the servant--a christian man bought from some christian conqueror,--must cease from their work. did the covetous, the cruel, the strong, oppress the weak for six days, the sabbath said, "hitherto shalt thou come, but no further." the servant was free from his master, and the weary was at rest. the plough stood still in the furrow; the sheaf lay neglected in the field; the horse and the ox enjoyed their master's sabbath of rest, all heedless of the divine decrees, of election or reprobation, yet not the less watched over by that dear providence which numbered the hairs of the head, and overruled the falling of a sparrow for the sparrow's good. all must attend church, master and man, rich and poor, oppressor and oppressed. good things and great things got read out of the bible, it was the book of the people, the new testament, written much of it in the interest of all mankind, with special emphasis laid on the rights of the weak and the duties of the strong. good things got said in sermon and in prayer. the speakers must think, the hearers think, as well as tremble. begin to think in a circle narrow as a lady's ring, or the assembly's catechism, you will think out; for thought, like all movement, tends to the right line. calvinism has always bred thinkers, and when barbarism was the first danger was perhaps the only thing which could do it. calvinism, too, has always shown itself in favor of popular liberty to a certain degree, and though it stops far short of the mark, yet goes far beyond the catholic or episcopalian. sunday, thus enforced by superstition, has yet been the education-day of new england; the national school-time for the culture of man's highest powers; therein have the clergy been our educators, and done a vast service which mankind will not soon forget. it was good seed they sowed on this soil of the new world; the harvest is proof of that. they builded wiser than they knew. their unconscious hands constructed the thought of god. even their superstition and bigotry did much to preserve church and clergy to us; much also to educate and develop the highest powers of man. but for that superstition we might have seen the same anarchy, the same unbridled license in the seventeenth century, which we saw in the eighteenth, as a consequence of a similar revolution, a similar reaction; only it would have been carried out with the intensity of that most masculine and earnest race of men. how much further english atrocities would have gone than the french did go; how long it would have taken mankind, by their proper motion, to reascend from a fall so adverse and so low, i cannot tell. i see what saved them from the plunge. true, the sunday was not what it should be, more than the week; preaching was not what it should be, more than practice. but without that sunday, and without that preaching, new england would have been a quite different land; america another nation altogether; the world by no means so far advanced as now. new england with her descendants has always been the superior portion of america. i flatter no man's prejudice, but speak a plain truth. she is superior in intelligence, in morality--that is too plain for proof. the prime cause of that superiority must be sought in the character of the fathers of new england; but a secondary and most powerful cause is to be found also in those two institutions--sunday and preaching. why is it that all great movements, from the american revolution down to anti-slavery, have begun here? why is it that education societies, missionary societies, bible societies, and all the movements for the advance of mankind, begin here? why, it is no more an accident than the rising of the tide. find much of the cause in the superior character, and therefore in the superior aims of the forefathers, much also will be found due to this--once in the week they paused from all work; they thought of their god, who had delivered them from the iron house and yoke of bondage; they listened to the words of able men, exhorting them to justice, piety, and a heavenly walk with god; they trembled at fear of hell; they rejoiced at hope of heaven. the church--no, the "meeting-house"--was the common property of all; the minister the common friend. the slave looked up to him; the chief magistrate dared not look down on him. for more than a hundred years the ablest men of new england went into the pulpit. no talent was thought too great, no learning too rich and profound, no genius too holy and divine, for the work of teaching men their highest duty, and helping to their highest bliss. he was the minister to all. there was not then a church for the rich, and a chapel for the poor; the rich and the poor met together, for one god was the maker of them all--their father too; they had one gospel, one redeemer,--their brother not less than their god; they journeyed toward the same heaven, which had but one entrance for great and little; they prayed all the same prayer. the effect of this socialism of religion is seldom noticed; so we walk on moist earth, not thinking that we tread on the thunder-cloud and the lightning. but it is not in human nature for men of intense religious activity to meet in the same church, sing the same psalm, pray the same prayer, partake the same elements of communion, and not be touched with compassion--each for all, and all for each. the same causes which built up religion in new england, built up democracy along with it. is it not easy to see the cause which made the rich men of new england the most benevolent of rich men; gave them their character for generosity and public spirit--yes, for eminent humanity? the acorn is not more obviously the parent of the oak than those two institutions of new england the parent of such masculine virtues as distinguish her sons. regarded merely as a day of rest from labor, the sunday has been of great value to us. considering the intense character of the nation, our tendency to material things, and our restless love of work, it seems as if a moses of the nineteenth century, legislating for us, would enact two rest-days in the week, rather than one. it is a good thing that a man once a week pauses from his work, arrays himself in clean garments, and is at rest. regarded in its other aspects, sunday has aided the intellectual culture of the people to a degree not often appreciated. to many a man, yes, to most men, it is their only reading day, and they will read "secular" books, spite of the clerical admonition. many a poor boy in new england, who has toiled all the week, and would gladly have studied all the night, did not obstinate nature forbid, has studied stealthily all sunday, not jeremiah and the prophets, but homer and the mathematics, and risen at length to eminence amongst cultivated men;--he has to thank the sunday for the beginnings of that manly growth. the moral and religious effect of the day is yet more important. one seventh part of the time was to be devoted to moral and religious culture. the clergy watched diligently over sunday, as their own day. work was then the accident; religion was the business. every thing with us becomes earnest; sunday as earnest as the week. it must not be spent idly. perhaps no body of clergymen, for two hundred years, on the whole, were ever so wakeful and active as the american. they also are earnest and full of intensity, especially in the more serious sects. i think i am not very superstitious; not often inclined to lean on my father's staff rather than walk on my own feet; not over-much accustomed to take things on trust because they have been trusted to all along: but i must confess that i see a vast amount of good achieved by the aid of these two institutions, the sunday and preaching, which could not have been done without them. i know i have my prejudices; i love the sunday; a professional bias may warp me aside, for i am a preacher--the pulpit is my joy and my throne. judge you how far my profession and my prejudice have led me astray in estimating the value of the sunday, its preaching, and the good they have achieved for us in new england. i know what superstition, what bigotry, has been connected with both; i know it has kept grim and terrible guard about these institutions. i look upon that superstition and bigotry, as on the old new england guns which were fought with in the indian wars, the french wars, and the revolution;--things that did service when men knew not how to defend what they valued most with better tools and more christian. i look on both with the same melancholy veneration, but honor them the more that now they are old, battered, unfit for use and covered with rust; i would respectfully hang them up, superstition and the musket, side by side; honorable, but harmless, with their muzzles down, and pray god it might never be my lot to handle such ungodly weapons, though in a cause never so humane and holy. * * * * * let us look a little at the ill effects of these notions of the sunday and the observance which they led to. it is thought an act of religion to attend church and give a mere bodily presence there. hence the minister often relies on this circumstance to bring his audience together; preaches sermons on the duty of going to church, while ingenuous boys blush for his weakness, and ask, "were it not better to rely on your goodness, your piety, your wisdom; on your superior ability to teach men, even on your eloquence, rather than tell them it is an act of religion to come and hear you, when both they and you are painfully conscious that they are thereby made no wiser, no better, nor more christian?" this notion is a dangerous one for a clergyman. it flatters his pride and encourages his sloth. it blinds him to his own defects, and leads him to attribute his empty benches to the perverseness of human nature and the carnal heart, which a few snow-flakes can frighten from his church, while a storm will not keep them from a lecture on science or literature. no doubt it is a man's duty to seek all opportunities of becoming wiser and better. so far as church-going helps that work, so far it is a duty. but to count it in itself, irrespective of its consequences, an act of religion, is to commit a dangerous error, which has proved fatal to many a man's growth in goodness and piety. let us look to the end, not merely at the means. this notion has also a bad effect on the hearers. it is thought an act of religion to attend church, whether you are edified or not by sermon, by psalm, or prayer; an act of religion, though you could more profitably spend the time in your own closet at home, or with your own thoughts in the fields. of course, then, he who attends once a day is thought a christian to a certain degree; if twice, more so; if thrice, why that denotes an additional amount of growth in grace. in this way the day is often spent in a continual round of meetings. sermon follows sermon; prayer treads upon the footsteps of prayer; psalm effaces psalm, till morning, afternoon, evening, all are gone. the sunday is ended and over; the man is tired--but has he been profited and made better thereby? the sermons and the prayers have cancelled one another, been heard and forgot. they were too numerous to remember or produce their effect. so on a summer's lake, as the winds loiter and then pass by, ripple follows ripple, and wave succeeds to wave, yet the next day the wind has ceased and the unstable water bears no trace left there by all the blowings of the former day, but bares its incontinent bosom to the frailest and most fleeting clouds. another ill effect follows from regarding attendance at church as an act of religion in itself:--it is forgotten that a man cannot teach what he does not know. if you have more manhood than i, more religion; if you are the more humane and the more divine, it is idle for me to try and teach you divinity and humanity; idle in you to make believe you are taught. the less must learn of the greater, not the greater directly of the less. it is too often forgotten by the preacher that his hearers may be capable of teaching him; that he cannot fill them out of an emptiness, but a fulness. hence, it comes to pass that no one, how advanced soever, is allowed to graduate, so to say, from the church. perhaps it may do a great man, mature in christianity, good to sit down with his fellows and hear a little man talk who knows nothing of religion; it may increase his sympathy with mankind. it can hardly be an act of religion to such a man so advanced in his goodness and piety; perhaps not the best use he could make of the hour. the current opinion hinders social tendencies. a man must not meet with his friend and neighbor, or if he does, he must talk with bated breath, with ghostly countenance, and of a ghostly theme. from this abuse of the sunday comes much of the cold and unsocial character which strangers charge us with. as things now go, there are many who have no opportunity for social intercourse except the hours of the sunday. then it is forbidden them. so they suffer and lose much of the charm of life; become ungenial, unsocial, stiff, and hard, and cold. this notion hinders men, also, from intellectual culture. they must read no book but one professedly religious. such works are commonly poor and dull; written mainly by men of little ability, of little breadth of view; not written in the interest of mankind, but only of a sect--the calvinists or unitarians. a good man groans when he looks over the immense piles of sectarian books written with good motives, and read with the most devout of intentions, but which produce their best effect when they lead only to sleep. yet it is commonly taught that it is religion to spend a part of sunday in reading such works, in listening, or in trying to listen, or in affecting to try and listen, to the most watery sermons, while it is wicked to read some "secular" book, philosophy, history, poem, or tale, which expands the mind and warms the heart. our poor but wisdom-seeking boy must read his homer only by stealth. there are many men who have no time for intellectual pursuits, none for reading, except on sunday. it is cruel to tell them they shall read none but sectarian books or listen only to sectarian words. but there are other evils yet. these notions and the corresponding practice tend to make religion external, consisting in obedience to form, in compliance with custom; while religion is and can be only piety and goodness, love to god and love to man. to keep the sunday idle, to attend church, is not being religious. it is easy to do that; easy to stop there, and then to look at real, manly saints, who live in the odor of sanctity, whose sentiment is a prayer, their deeds religion, and their whole life a perpetual communion with god, and say, "infidel! unbeliever." then, as one day is devoted to religion, it is thought that is enough; that religion has no more business in the world than the world in religion. so division is made of the territory of mortal life, in which partition worldliness has six days, while poor religion has only the sunday, and content with her own limits, feels no salient wish to absorb or annex the week! it is painful to see this abuse of an institution so noble. no commonness of its occurrence renders it less painful. it is painful to be told that men of the most scrupulous sects on sunday, are in the week the least scrupulous of men. but even in religious matters it is thought all things which pertain directly to the religious welfare of men are not proper to be discussed on sunday. one must not preach against intemperance, against slavery, against war, on sunday. it is not "evangelical;" not "preaching the gospel." yet it is thought proper to preach on total depravity, on eternal damnation; to show that god will damn forever the majority of mankind; that the apostle peter was a unitarian. the sunday is not the time, the pulpit not the place, preaching not the instrument, wherewith to oppose the monstrous sins of our day, and secure education, temperance, peace, freedom, for mankind. it is not evangelical, not christian, to do that of a sunday! yet wonderful to say, it is not thought very wicked to hold a political caucus on sunday for the merest party purposes; not wicked at all to work all day at the navy-yards in fitting out vessels, if they are only vessels of war; not at all wicked to toil all sunday, if it is only in aiming to kill men in regular battle. theological newspapers can expend their cheap censure on a member of congress for writing a letter on sunday, yet have no word of fault to find with the order which sets hundreds to work on sunday in preparing armaments of war; not a word against the war which sets men to butcher their christian brothers on the day which christians celebrate as the anniversary of christ's triumph over death! these things show that we have not yet arrived at the most profitable and christian mode of using the sunday; and when i consider these abuses i wonder not that the cry of "infidel" is met by the unchristian taunt, yet more deserved and biting, "thou hypocrite!" i wonder not that some men say, "let us away with the sunday altogether; and if we have no place for rest, we will have none for hypocrisy." the efforts honestly made by good and honest men, to judaize the day still more; to revive the sterner features of ancient worship; to put a yoke on us which neither we nor our fathers could bear; to transform the christian sunday into the jewish sabbath, must lead to a reaction. abuse on one side will be met by abuse on the other; despotic asceticism by license; judaism by heathenism. superstition is the mother of denial. men will scorn the sunday; abuse its timely rest. its hours that may be devoted to man's highest interests will be prostituted to low aims, and worldliness make an unbroken sweep from one end of the month to the other; and then it will take years of toil before mankind can get back and secure the blessings now placed within an easy reach. i put it to you, men whose heads time has crowned with white, or sprinkled with a sober gray, if you would deem it salutary to enforce on your grandchildren the sabbath austerities which your parents imposed on you? in your youth was the sunday a welcome day; a genial day; or only wearisome and sour? was religion, dressed in her sabbath dress, a welcome guest; was she lovely and to be desired? your faces answer. let us profit by your experience. * * * * * how can we make the sunday yet more valuable? if we abandon the superstitious notions respecting its origin and original design, the evils that have hitherto hindered its use will soon perish of themselves. they all grow out of that root. if men are not driven into a reaction by pretensions for the sunday which facts will not warrant; if unreasonable austerities are not forced upon them in the name of the law, and the name of god; there is no danger in our day that men will abandon an institution which already has done so much service to mankind. let sunday and preaching stand on their own merits, and they will encounter no more opposition than the common school and the work-days of the week. then men will be ready enough to appropriate the sunday to the highest objects they know and can appreciate. tell men the sunday is made for man, and they will use it for its highest use. tell them man is made for it, and they will war on it as a tyrant. i should be sorry to see the sunday devoted to common work; sorry to hear the clatter of a mill, or the rattle of the wheels of business on that day. i look with pain on men engaged needlessly in work on that day; not with the pain of wounded superstition, but a deeper regret. i would not water my garden with perfumes when common water was at hand. we shall always have work enough in america; hand-work, and head-work, for common purposes. there is danger that we shall not have enough of rest, of intellectual cultivation, of refinement, of social intercourse; that our time shall be too much devoted to the lower interests of life, to the means of living and not the end. i would not consider it an act of religion to attend church: only a good thing to go there when the way of improvement leads through it; when you are made wiser and better by being there. i am pained to see a man spend the whole of a sunday in going to church,--and forgetting himself in getting acquainted with the words of the preachers. i think most intelligent hearers, and most intelligent and christian preachers, will confess that two sermons are better than three, and one is better than two. one need only look at the afternoon face of a congregation in the city, to be satisfied of this. if one half the day were devoted to public worship, the other half might be free for private studies of men at home, for private devotion, for social relaxation, for intercourse with one's own family and friends. then sunday afternoon and evening would afford an excellent opportunity for meetings for the promotion of the great humane movements of the day, which some would think not evangelical enough to be treated of in the morning. would it be inconsistent with the great purposes of the day, inconsistent with christianity, to have lectures on science, literature, and similar subjects delivered then? i do not believe the catholic custom of spending the sunday afternoon in england, before the reformation, was a good one. it diverted men from the higher end to the lower. i cannot think that here and now we need amusement so much as society, instruction, refinement, and devotion. yet it seems to me unwise to restrain the innocent sports of children of a sunday, to the same degree that our fathers did; to make sunday to them a day of gloom and sadness. thoughtful parents are now much troubled in this matter; they cannot enforce the old discipline, so disastrous to themselves; they fear to trust their own sense of what is right;--so, perhaps, get the ill of both schemes, and the good of neither. there are in boston about thirty thousand catholics, twenty-five thousand of them, probably, too ignorant to read with pleasure or profit any book. at home, amusement formed a part of their sunday service; it was a part of their religion to make a festive use of sunday afternoon. what shall they do? is it christian in us by statute to interdict them from their recreation? with the exception of children and these most ignorant persons, it does not appear that there is any class amongst us who need any part of the sunday for sport. i am not one of those who wish "to give up the sunday;" indeed there are few such men amongst us; i would make it yet more useful and profitable. i would remove from it the superstition and the bigotry which have so long been connected with it; i would use it freely, as a christian not enslaved by the letter of judaism, but made free by an obedience to the law of the spirit of life. i would use the sunday for religion in the wide sense of that word; use it to promote piety and goodness, for humanity, for science, for letters, for society. i would not abuse it by impudent license on the one hand, nor by slavish superstition on the other. we can easily escape the evils which come of the old abuse; can make the sunday ten times more valuable than it is even now; can employ it for all the highest interests of mankind, and fear no reaction into libertinism. the sunday is made for man, as are all other days; not man for the sunday. let us use it, then, not consuming its hours in a jewish observance; not devote it to the lower necessities of life, but the higher; not squander it in idleness, sloth, frivolity, or sleep; let us use it for the body's rest, for the mind's culture, for head and heart and soul. men and women, you have received the sunday from your fathers, as a day to be devoted to the highest interests of man. it has done great service for them and for you. but it has come down accompanied with superstition which robs it of half its value. it is easy for you to make the day far more profitable to yourselves than it ever was to your fathers; easy to divest it of all bigotry, to free it from all oldness of the letter; easy to leave it for your children an institution which shall bless them for ages yet to come: or it is easy to bind on their necks unnatural restraints; to impose on their conscience and understanding absurdities which at last they must repel with scorn and contempt. it is in your hands to make the sunday jewish or christian. footnotes: [ ] these celebrated commandments have come down to us in three distinct forms; namely, in exodus xx., in exodus xxxiv., and in deut. v. the differences between these several codes are quite remarkable and significant. [ ] chron. : . [ ] john : - , and : - . [ ] matthew : - . [ ] rev. : . [ ] coloss. : . [ ] galat. : . [ ] justinian, _cod._ lib. iii. tit. xii. l. . [ ] _cod._, lib. iii. tit. xii. l. . see also, l. and . iii. a sermon of immortal life.--preached at the melodeon, on sunday, september , . wisdom of solomon iii. , . the souls of the righteous are in the hands of god: their hope is full of immortality. it is the belief of mankind that we shall all live forever. this is not a doctrine of christianity alone. it belongs to the human race. you may find nations so rude that they live houseless, in caverns of the earth; nations that have no letters, not knowing the use of bows and arrows, fire or even clothes, but no nation without a belief in immortal life. the form of that belief is often grotesque and absurd; the mode of proof ridiculous; the expectations of what the future life is to be are often childish and silly. but notwithstanding all that, the fact still remains, the belief that the soul of a man never dies. how did mankind come by this opinion? "by a miraculous revelation," says one. but according to the common theory of miraculous revelations, the race could not have obtained it in this way, for according to that theory the heathen had no such revelations; yet we find this doctrine the settled belief of the whole heathen world. the greeks and romans believed it long before christ; the chaldees, with no pretence to miraculous inspiration, taught the idea of immortality; while the jews, spite of their alleged revelations, rested only in the dim sentiment thereof. it was not arrived at by reasoning. it requires a good deal of hard thinking to reason out and prove this matter. yet you find this belief among nations not capable as yet of that art of thinking and to that degree, nations who never tried to prove it, and yet believe it as confidently as we. the human race did not sit down and think it out; never waited till they could prove it by logic and metaphysics; did not delay their belief till a miraculous revelation came to confirm it. it came to mankind by intuition; by instinctive belief, the belief which comes unavoidably from the nature of man. in this same way came the belief in god; the love of man; the sentiment of justice. men could see, and knew they could see, before they proved it; before they had theories of vision; without waiting for a miraculous revelation to come and tell them they had eyes, and might see if they would look. some faculties of the body act spontaneously at first--so others of the spirit. immortality is a fact of man's nature, so it is a part of the universe, just as the sun is a fact in the heavens and a part of the universe. both are writings from god's hand; each therefore a revelation from him, and of him; only not miraculous, but natural, regular, normal. yet each is just as much a revelation from him as if the great soul of all had spoken in english speech to one of us and said, "there is a sun there in the heavens, and thou shalt live for ever." yes, the fact is more certain than such speech would make it, for this fact speaks always--a perpetual revelation, and no words can make it more certain. as a man attains consciousness of himself, he attains consciousness of his immortality. at first he asks proof no more of his eternal existence than of his present life; instinctively he believes both. nay, he does not separate the two; this life is one link in that golden and electric chain of immortality; the next life another and more bright, but in the same chain. immortality is what philosophers call an ontological fact; it belongs essentially to the being of man, just as the eye is a physiological fact and belongs to the body of man. to my mind this is the great proof of immortality: the fact that it is written in human nature; written there so plain that the rudest nations have not failed to find it, to know it; written just as much as form is written on the circle, and extension on matter in general. it comes to our consciousness as naturally as the notions of time and space. we feel it as a desire; we feel it as a fact. what is thus in man is writ there of god who writes no lies. to suppose that this universal desire has no corresponding gratification, is to represent him, not as the father of all but as only a deceiver. i feel the longing after immortality, a desire essential to my nature, deep as the foundation of my being; i find the same desire in all men. i feel conscious of immortality; that i am not to die; no, never to die, though often to change. i cannot believe this desire and consciousness are felt only to mislead, to beguile, to deceive me. i know god is my father, and the father of the nations. can the almighty deceive his children? for my own part, i can conceive of nothing which shall make me more certain of my immortality. i ask no argument from learned lips. no miracle could make me more sure; no, not if the sheeted dead burst cerement and shroud, and rising forth from their honored tombs stood here before me, the disenchanted dust once more enchanted with that fiery life; no, not if the souls of all my sires since time began came thronging round, and with miraculous speech told me they lived and i should also live. i could only say, "i knew all this before, why waste your heavenly speech!" i have now indubitable certainty of eternal life. death removing me to the next state, can give me infallible certainty. but there are men who doubt of immortality. they say they are conscious of the want, not of the fact. they need a proof. the exception here proves the rule. you do not doubt your personal and conscious existence now; you ask no proof of that; you would laugh at me should i try to convince you that you are alive and self-conscious. yet one of the leaders of modern philosophy wanted a proof of his as a basis for his science, and said,--"i am because i think." but his thought required proof as much as his being; yes, logically more, for being is the ground of thinking, not thinking of being. at this day there are sound men who deny the existence of this outward world, declaring it only a dreamworld. this ground, they say, and yonder sun have being but in fancy, like the sun and ground you perchance dreamed of last night whose being was only a being-dreamed. these are exceptional men, and help prove the common rule, that man trusts his senses and believes an outward world. yet such are more common amongst philosophers than men who doubt of their immortal life. you cannot easily reason those men out of their philosophy and into their senses, nor by your own philosophy perhaps convince them that there is an outward world. i think few of you came to your belief in everlasting life through reasoning. your belief grew out of your general state of mind and heart. you could not help it. perhaps few of you ever sat down and weighed the arguments for and against it, and so made up your mind. perhaps those who have the firmest consciousness of the fact are least familiar with the arguments which confirm that consciousness. if a man disbelieves it, if he denies it, his opinion is not often to be changed immediately or directly by argument. his special conviction has grown out of his general state of mind and heart, and is only to be removed by a change in his whole philosophy. i am not honoring men for their belief, nor blaming men who doubt or deny. i do not believe any one ever willingly doubted this; ever purposely reasoned himself into the denial thereof. men doubt because they cannot help it; not because they will, but must. there are a great many things true which no man as yet can prove true; some things so true that nothing can make them plainer, or more plainly true. i think it is so with this doctrine, and therefore, for myself, ask no argument. with my views of man, of god, of the relation between the two, i want no proof, satisfied with my own consciousness of immortality. yet there are arguments which are fair, logical, just, which satisfy the mind, and may, perhaps, help persuade some men who doubt, if such men there are amongst you. i think that immortality is a fact of consciousness; a fact given in the constitution of man: therefore a matter of sentiment. but it requires thought to pick it out from amongst the other facts of consciousness. though at first merely a feeling, a matter of sentiment, on examination it becomes an idea--a matter of thought. it will bear being looked at in the sharpest and dryest light of logic. truth never flinches before reason. it is so with our consciousness of god; that is an ontological fact, a fact given in the nature of man. at first it is a feeling, a matter of sentiment. by thought we abstract this fact from other facts; we find an idea of god. that is a matter of philosophy, and the analyzing mind legitimates the idea and at length demonstrates the existence of god, which we first learned without analysis, and by intuition. a great deal has been written to prove the existence of god, and that by the ablest men; yet i cannot believe that any one was ever reasoned directly into a belief in god, by all those able men, nor directly out of it by all the skeptics and scoffers. indirectly such works affect men, change their philosophy and modes of thought, and so help them to one or the other conclusion. the idea of immortality, like the idea of god, in a certain sense, is born in us, and fast as we come to consciousness of ourselves we come to consciousness of god, and of ourselves as immortal. the higher we advance in wisdom, goodness, piety, the larger place do god and immortality hold in our experience and inward life. i think that is the regular and natural process of a man's development. doubt of either seems to me an exception, an irregularity. causes that remove the doubt must be general more than special. * * * * * however, in order to have a basis of thought and reasoning, as well as of intuition and reason, let me mention some of the arguments for everlasting life. i. the first is drawn from the general belief of mankind. the greatest philosophers and the most profound and persuasive religious teachers of the whole world have taught this. that is an important fact, for these men represent the consciousness of mankind in the highest development it has yet reached, and in such points are the truest representatives of man. what is more, the human race believes it, not merely as a thing given by miraculous revelation, not as a matter proven by science, not as a thing of tradition resting on some man's authority, but believes it instinctively, not knowing and not asking why, or how; believes it as a fact of consciousness. now in a matter of this sort the opinion of the human race is worth considering. i do not value very much the opinion of a priesthood in rome or judea, or elsewhere on this point, or any other, for they may have designs adverse to the truth. but the general sentiment of the human race in a matter like this is of the greatest importance. this general sentiment of mankind is a quite different thing from public opinion, which favors freedom in one country and slavery in another; this sentiment of mankind relates to what is a matter of feeling with most men. it is only a few thinkers that have made it a matter of thought. the opinion of mankind, so far as we know, has not changed on this point for four thousand years. since the dawn of history, man's belief in immortality has continually been developing and getting deeper fixed. still more, this belief is very dear to mankind. let me prove that. if it were true that one human soul was immortal and yet was to be eternally damned, getting only more clotted with crime and deeper bit by agony as the ages went slowly by, then immortality were a curse, not to that man only, but to all mankind--for no amount of happiness, merited or undeserved, could ever atone or make up for the horrid wrong done to that one most miserable man. who of you is there that could relish heaven, or even bear it for a moment, knowing that a brother was doomed to smart with ever greatening agony, while year on year, and age on age, the endless chain of eternity continued to coil round the flying wheels of hell? i say the thought of one such man would fill even heaven with misery, and the best man of men would scorn the joys of everlasting bliss, would spurn at heaven and say, "give me my brother's place; for me there is no heaven while he is there!" now it has been popularly taught, that not one man alone, but the vast majority of all mankind, are thus to be condemned; immortal only to be everlastingly wretched. that is the popular doctrine now in this land. it has been so taught in the christian churches these sixteen centuries and more--taught in the name of christ! such an immortality would be a curse to men, to every man; as much so to the "saved" as to the "lost;" for who would willingly stay in heaven, and on such terms? surely not he who wept with weeping men! yet in spite of this vile doctrine drawn over the world to come, mankind religiously believes that each shall live for ever. this shows how strong is the instinct which can lift up such a foul and hateful doctrine and still live on. tell me not that scoffers and critics shall take away man's faith in endless life: it has stood a harder test than can ever come again. * * * * * ii. the next argument is drawn from the nature of man. . all men desire to be immortal. this desire is instinctive, natural, universal. in god's world such a desire implies the satisfaction thereof equally natural and universal. it cannot be that god has given man this universal desire of immortality, this belief in it, and yet made it all a mockery. man loves truth; tells it; rests only in it; how much more god who is the trueness of truth. bodily senses imply their objects--the eye light, the ear sound; the touch, the taste, the smell, things relative thereto. spiritual senses likewise foretell their object,--are silent prophecies of endless life. the love of justice, beauty, truth, of man and god, points to realities unseen as yet. we are ever hungering after noblest things, and what we feed on makes us hunger more. the senses are satisfied, but the soul never. . then, too, while this composite body unavoidably decays, this simple soul which is my life decays not. reason, the affections, all the powers that make the man, decay not. true, the organs by which they act become impaired. but there is no cause for thinking that love, conscience, reason, will, ever become weaker in man; but cause for thinking that all these continually become more strong. was the mind of newton gone when his frame, long over-tasked, refused its wonted work? . here on earth, every thing in its place and time matures. the acorn and the chestnut, things natural to this climate, ripen every year. a longer season would make them no better nor bigger. it is so with our body--that, under proper conditions, becomes mature. it is so with all the things of earth. but man is not fully grown as the acorn and the chestnut; never gets mature. take the best man and the greatest--all his faculties are not developed, fully grown and matured. he is not complete in the qualities of a man; nay, often half his qualities lie all unused. shall we conclude these are never to obtain development and do their work? the analogy of nature tells us that man, the new-born plant, is but removed by death to another soil, where he shall grow complete and become mature. . then, too, each other thing under its proper conditions not only ripens but is perfect also after its kind. each clover-seed is perfect as a star. every lion, as a general rule, is a common representation of all lionhood; the ideal of his race made real in him, a thousand years of life would not make him more. but where is the adamitic man; the type and representative of his race, who makes actual its idea? even jesus bids you not call him good; no man has all the manhood of mankind. yes, there are rudiments of greatness in us all, but abortive, incomplete, and stopped in embryo. now all these elements of manhood point as directly to another state as the unfinished walls of yonder rising church intimate that the work is not complete, that the artist here intends a roof, a window there, here a tower, and over all a heaven-piercing spire. all men are abortions, our failure pointing to the real success. nay, we are all waiting to be born, our whole nature looking to another world, and dimly presaging what that world shall be. death, however we misname him, seasonable or out of time, is the birth-angel, that alone. . besides, the presence of injustice, of wrong, points the same way. the fact that one man goes out of this life in childhood, in manhood, at any time before the natural measure of his days is full; the fact that any one is by circumstances made wretched; that he is hindered from his proper growth and has not here his natural due--all intimates to me his future life. i know that god is just. i know his justice too shall make all things right, for he must have the power, the wish, the will therefor, to speak in human speech. i see the injustice in this city, its pauperism, suffering, and crime, men smarting all their life, and by no fault of theirs. i know there must be another hemisphere to balance this; another life, wherein justice shall come to all and for all. else god were unjust; and an unjust god to me is no god at all, but a wretched chimera which my soul rejects with scorn. i see the autumn prefigured in the spring. the flowers of may-day foretold the harvest, its rosy apples and its yellow ears of corn. as the bud now lying cold and close upon the bark of every tree throughout our northern clime is a silent prophecy of yet another spring and other summers, and harvests too; so this instinctive love of justice scantly budding here and nipped by adverse fate, silently but clearly tells of a kingdom of heaven. i take some miserable child here in this city, squalid in dress and look, ignorant and wicked too as most men judge of vagrant vice, made so by circumstances over which that child had no control; i turn off with a shudder at the public wrong we have done and still are doing; but in that child i see proof of another world, yes, heaven glittering from behind those saddened eyes. i know that child has a man's nature in him, perhaps a channing's trusting piety; perhaps a newton's mind; has surely rudiments of more than these; for what were channing, newton, both of them, but embryo men? i turn off with a shudder at the public wrong, but a faith in god's justice, in that child's eternal life, which nothing can ever shake. * * * * * iii. a third argument is drawn from the nature of god. he, as the infinite, the unconditioned, the absolute, is all-powerful, all-wise, all-good. therefore he must wish the best of all possible things; must know the best of all possible things; must will the best of all possible things, and so bring it to pass. life is a possible thing; eternal life is possible. neither implies a contradiction; yes, to me they seem necessary, more than possible. now, then, as life, serene and happy life, is better than non-existence, so immortality is better than perpetual death. god must know that, wish that, will that, and so bring that about. man, therefore, must be immortal. this argument is brief indeed, but i see not how it can be withstood. i do not know that one of you doubts of eternal life. if any does, i know not if these thoughts will ever affect his doubt. still, i think each argument is powerful; to one that thinks, reasons, balances, and then decides, exceeding powerful. all put together form a mass of argument which, as it seems to me, no logic can resist. yet i beg you to understand that i do not rest immortality on any reasoning of mine, but on reason itself; not on these logical arguments, but on man's consciousness, and the instinctive belief which is common to the human race. i believed my immortality before i proved it; believed it just as strongly then as now. nay, could some doubter rise, and, to my thinking, vanquish all these arguments, i should still hold fast my native faith, nor fear the doubter's arms. the simple consciousness of men is stronger than all forms of proof. still, if men want arguments--why, there they are. * * * * * the belief in immortality is one thing; the special form thereof, the definite notion of the future life, another and quite different. the popular doctrine in our churches i think is this: that this body which we lay in the dust shall one day be raised again, the living soul joined on anew, and both together live the eternal life. but where is the soul all this time, between our death-day and our day of rising? some say it sleeps unconscious, dead all this time; others, that it is in heaven now, or else in hell; others, in a strange and transient home, imperfect in its joy or woe, waiting the final day and more complete account. it seems to me this notion is absurd and impossible: absurd in its doctrine relative to the present condition of departed souls; impossible in what it teaches of the resurrection of this body. if my soul is to claim the body again, which shall it be, the body i was born into, or that i died out of? if i live to the common age of men, changing my body as i must, and dying daily, then i have worn some eight or ten bodies. so at the last, which body shall claim my soul, for the ten had her? the soul herself may claim them all. but to make the matter still more intricate, there is in the earth but a certain portion of matter out of which human bodies can be made. considering all the millions of men now living, the myriads of millions that have been before, it is plain, i think, that all the matter suitable for human bodies has been lived over many times. so if the world were to end to-day, instead of each old man having ten bodies from which to choose the one that fits him best, there would be ten men, all clamoring for each body! shall i then have a handful of my former dust, and that alone? that is not the resurrection of my former body. this whole doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh seems to me impossible and absurd. i know men refer this, as many other things no better, to jesus. i find no satisfactory evidence that he taught the resurrection of the body; there is some evidence that he did not. i know it was the doctrine of the pharisees of his time, of paul, the early christians, and more or less of the christian churches to this day. in christ's time in judea, there were the sadducees, who taught the eternal death of men; the pharisees who taught the resurrection of the flesh and its reunion with the soul; the essenes, who taught the immortality of the soul, but rejected the resurrection of the body. paul was a pharisee, and in his letters taught the resurrection of the dead, the belief of the pharisees. from him it has come down to us, and in the creed of many churches it is still written, "i believe in the resurrection of the flesh." many doubted this in early times, but the council of nice declared all men accursed who dared to doubt the resurrection of the flesh. i mention this as absurd and impossible, because it is still, i fear, the popular belief, and lest some should confound the doctrine of immortality with this tenet of the pharisees. let it be remembered the immortality of the soul is one thing, the resurrection of the body another and quite different. * * * * * what is this future life? what can we know of it besides its existence? some men speak as if they knew the way around heaven as around the wards of their native city. what we can know in detail is cautiously to be inferred from the nature of man and the nature of god. i will modestly set down what seems to me. it must be a conscious state. man is by his nature conscious; yes, self-conscious. he is progressive in his self-consciousness. i cannot think a removal out of the body destroys this consciousness; rather that it enhances and intensifies this. yet consciousness in the next life must differ as much from consciousness here as the ripe peach differs from the blossom, or the bud, or the bark, or the earthly materials out of which it grew. the child is no limit to the man, nor my consciousness now to what i may be, must be hereafter. it must be a social state. our nature is social; our joys social. for our progress here, our happiness, we depend on one another. must it not be so there? it must be an advance upon our nature and condition here. all the analogy of nature teaches that. things advance from small to great; from base to beautiful. the girl grows into a woman; the bud swells into the blossom, that into the fruit. the process over, the work begins anew. how much more must it be so in the other life. what old powers we shall discover now buried in the flesh; what new powers shall come upon us in that new state, no man can know; it were but poetic idleness to talk of them. we see in some great man, what power of intellect, imagination, justice, goodness, piety, he reveals, lying latent in us all. how men bungle in their works of art! no raphael can paint a dew-drop or a flake of frost. yet some rude man, tired with his work, lies down beneath a tree, his head upon his swarthy arm, and sleep shuts, one by one, these five scant portals of the soul, and what an artist is he made at once! how brave a sky he paints above him, with what golden garniture of clouds set off; what flowers and trees, what men and women does he not create, and moving in celestial scenes! what years of history does he condense in one short minute, and when he wakes, shakes off the purple drapery of his dream as if it were but worthless dust and girds him for his work anew! what other powers there are shut up in men less known than this artistic phantasy; powers of seeing the distant, recalling the past, predicting the future, feeling at once the character of men--of this we know little, only by rare glimpses at the unwonted side of things. but yet we know enough to guess there are strange wonders there waiting to be revealed. what form our conscious, social, and increased activity shall take, we know not. we know of that no more than before our birth we knew of this world, of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch, or the things which they reveal. we are not born into that world, have not its senses yet. this we know, that the same god, all-powerful, all-wise, all-good, rules there and then, as here and now. who cannot trust him to do right and best for all? for my own part, i feel no wish to know how or where, or what i shall be hereafter. i know it will be right for my truest welfare; for the good of all. i am satisfied with this trust. yet the next life must be a state of retribution. thither we carry nothing but ourselves, our naked selves. our fortune we leave behind us; our honors and rank return to such as gave; even our reputation, the good or ill men thought we were, clings to us no more. we go thither without our staff or scrip; nothing but the man we are. yet that man is the result of all life's daily work; it is the one thing which we have brought to pass. i cannot believe men who have voluntarily lived mean, little, vulgar and selfish lives, will go out of this and into that, great, noble, generous, good, and holy. can the practical saint and the practical hypocrite enter on the same course of being together? i know the sufferings of bad men here, the wrong they do their nature, and what comes of that wrong. i think that suffering is the best part of sin, the medicine to heal it with. what men suffer here from their wrong-doing is its natural consequence; but all that suffering is a mercy, designed to make them better. every thing in this world is adapted to promote the welfare of god's creatures. must it not be so in the next? how many men seem wicked from our point of view, who are not so from their own; how many become infamous through no fault of theirs; the victims of circumstances, born into crime, of low and corrupt parents, whom former circumstances made corrupt! such men cannot be sinners before god. here they suffer from the tyranny of appetites they never were taught to subdue; they have not the joy of a cultivated mind. the children of the wild indian are capable of the same cultivation as children here; yet they are savages. is it always to be so? is god to be partial in granting the favors of another life? i cannot believe it. i doubt not that many a soul rises up from the dungeon and the gallows, yes, from dens of infamy amongst men, clean and beautiful before god. christ, says the gospel, assured the penitent thief of sharing heaven with him--and that day. many seem inferior to me, who in god's sight must be far before me; men who now seem too low to learn of me here, may be too high to teach me there. i cannot think the future world is to be feared, even by the worst of men. i had rather die a sinner than live one. doubtless justice is there to be done; that may seem stern and severe. but remember god's justice is not like a man's; it is not vengeance, but mercy; not poison, but medicine. to me it seems tuition more than chastisement. god is not the jailer of the universe, but the shepherd of the people; not the hangman of mankind, but their physician; yes, our father. i cannot fear him as i fear men. i cannot fail to love. i abhor sin, i loathe and nauseate thereat; most of all at my own. i can plead for others and extenuate their guilt, perhaps they for mine; not i for my own. i know god's justice will overtake me, giving me what i have paid for. but i do not, cannot fear it. i know his justice is love; that if i suffer, it is for my everlasting joy. i think this is a natural state of mind. i do not find that men ever dread the future life, or turn pale on their death-bed at thought of god's vengeance, except when a priesthood has frightened them to that. the world's literature, which is the world's confession, proves what i say. in greece, in classic days, when there was no caste of priests, the belief in immortality was current and strong. but in all her varied literature i do not remember a man dying, yet afraid of god's vengeance. the rude indian of our native land did not fear to meet the great spirit, face to face. i have sat by the bedside of wicked men, and while death was dealing with my brother, i have watched the tide slow ebbing from the shore, but i have known no one afraid to go. say what we will, there is nothing stronger and deeper in men than confidence in god, a solemn trust that he will do us good. even the worst man thinks god his father; and is he not? tell me not of god's vengeance, punishing men for his own glory! there is no such thing. talk not to me of endless hell, where men must suffer for suffering's sake, be damned for an eternity of woe. i tell you there is no such thing, nor can there ever be. does not even the hireling shepherd, when a single lamb has gone astray, leave the ninety and nine safe in their fold, go forth some stormy night and seek the wanderer, rejoicing to bring home the lost one on his shoulders? and shall god forget his child, his frailest or most stubborn child; leave him in endless misery, a prey to insatiate sin, that grim, bloodthirsty wolf, prowling about the human fold? i tell you no; not god. why, this eccentric earth forsakes the sun awhile, careering fast and far away, but that attractive power prevails at length, and the returning globe comes rounding home again. does a mortal mother desert her son, wicked, corrupt and loathsome though he be? if so, the wiser world cries, shame! but she does not. when her child becomes loathsome and hateful to the world, drunk with wickedness, and when the wicked world puts him away out of its sight, strangling him to death, that mother forgets not her child. she had his earliest kiss from lips all innocent of coming ill, and she will have his last. yes, she will press his cold and stiffened form to her own bosom; the bosom that bore and fed the innocent babe yearns yet with mortal longing for the murdered murderer. infamous to the world, his very dust is sacred dust to her. she braves the world's reproach, buries her son, piously hoping, that as their lives once mingled, so their ashes shall. the world, cruel and forgetful oft, honors the mother in its deepest heart. do you tell me that culprit's mother loves her son more than god can love him? then go and worship her. i know that when father and mother both forsake me, in the extremity of my sin, i know my god loves on. oh yes, ye sons of men, indian and greek, ye are right to trust your god. do priests and their churches say no!--bid them go and be silent forever. no grain of dust gets lost from off this dusty globe; and shall god lose a man from off this sphere of souls? believe it not. i know that suffering follows sin, lasting long as the sin. i thank god it is so; that god's own angel stands there to warn back the erring balaams, wandering towards woe. but god, who sends the rain, the dew, the sun, on me as on a better man, will, at last, i doubt it not, make us all pure, all just, all good, and so, at last, all happy. this follows from the nature of god himself, for the all-good must wish the welfare of his child; the all-wise know how to achieve that welfare; the all-powerful bring it to pass. tell me he wishes not the eternal welfare of all men, then i say, that is not the god of the universe. i own not that as god. nay, i tell you it is not god you speak of, but some heathen fancy, smoking up from your unhuman heart. i would ask the worst of mothers, did you forsake your child because he went astray, and mocked your word? "oh no," she says; "he was but a child, he knew no better, and i led him right, corrected him for his good, not mine!" are we not all children before god; the wisest, oldest, wickedest, god's child! i am sure he will never forsake me, how wicked soever i become. i know that he is love; love, too, that never fails. i expect to suffer for each conscious, wilful wrong; i wish, i hope, i long to suffer for it. i am wronged if i do not; what i do not outgrow, live over and forget here, i hope to expiate there. i fear a sin; not to outgrow a sin. * * * * * a man who has lived here a manly life, must enter the next under the most favorable circumstances. i do not mean a man of mere negative goodness, starting in the road of old custom, with his wheels deep in the ruts, not having life enough to go aside, but a positively good man, one bravely good. he has lived heaven here, and must enter higher up than a really wicked man, or a slothful one, or one but negatively good. he can go from earth to heaven, as from one room to another, pass gradually, as from winter to spring. to such an one, no revolution appears needed. the next life, it seems, must be a continual progress, the improvement of old powers, the disclosure or accession of new ones. what nobler reach of thought, what profounder insight, what more heavenly imagination, what greater power of conscience, faith and love, will bless us there and then, it were vain to calculate, it is far beyond our span. you see men now, whose souls are one with god, and so his will works through them as the magnetic fire runs on along the unimpeding line. what happiness they have, it is they alone can say. how much greater must it be there; not even they can tell. here the body helps us to some things. through these five small loop-holes the world looks in. how much more does the body hinder us from seeing? through the sickly body yet other worlds look in. he who has seen only the daylight, knows nothing of that heaven of stars, which all night long hang overhead their lamps of gold. when death has dusted off this body from me, who will dream for me the new powers i shall possess? it were vain to try. time shall reveal it all. i cannot believe that any state in heaven is a final state, only a condition of progress. the bud opens into the blossom, the flower matures into the fruit. the salvation of to-day is not blessedness enough for to-morrow. here we are first babes of earth, with a few senses, and those imperfect, helpless and ignorant; then children of earth; then youths; then men, armed with reason, conscience, affection, piety, and go on enlarging these without end. so methinks it must be there, that we shall be first babes of heaven, then children, next youths, and so go on growing, advancing and advancing--our being only a becoming more and more, with no possibility of ever reaching the end. if this be true, then there must be a continual increase of being. so, in some future age, the time will come, when each one of us shall have more mind, and heart, and soul, than christ on earth; more than all men now on earth have ever had; yes, more than they and all the souls of men now passed to heaven;--shall have, each one of us, more being than they all have had, and so more truth, more soul, more faith, more rest and bliss of life. * * * * * do men of the next world look in upon this? are they present with us, conscious of our deeds or thoughts? who knows? who can say aye or no? the unborn know nothing of the life on earth; yet the born of earth know somewhat of them, and make ready for their coming. who knows but men born to heaven are waiting for your birth to come--have gone to prepare a place for us? all that is fancy, and not fact; it is not philosophy, but poetry; no more. of this we may be sure, that what is best will be; what best for saint or sinner; what most conducive to their real good. that is no poetry, but unavoidable truth, which all mankind may well believe. there are many who never attained their true stature here, yet without blameworthiness of theirs; men cheated of their growth. many a milton walks on his silent way, and goes down at last, not singing and unsung. how many a possible newton or descartes has dug the sewers of a city, and dies, giving no sign of the wealthy soul he bore! "chill penury repressed his noble rage, and froze the genial current of the soul." what if the best of you had been born slaves in north carolina, or among savages at new zealand; nay, in some of the filthy cellars of boston, and turned friendless into the streets; what might you have become? surely not what you are; yet, before god, you might, perhaps, be more deserving, and, at death, go to a far higher place. what is so terribly wrong here, must be righted there. it cannot be that god will thrust a man out of heaven, because his mother was a savage, a slave, a pauper, or a criminal. it is men's impiety which does so here, not heaven's justice there! how the wrong shall be righted i know not, care not now to know; of the fact i ask no further certainty. many that are last shall be first. it may be that the pirate, in heaven, having outgrown his earthly sins, shall teach justice to the judge who hanged him here. they who were oppressed and trampled on, kept down, dwarfed, stinted and emaciate in soul, must have justice done them there, and will doubtless stand higher in heaven than we, who, having many talents, used them poorly, or hid them idle in the dirt, knowing our father's will, yet heeding not. it was jesus that said, many shall come from the east and the west, and sit down in the kingdom of god, and men, calling themselves saints, be thrust out. * * * * * shall we remember the deeds of the former life; this man that he picked rags out of the mud in the streets, and another that he ruled nations? who can tell; nay, who need care to ask? such a remembrance seems not needed for retribution's sake. the oak remembers not each leaf it ever bore, though each helped to form the oak, its branch and bole. how much has gone from our bodies! we know not how it came or went! how much of our past life is gone from our memory, yet its result lives in our character! the saddler remembers not every stitch he took while an apprentice, yet each stitch helped form the saddle. * * * * * shall we know our friends again? for my own part i cannot doubt it; least of all when i drop a tear over their recent dust. death does not separate them from us here. can life in heaven do it? they live in our remembrance; memory rakes in the ashes of the dead, and the virtues of the departed flame up anew, enlightening the dim cold walls of our consciousness. much of our joy is social here; we only half enjoy an undivided good. god made mankind, but sundered that into men, that they might help one another. must it not be so there, and we be with our real friends? man loves to think it; yet to trust is wiser than to prophesy. but the girl who went from us a little one may be as parent to her father when he comes, and the man who left us have far outgrown our dream of an angel when we meet again. i cannot doubt that many a man who not long ago left his body here, now far surpasses the radiant manliness which jesus won and wore; yes, is far better, greater, too, than many poorly conceive of god. * * * * * there are times when we think little of a future life. in a period of success, serene and healthy life; the day's good is good enough for that day. but there comes a time when this day's good is not enough; its ill too great to bear. when death comes down and wrenches off a friend from our side; wife, child, brother, father, a dear one taken; this life is not enough. oh, no, not to the coldest, coarsest, and most sensual man. i put it to you, to the most heartless of you all, or the most cold and doubting--when you lay down in the earth your mother, sister, wife, or child, remembering that you shall see their face no more, is life enough? do you not reach out your arms for heaven, for immortality, and feel you cannot die? when i see men at a feast, or busy in the street, i do not think of their eternal life; perhaps feel not my own. but when the stiffened body goes down to the tomb, sad, silent, remorseless, i feel there is no death for the man. that clod which yonder dust shall cover is not my brother. the dust goes to its place, the man to his own. it is then i feel my immortality. i look through the grave into heaven. i ask no miracle, no proof, no reasoning for me. i ask no risen dust to teach me immortality. i am conscious of eternal life. but there are worse hours than these: seasons bitterer than death, sorrows that lie a latent poison in the heart, slowly sapping the foundations of our peace. there are hours when the best life seems a sheer failure to the man who lived it, his wisdom folly, his genius impotence, his best deed poor and small; when he wonders why he was suffered to be born; when all the sorrows of the world seem poured upon him; when he stands in a populous loneliness, and though weak, can only lean in upon himself. in such hour he feels the insufficiency of this life. it is only his cradle-time, he counts himself just born; all honors, wealth and fame are but baubles in his baby hand; his deep philosophy but nursery rhymes. yet he feels the immortal fire burning in his heart. he stretches his hands out from the swaddling-clothes of flesh, reaching after the topmost star, which he sees, or dreams he sees, and longs to go alone. still worse, the consciousness of sin comes over him; he feels that he has insulted himself. all about him seems little; himself little, yet clamoring to be great. then we feel our immortality; through the gairish light of day we see a star or two beyond. the soul within us feels her wings, contending to be born, impatient for the sky, and wrestles with the earthly worm that folds us in. "mysterious night! when our first parent knew thee from report divine, and heard thy name, did he not tremble for this lovely frame, this glorious canopy of light and blue? yet 'neath a curtain of translucent dew, bathed in the rays of the great setting flame, hesperus with the host of heaven came; and lo, creation widened in man's view. who could have thought such darkness lay concealed within thy beams, o sun? or who could find, whilst fly and leaf and insect stood revealed, that to such countless orbs thou mad'st us blind? why do we then shun death with anxious strife? if light can thus deceive, wherefore not life?" i would not slight this wondrous world. i love its day and night. its flowers and its fruits are dear to me. i would not wilfully lose sight of a departing cloud. every year opens new beauty in a star; or in a purple gentian fringed with loveliness. the laws too of matter seem more wonderful the more i study them, in the whirling eddies of the dust, in the curious shells of former life buried by thousands in a grain of chalk, or in the shining diagrams of light above my head. even the ugly becomes beautiful when truly seen. i see the jewel in the bunchy toad. the more i live, the more i love this lovely world; feel more its author in each little thing; in all that is great. but yet i feel my immortality the more. in childhood the consciousness of immortal life buds forth feeble, though full of promise. in the man it unfolds its fragrant petals, his most celestial flower, to mature its seed throughout eternity. the prospect of that everlasting life, the perfect justice yet to come, the infinite progress before us, cheer and comfort the heart. sad and disappointed, full of self-reproach, we shall not be so forever. the light of heaven breaks upon the night of trial, sorrow, sin; the sombre clouds which overhung the east, grown purple now, tell us the dawn of heaven is coming in. our faces, gleamed on by that, smile in the new-born glow; we are beguiled of our sadness before we are aware. the certainty of this provokes us to patience, it forbids us to be slothfully sorrowful. it calls us to be up and doing. the thought that all will at last be right with the slave, the poor, the weak, and the wicked, inspires us with zeal to work for them here, and make it all right for them even now. there is small merit in being willing to die; it seems almost sinful in a good man to wish it when the world needs him here so much. it is weak and unmanly to be always looking and sighing voluptuously for that. but it is of great comfort to have in your soul a sure trust in immortality; of great value here and now to anticipate time and live to-day the eternal life. that we may all do. the joys of heaven will begin as soon as we attain the character of heaven and do its duties. that may begin to-day. it is everlasting life to know god, to have his spirit dwelling in you, yourself at one with him. try that and prove its worth. justice, usefulness, wisdom, religion, love, are the best things we hope for in heaven. try them on--they will fit you here not less becomingly. they are the best things of earth. think no outlay of goodness and piety too great. you will find your reward begin here. as much goodness and piety, so much heaven. men will not pay you--god will; pay you now; pay you hereafter and for ever. iv. the public education of the people.--an address delivered before the onondaga teachers' institute, at syracuse, new york, october , . education is the developing and furnishing of the faculties of man. to educate the people is one of the functions of the state. it is generally allowed in the free states of america, that the community owes each child born into it a chance for education, intellectual, moral, and religious. hence the child has a just and recognized claim on the community for the means of this education, which is to be afforded him, not as a charity, but as a right. the fact indicates the progress mankind has made in not many years. once the state only took charge of the military education of the people; not at all of their intellectual, moral, or religious culture. they received their military discipline, not for the special and personal advantage of the individuals, thomas and oliver, but for the benefit of the state. they received it, not because they were men claiming it in virtue of their manhood, but as subjects of the state, because their military training was needful for the state, or for its rulers who took the name thereof. then the only culture which the community took public pains to bestow on its members, was training them to destroy. the few, destined to command, learned the science of destruction, and the kindred science of defence; the many, doomed to obey, learned only the art to destroy, and the kindred art of defence. the ablest men of the nation were sought out for military teachers, giving practical lessons of the science and the art; they were covered with honor and loaded with gold. the wealth of the people and their highest science went to this work. institutions were founded to promote this education, and carefully watched over by the state, for it was thought the commonwealth depended on disciplined valor. the soldier was thought to be the type of the state, the archetype of man; accordingly the highest spiritual function of the state was the production of soldiers. * * * * * most of the civilized nations have passed through that stage of their development: though the few or the many are still taught the science or the art of war in all countries called christian, there is yet a class of men for whom the state furnishes the means of education that is not military; means of education which the individuals of that class could not provide for themselves. this provision is made at the cost of the state; that is, at the cost of every man in the state, for what the public pays, you pay and i pay, rich or poor, willingly and consciously, or otherwise. this class of men is different in different countries, and their education is modified to suit the form of government and the idea of the state. in rome the state provides for the public education of priests. rome is an ecclesiastical state; her government is a theocracy--a government of all the people, but by the priests, for the sake of the priests, and in the name of god. place in the church is power, bringing honor and wealth; no place out of the church is of much value. the offices are filled by priests, the chief magistrate is a priest, supposed to derive his power and right to rule, not democratically, from the people, or royally, by inheritance,--for in theory the priest is as if he had no father, as theoretically he has no child,--but theocratically from god. in rome the priesthood is thought to be the flower of the state. the most important spiritual function of the state, therefore, is the production of priests; accordingly the greatest pains are taken with their education. institutions are founded at the public cost, to make priests out of men; these institutions are the favorites of government, well ordered, well watched over, well attended, and richly honored. institutions for the education of the people are of small account, ill endowed, watched over but poorly, thinly attended, and not honored at all. the people are designed to be subjects of the church, and as little culture is needed for that, though much to make them citizens thereof, so little is given. as there are institutions for the education of the priests, so there is a class of men devoted to that work; able men, well disciplined, sometimes men born with genius, and always men furnished with the accomplishments of sacerdotal and scientific art; very able men, very well disciplined, the most learned and accomplished men in the land. these men are well paid and abundantly honored, for on their faithfulness the power of the priesthood, and so the welfare of the state, is thought to depend. without the allurement of wealth and honors, these able men would not come to this work; and without the help of their ability, the priests could not be well educated. hence their power would decline; the class, tonsured and consecrated but not instructed, would fall into contempt; the theocracy would end. so the educators of the priests are held in honor, surrounded by baits for vulgar eyes; but the public educators of the people, chiefly women or ignorant men, are held in small esteem. the very buildings destined to the education of the priests are conspicuous and stately; the colleges of the jesuits, the propaganda, the seminaries for the education of priests, the monasteries for training the more wealthy and _regular_ clergy, are great establishments, provided with libraries, and furnished with all the apparatus needful for their important work. but the school-houses for the people are small and mean buildings, ill made, ill furnished, and designed for a work thought to be of little moment. all this is in strict harmony with the idea of the theocracy, where the priesthood is mighty and the people are subjects of the church; where the effort of the state is toward producing a priest. * * * * * in england the state takes charge of the education of another class, the nobility and gentry; that is, of young men of ancient and historical families, the nobility, and young men of fortune, the gentry. england is an oligarchical state; her government an aristocracy, the government of all by a few, the nobility and gentry, for the sake of a few, and in the name of a king. there the foundation of power is wealth and birth from a noble family. the union of both takes place in a wealthy noble. there, nobility is the blossom of the state; aristocratic birth brings wealth, office, and their consequent social distinction. political offices are chiefly monopolized by men of famous birth or great riches. the king, the chief officer of the land, must surpass all others in wealth, and the pomp and circumstance which comes thereof, and in aristocracy of birth. he is not merely noble but royal; his right to rule is not at all derived from the people, but from his birth. thus he has the two essentials of aristocratic influence, birth and wealth, not merely in the heroic degree, but in the supreme degree. as the state is an aristocracy, its most important spiritual function is the production of aristocrats; each noble family transmits the full power of its blood only to a single person--the oldest son; of the highest form, the royal, only one is supposed to be born in a generation, only one who receives and transmits in full the blood royal. as the nobility are the blossom of the state, great pains must be taken with the education of those persons born of patrician or wealthy families. as england is not merely a military or ecclesiastical state, though partaking largely of both, but commercial, agricultural and productive in many ways; as she holds a very prominent place in the politics of the world, so there must be a good general education provided for these persons; otherwise their power would decline, the nobility and gentry sink into contempt, and the government pass into other hands,--for though a man may be born to rank and wealth, he is not born to knowledge, nor to practical skill. hence institutions are founded for the education of the aristocratic class: oxford and cambridge, "those twins of learning," with their preparatories and help-meets. the design of these institutions is to educate the young men of family and fortune. the aim in their academic culture is not as in pagan rome, a military state, to make soldiers, nor as in christian rome, to turn out priests; it is not, as in the german universities, to furnish the world with scholars and philosophers, men of letters and science, but to mature and furnish the gentleman, in the technical sense of that word, a person conventionally fitted to do the work of a complicated aristocratic state, to fill with honor its various offices, military, political, ecclesiastical or social, and enjoy the dignity which comes thereof. these universities furnish the individual who resorts thither with opportunities not otherwise to be had; they are purchased at the cost of the state, at the cost of each man in the state. the alumnus at oxford pays his term-bills, indeed, but the amount thereof is a trifle compared to the actual cost of his residence there; mankind pays the residue. these institutions are continually watched over by the state, which is the official guardian of aristocratic education; they are occasionally assisted by grants from the public treasury, though they are chiefly endowed by the voluntary gifts of individual men. but these private gifts, like the public grants, come from the earnings of the whole nation. they are well endowed, superintended well, and richly honored; their chancellors and vice-chancellors are men of distinguished social rank; they have their representatives in parliament; able men are sought out for teachers, professors, heads of houses; men of good ability, of masterly education, and the accomplishments of a finished gentleman; they are well paid, and copiously rewarded with honors and social distinction. gentility favors these institutions; nobility watches over them, and royalty smiles upon them. in this threefold sunlight, no wonder that they thrive. the buildings at their service are among the most costly and elegant in the land; large museums are attached to them, and immense libraries; every printer in england, at his own cost, must give a copy of each book he publishes to cambridge and oxford. what wealth can buy, or artistic genius can create, is there devoted to the culture of this powerful class. but while the nobility and gentry are reckoned the flower of the state, the common people are only the leaves, and therefore thought of small importance in the political botany of the nation. their education is amazingly neglected; is mainly left to the accidental piety of private christians, to the transient charity of philanthropic men, or the "enlightened self-interest" of mechanics and small-traders, who now and then found institutions for the education of some small fraction of the multitude. but such institutions are little favored by the government, or the spirit of the dominant class; gentility does not frequent them, nor nobility help them, nor royalty watch over to foster and to bless. the parliament, which voted one hundred thousand pounds of the nation's money for the queen's horses and hounds, had but thirty thousand to spare for the education of her people. no honor attends the educators of the people; no wealth is heaped up for them; no beautiful buildings are erected for their use; no great libraries got ready at the public charge; no costly buildings are provided. you wonder at the colleges and collegiate churches of oxford and of cambridge; at the magnificence of public edifices in london, new or ancient--the house of parliament, the bank, the palaces of royal and noble men, the splendor of the churches--but you ask, where are the school-houses for the people? you go to bridewell and newgate for the answer. all this is consistent with the idea of an aristocracy. the gentleman is the type of the state; and the effort of the state is towards producing him. the people require only education enough to become the servants of the gentleman, and seem not to be valued for their own sake, but only as they furnish pabulum for the flower of the oligarchy. in rome and england, great sums have been given by wealthy men, and by the state itself, to furnish the means of a theocratic or aristocratic education to a certain class; and to produce the national priests, and the national gentlemen. there public education is the privilege of a few, but bought at the cost of the many; for the plough-boy in yorkshire, who has not culture enough to read the petition for daily bread in the lord's prayer, helps pay the salary of the master of trinity, and the swine-herd in the roman campagna, who knows nothing of religion, except what he learns at christmas and easter, by seeing the pope carried on men's shoulders into st. peter's, helps support the propaganda and the roman college. the privileged classes are to receive an education under the eye of the state, which considers itself bound to furnish them the means of a public education, partly at the individual's cost, chiefly at the cost of the public. the amount of education depends on three things:--on the educational attainments of the human race; on the wealth and tranquillity of the special nation, enabling it to avail itself of that general attainment; and on the natural powers and industry of the particular individual in the nation. such is the solidarity of mankind that the development of the individual thus depends on that of the race, and the education of a priest in rome or a gentleman in england is the resultant of these three forces,--the attainment of mankind, the power of the nation, and the private character and conduct of the man himself. each of these three is a variable and not a constant quantity. so the amount of education which a man can receive at oxford or at rome fluctuates and depends on the state of the nation and of the world; but as the attainments of mankind have much increased within a few years, as the wealth of england has increased, and her tranquillity become more secure, you see how easy it becomes for the state to offer each gentleman an amount of education which it would have been quite impossible to furnish in the time of the yorks and the lancasters. * * * * * in america things are quite other and different. i speak of the free states of the north; the slave states have the worst features of an oligarchy combined with a theocratic pride of caste, which generates continual unkindness; there the idea of the state is found inconsistent with the general and public education of the people; it is as much so in south carolina as in england or rome; even more so, for the public and general culture of all is only dangerous to a theocracy or aristocracy while it is directly fatal to slavery. in england, and still more in catholic rome, the churches--themselves a wonderful museum of curiosities, and open all the day to all persons--form an important element for the education of the most neglected class. but slavery and education of the people are incommensurable quantities. no amount of violence can be their common measure. the republic, where master and slave were equally educated, would soon be a red-republic. the slave-master knows this, and accordingly puts education to the ban, and glories in keeping three million barbarians in the land, and, of course, suffers the necessary degradation which comes thereof. but in the free states of the north the government is not a theocracy, or an aristocracy; the state, in theory is not for the few, nor even for the majority, but for all; classes are not recognized, and therefore not protected in any privilege. the government is a democracy, the government of all, by all, for all, and in the name of all. a man is born to all the rights of mankind; all are born to them, so all are equal. therefore, what the state pays for, not only comes at the cost of all, but must be for the use and benefit of all. accordingly, as a theocracy demands the education of priests, and an aristocracy that of the nobility and the gentry, so a democracy demands the education of all. the aim must be, not to make priests and gentlemen of a few, a privileged class, but to make men of all; that is, to give a normal and healthy development of their intellectual, moral, affectional and religious faculties, to furnish and instruct them with the most important elementary knowledge, to extend this development and furnishing of the faculties as far as possible. institutions must be founded for this purpose--to educate all, rich and poor, men well-born with good abilities, men ill-born with slender natural powers. in new england, these institutions have long since been founded at the public cost, and watched over with paternal care, as the ark of our covenant, the palladium of our nation. it has been recognized as a theory, and practised on as a fact, that all the property in the land is held by the state for the public education of the people, as it is for their defence; that property is amenable to education as to military defence. in a democracy there are two reasons why this theory and practice prevail. one is a political reason. it is for the advantage of the state; for each man that keeps out of the jail and the poor-house, becomes a voter at one-and-twenty; he may have some office of trust and honor; the highest office is open before him. as so much depends on his voting wisely, he must have a chance to qualify himself for his right of electing and of being elected. it is as necessary now in a democracy, and as much demanded by the idea thereof, that all should be thus qualified by education, as it once was in a military state, that all should be bred up soldiers. the other is a philosophical reason. it is for the advantage of the individual himself, irrespective of the state. the man is a man, an integer, and the state is for him; as well as a fraction of the state, and he for it. he has a man's rights; and, however inferior in might to any other man, born of parentage how humble soever, to no wealth at all, with a body never so feeble, he is yet a man, and so equal in rights to any other man born of a famous line, rich and able; of course he has a right to a chance for the best culture which the educational attainment of mankind, and the circumstances of the nation render possible to any man; to so much thereof as he has the inborn power and the voluntary industry to acquire. this conclusion is getting acted on in new england, and there are schools for the dumb and the blind, even for the idiot and the convict. so, then, as the idea of our government demands the education of all, the amount of education must depend on the same three variables mentioned before; it must be as good as it is possible for them to afford. the democratic state has never done its political and educational duty, until it affords every man a chance to obtain the greatest amount of education which the attainment of mankind renders it possible for the nation, in its actual circumstances, to command, and the man's nature and disposition render it possible for him to take. looking at the matter politically, from the point of view of the state, each man must have education enough to exercise his rights of electing and being elected. it is not easy to fix the limits of the amount; it is also a variable continually increasing. looking at the matter philosophically, from the point of view of the individual, there is no limit but the attainment of the race and the individual's capacity for development and growth. only a few men will master all which the circumstances of the nation and the world render attainable; some will come short for lack of power, others for lack of inclination. make education as accessible as it can now be made, as attractive as the teachers of this age can render it, the majority will still get along with the smallest amount that is possible or reputable. only a few will strive for the most they can get. there will be many a thousand farmers, traders, and mechanics in their various callings, manual and intellectual, to a single philosopher. this also is as it should be, and corresponds with the nature of man and his function on the earth. still all have the natural right to the means of education to this extent, by fulfilling its condition. to accomplish this work, the democratic education of the whole people, with the aim of making them men, we want public institutions founded by the people, paid for by the public money; institutions well endowed, well attended, watched over well, and proportionably honored; we want teachers, able men, well disciplined, well paid, and honored in proportion to their work. it is a good thing to educate the privileged classes, priests in a theocracy, and gentlemen in an aristocracy. though they are few in number, it is a great work; the servants thereof are not too well paid, nor too much held in esteem in england, nor in rome, nor too well furnished with apparatus. but the public education of a whole people is a greater work, far more difficult, and should be attended with corresponding honor, and watched over even more carefully by the state. after the grown men of any country have provided for their own physical wants, and insured the needful physical comforts, their most important business is to educate themselves still further, and train up the rising generation to their own level. it is important to leave behind us cultivated lands, houses and shops, railroads and mills, but more important to leave behind us men grown, men that are men; such are the seed of material wealth,--not it of them. the highest use of material wealth is its educational function. now the attainments of the human race increase with each generation; the four leading nations of christendom, england, france, germany, and the united states, within a hundred years, have apparently, at the least, doubled their spiritual attainments; in the free states of america, there is a constant and rapid increase of wealth, far beyond the simultaneous increase of numbers; so not only does the educational achievement of mankind become greater each age, but the power of the state to afford each man a better chance for a better education, greatens continually, the educational ability of the state enlarging as those two factors get augmented. the generation now grown up, is, therefore, able and bound to get a better culture than their fathers, and leave to their own children a chance still greater. each child of genius, in the nineteenth century, is born at the foot of the ladder of learning, as completely as the first child, with the same bodily and spiritual nakedness; though of the most civilized race, with six, or sixty thousands of years behind him, he must begin with nothing but himself. yet such is the union of all mankind, that, with the aid of the present generation, in a few years he will learn all that mankind has learned in its long history; next go beyond that, discovering and creating anew; and then draw up to the same height the new generation, which will presently surpass him. * * * * * a man's education never ends, but there are two periods thereof, quite dissimilar, the period of the boy, and that of the man. education in general is the developing and instructing the faculties, and is, therefore, the same in kind to both man and boy, though it may be brought about by different forces. the education of the boy, so far as it depends on institutions, and conscious modes of action, must be so modified as to enable him to meet the influences which will surround him when he is a man; otherwise, his training will not enable him to cope with the new forces he meets, and so will fail of the end of making him a man. i pass over the influence of the family, and of nature, which do not belong to my present theme. in america, the public education of men is chiefly influenced by four great powers, which i will call educational forces, and which correspond to four modes of national activity: i. the political action of the people, represented by the state; ii. the industrial action of the people, represented by business; iii. the ecclesiastical action of the people, represented by the church; iv. the literary action of the people, represented by the press. i now purposely name them in this order, though i shall presently refer to them several times, and in a different succession. these forces act on the people, making us such men as we are; they act indirectly on the child before he comes to consciousness; directly, afterwards, but most powerfully on the man. what is commonly and technically called education--the development and instruction of the faculties of children, is only preparatory; the scholastic education of the boy is but introductory to the practical education of the man. it is only this preparatory education of the children of the people that is the work of the school-masters. their business is to give the child such a development of his faculties, and such furniture of preliminary knowledge, that he can secure the influence of all these educational forces, appreciating and enhancing the good, withstanding, counteracting, and at last ending the evil thereof, and so continue his education; and at the same time that he can work in one or more of those modes of activity, serving himself and mankind, politically by the state, ecclesiastically by the church, literarily by the press, or at any rate, industrially by his business. to give children the preparatory education necessary for this fourfold receptivity, or activity, we need three classes of public institutions: i. free common schools; ii. free high schools; iii. free colleges. of these i will presently speak in detail, but now, for the sake of shortness, let me call them all collectively by their generic name--the school. it is plain the teachers who work by this instrument ought to understand the good and evil of the four educational forces which work on men grown, in order to prepare their pupils to receive the good thereof, and withstand the evil. so then let us look a moment at the character of these educational forces, and see what they offer us, and what men they are likely to make of their unconscious pupils. let us look at the good qualities first, and next at the evil. it is plain that business, the press, and politics all tend to promote a great activity of body and mind. in business, the love of gain, the enterprising spirit of our practical men in all departments, their industry, thrift and forecast, stimulate men to great exertions, and produce a consequent development of the faculties called out. social distinction depends almost wholly on wealth; that never is accumulated by mere manual industry, such is the present constitution of society, but it is acquired by the higher forms of industry, in which the powers of nature serve the man, or he avails himself of the creations of mere manual toil. hence there is a constant pressure towards the higher modes of industry for the sake of money; of course, a constant effort to be qualified for them. so in the industrial departments the mind is more active than the hand. accordingly it has come to pass that most of the brute labor of the free states is done by cattle, or by the forces of nature--wind, water, fire--which we have harnessed by our machinery, and set to work. in new england most of the remaining work which requires little intelligence is done by irishmen, who are getting a better culture by that very work. men see the industrial handiwork of the north, and wonder; they do not always see the industrial head-work, which precedes, directs and causes it all; they seldom see the complex forces of which this enterprise and progress are the resultant. there is no danger that we shall be sluggards. business now takes the same place in the education of the people that was once held by war: it stimulates activity, promotes the intercourse of man with man, nation with nation; assembling men in masses, it elevates their temperature, so to say; it leads to new and better forms of organization; it excites men to invention, so that thereby we are continually acquiring new power over the elements, peacefully annexing to our domain new provinces of nature--water, wind, fire, lightning--setting them to do our work, multiplying the comforts of life, and setting free a great amount of human time. it is not at all destructive; not merely conservative, but continually creates anew. its creative agent is not brute force, but educated mind. a man's trade is always his teacher, and industry keeps a college for mankind, much of our instruction coming through our hands; with us, where the plough is commonly in the hands of him who owns the land it furrows, business affords a better education than in most other countries, and develops higher qualities of mind. there is a marked difference in this respect between the north and south. there was never before such industry, such intense activity of head and hand in any nation in a time of peace. the press encourages the same activity, enterprise, perseverance. both of these encourage generosity; neither honors the miser, who gets for the sake of getting, or "starves, cheats, and pilfers to enrich an heir;" he does not die respectably in boston, who dies rich and bequeaths nothing to any noble public charity. it encourages industry which accumulates with the usual honesty, and for a rather generous use. the press furnishes us with books exceedingly cheap. we manufacture literature cheaper than any nation except the chinese. even the best books, the works of the great masters of thought, are within the reach of an industrious farmer or mechanic, if half a dozen families combine for that purpose. the educational power of a few good books scattered through a community, is well known. then the press circulates, cheap and wide, its newspapers, emphatically the literature of men who read nothing else: they convey intelligence from all parts of the world, and broaden the minds of home-keeping youths, who need not now have homely wits. the state, also, promotes activity, enterprise, hardihood, perseverance and thrift. the american government is eminently distinguished by these five qualities. the form of government stimulates patriotism, each man has a share in the public lot. the theocracies, monarchies, and aristocracies of old time have produced good and great examples of patriotism, in the few or the many; but the nobler forms of love of country, of self-denial and disinterested zeal for its sake, are left for a democracy to bring to light. here all men are voters, and all great questions are, apparently and in theory, left to the decision of the whole people. this popular form of government is a great instrument in developing and instructing the mind of the nation. it helps extend and intensify the intelligent activity which is excited by business and the press. such is the nature of our political institutions that, in the free states, we have produced the greatest degree of national unity of action, with the smallest restriction of personal freedom, have reconciled national unity with individual variety, not seeking uniformity; thus room is left for as much individualism as a man chooses to take; a vast power of talent, enterprise and invention is left free for its own work. elsewhere, save in england, this is latent, kept down by government. since this power is educated and has nothing to hold it back; since so much brute work is done by cattle and the forces of nature, now domesticated and put in harness, and much time is left free for thought, more intelligence is demanded, more activity, and the citizens of the free states have become the most active, enterprising and industrious people in the world; the most inventive in material work. in all these three forms of action there is much to stir men to love of distinction. the career is open to talent, to industry; open to every man; the career of letters, business, and politics. our rich men were poor men; our famous men came of sires else not heard of. the laurel, the dollar, the office, and the consequent social distinction of men successful in letters, business and politics, these excite the obscure or needy youth to great exertions, and he cannot sleep; emulation wakes him early, and keeps him late astir. behind him, scattering "the rear of darkness," stalk poverty and famine, gaunt and ugly forms, with scorpion whip to urge the tardier, idler man. the intense ambition for money, for political power, and the social results they bring, keeps men on the alert. so ambition rises early, and works with diligence that never tires. the church, embracing all the churches under that name, cultivates the memory of men, and teaches reverence for the past; it helps keep activity from wandering into unpopular forms of wickedness or of unbelief. men who have the average intelligence, goodness and piety, it keeps from slipping back, thus blocking to rearward the wheels of society, so that the ascent gained shall not be lost; men who have less than this average it urges forward, addressing them in the name of god, encouraging by hope of heaven, and driving with fear of hell. it turns the thought of the people towards god; it sets before us some facts in the life, and some parts of the doctrine, of the noblest one who ever wore the form of man, bidding us worship him. the ecclesiastical worship of jesus of nazareth is, perhaps, the best thing in the american church. it has the sunday and the institution of preaching under its control. a body of disciplined men are its servants; they praise the ordinary virtues; oppose and condemn the unpopular forms of error and of sin. petty vice, the vice of low men, in low places, is sure of their lash. they promote patriotism in its common form. indirectly, they excite social and industrial rivalry, and favor the love of money by the honor they bestow upon the rich and successful. but at the same time they temper it a little, sometimes telling men, as business or the state does not, that there is in man a conscience, affection for his brother-man, and a soul which cannot live by bread alone; no, not by wealth, office, fame and social rank. they tell us, also, of eternity, where worldly distinctions, except of orthodox and heterodox, are forgotten, where wealth is of no avail; they bid us remember god. such are the good things of these great national forces; the good things which in this fourfold way we are teaching ourselves. the nation is a monitorial school, wonderfully contrived for the education of the people. i do not mean to say that it is by the forethought of men that the american democracy is at the same time a great practical school for the education of the human race. this result formed no part of our plan, and is not provided for by the constitution of the united states; it comes of the forethought of god, and is provided for in the constitution of the universe. now each of these educational forces has certain defects, negative evils, and certain vices, positive evils, which tend to misdirect the nation, and so hinder the general education of the people: of these, also, let me speak in detail. the state appeals to force, not to justice; this is its last appeal; the force of muscles aided by force of mind, instructed by modern science in the art to kill. the nation appeals to force in the settlement of affairs out of its borders. we have lately seen an example of this, when we commenced war against a feeble nation, who, in that special emergency, had right on her side, about as emphatically as the force was on our side. the immediate success of the enterprise, the popular distinction acquired by some of the leaders, the high honor bestowed on one of its heroes, all this makes the lesson of injustice attractive. it may be that a similar experiment will again be tried, and doubtless with like success. certainly there is no nation this side of the water which can withstand the enterprise, the activity, the invention, industry and perseverance of a people so united, and yet so free and intelligent. another successful injustice of this character, on a large scale, will make right still less regarded, and might honored yet more. the force we employ out of our borders, might opposed to right, we employ also at home against our brethren, and keep three millions of them in bondage; we watch for opportunities to extend the institution of slavery over soil unpolluted by that triple curse, and convert the constitution, the fundamental law of the land, into an instrument for the defence of slavery. the men we honor politically, by choosing them to offices in the state, are commonly men of extraordinary force, sometimes, it is true, only of extraordinary luck, but of only ordinary justice; men who, perhaps, have mind in the heroic degree, but conscience of the most vulgar pattern. they are to keep the law of the united states when it is wholly hostile to the law of the universe, to the everlasting justice of god. i am not speaking to politicians, professional representatives of the state; not speaking for political effect; not of the state as a political machine for the government of the people. i am speaking to teachers, for an educational purpose; of the state as an educational machine, as one of the great forces for the spiritual development of the people. now by this preference of force and postponement of justice at home and abroad, in the selection of men for office, with its wealth, and rank, and honor, by keeping the law of the land to the violation of the law of god, it is plain we are teaching ourselves to love wrong; at least to be insensible to the right. what we practise on a national scale as a people, it is not easy to think wrong when practised on a personal scale, by this man and that. the patriotism, also, which the state nurses, is little more than that old testament patriotism which loves your countryman, and hates the stranger; the affection which the old testament attributes to jehovah, and which makes him say, "i loved jacob, and i hated esau;" a patriotism which supports our country in the wrong as readily as in the right, and is glad to keep one sixth part of the nation in bondage without hope. it is not a patriotism which, beginning here, loves all the children of god, but one that robs the mexican, enslaves the african, and exterminates the indian. these are among the greater evils taught us by the political action of the people as a whole. if you look at the action of the chief political parties, you see no more respect for justice in the politics of either party, than in the politics of the nation, the resultant of both; no more respect for right abroad, or at home. one party aims distinctively at preserving the property already acquired; its chief concern is for that, its sympathy there; where its treasure is, is also its heart. it legislates, consciously or otherwise, more for accumulated wealth, than for the laboring man who now accumulates. this party goes for the dollar; the other for the majority, and aims at the greatest good of the greatest number, leaving the good of the smaller number to most uncertain mercies. neither party seems to aim at justice, which protects both the wealth that labor has piled up, and the laborer who now creates it; justice, which is the point of morals common to man and god, where the interests of all men, abroad and at home, electing and elected, greatest number and smallest number, exactly balance. falsehood, fraud, a willingness to deceive, a desire for the power and distinction of office, a readiness to use base means in obtaining office--these vices are sown with a pretty even hand upon both parties, and spring up with such blossoms and such a fruitage as we all see. the third political party has not been long enough in existence to develop any distinctive vices of its own. i shall not speak of the public or private character of the politicians who direct the state; no doubt that is a powerful element in our national education; but as a class, they seem no better and no worse than merchants, mechanics, ministers and farmers, as a class; so in their influence there is nothing peculiar, only their personal character ceases to be private, and becomes a public force in the education of the people. * * * * * the churches have the same faults as the state. there is the same postponement of justice and preference of force, the same neglect of the law of god in their zeal for the statutes of men; the same crouching to dollars or to numbers. however, in the churches these faults appear negatively, rather than as an affirmation. the worldliness of the church is not open, self-conscious and avowed; it is not, as a general thing, that human injustice is openly defended, but rather justice goes by default. but if the churches do not positively support and teach injustice, as the state certainly does, they do not teach the opposite, and, so far as that goes, are allies of the state in its evil influence. the fact that the churches, as such, did not oppose the war, and do not oppose slavery, its continuance, or its extension; nay, that they are often found its apologists and defenders, seldom its opponents; that they not only pervert the sacred books of the christians to its defence, but wrest the doctrines of christianity to justify it; the fact that they cannot, certainly do not, correct the particularism of the political parties, the love of wealth in one, of mere majorities in the other; that they know no patriotism not bounded by their country, none coextensive with mankind; that they cannot resist the vice of party spirit--these are real proofs that the church is but the ally of the state in this evil influence. but the church has also certain specific faults of its own. it teaches injustice by continually referring to the might of god, not his justice; to his ability and will to damn mankind, not asking if he has the right? it teaches that in virtue of his infinite power, he is not amenable to infinite justice, and to infinite love. thus, while the state teaches, in the name of expediency and by practice, that the strong may properly be the tyrants of the weak, the mighty nation over the feeble, the strong race over the inferior, that the government may dispense with right at home and abroad--the church, as theory in christ's name, teaches that god may repudiate his own justice and his own love. the churches have little love of truth, as such, only of its uses. it must be such a truth as they can use for their purposes; canonized truth; truth long known; that alone is acceptable and called "religious truth;" all else is "profane and carnal," as the reason which discovers it. they represent the average intelligence of society; hence, while keeping the old, they welcome not the new. they promote only popular forms of truth, popular in all christendom, or in their special sect. they lead in no intellectual reforms; they hinder the leaders. negatively and positively, they teach, that to believe what is clerically told you in the name of religion, is better than free, impartial search after the truth. they dishonor free thinking, and venerate constrained believing. when the clergy doubt, they seldom give men audience of their doubt. few scientific men not clerical believe the bible account of creation,--the universe made in six days, and but a few thousand years ago,--or that of the formation of woman, and of the deluge. some clerical men still believe these venerable traditions, spite of the science of the times; but the clerical men who have no faith in these stories not only leave the people to think them true and miraculously taught, but encourage men in the belief, and calumniate the men of science who look the universe fairly in the face and report the facts as they find them. the church represents only the popular morality, not any high and aboriginal virtue. it represents not the conscience of human nature, reflecting the universal and unchangeable moral laws of god, touched and beautified by his love, but only the conscience of human history, reflecting the circumstances man has passed by, and the institutions he has built along the stream of time. so, while it denounces unpopular sins, vices below the average vice of society, it denounces also unpopular excellence, which is above the average virtue of society. it blocks the wheels rearward, and the car of humanity does not roll down hill; but it blocks them forward also. no great moral movement of the age is at all dependent directly on the church for its birth; very little for its development. it is in spite of the church that reforms go forward; it holds the curb to check more than the rein to guide. in morals, as in science, the church is on the anti-liberal side, afraid of progress, against movement, loving "yet a little sleep, a little slumber;" conservative and chilling, like ice, not creative, nor even quickening, as water. it doffs to use and wont; has small confidence in human nature, much in a few facts of human history. it aims to separate piety from goodness, her natural and heaven-appointed spouse, and marry her to bigotry, in joyless and unprofitable wedlock. the church does not lead men to the deep springs of human nature, fed ever from the far heights of the divine nature, whence flows that river of god, full of living water, where weary souls may drink perennial supply. while it keeps us from falling back, it does little directly to advance mankind. in common with the state, this priest and levite pass by on the other side of the least developed classes of society, leaving the slave, the pauper, and the criminal, to their fate, hastening to strike hands with the thriving or the rich. these faults are shared in the main by all sects; some have them in the common, and some in a more eminent degree, but none is so distinguished from the rest as to need emphatic rebuke, or to deserve a special exemption from the charge. such are the faults of the church of every land, and must be from the nature of the institution; like the state, it can only represent the average of mankind. i am not speaking to clergymen, professional representatives of the church, not of the church as an ecclesiastical machine for keeping and extending certain opinions and symbols; not for an ecclesiastical purpose; i speak to teachers, for an educational purpose, of the church as an educational machine, one of the great forces for the spiritual development of the people. * * * * * the business of the land has also certain vices of its own; while it promotes the virtues i have named before, it does not tend to promote the highest form of character. it does not promote justice and humanity, as one could wish; it does not lead the employer to help the operative as a man, only to use him as a tool, merely for industrial purposes. the average merchant cares little whether his ship brings cloth and cotton, or opium and rum. the average capitalist does not wish the stock of his manufacturing company divided into small shares, so that the operatives can invest their savings therein and have a portion of the large dividends of the rich; nor does he care whether he takes a mortgage on a ship or a negro slave, nor whether his houses are rented for sober dwellings, or for drunkeries; whether the state hires his money to build harbors at home, or destroy them abroad. the ordinary manufacturer is as ready to make cannons and cannon-balls to serve in a war which he knows is unjust, as to cast his iron into mill-wheels, or forge it into anchors. the common farmer does not care whether his barley feeds poultry for the table, or, made into beer, breeds drunkards for the almshouse and the jail; asks not whether his rye and potatoes become the bread of life, or, distilled into whiskey, are deadly poison to men and women. he cares little if the man he hires become more manly or not; he only asks him to be a good tool. whips for the backs of negro slaves are made, it is said, in connecticut with as little compunction as bibles are printed there; "made to order," for the same purpose--for the dollar. the majority of blacksmiths would as soon forge fetter-chains to enslave the innocent limbs of a brother-man, as draught-chains for oxen. christian mechanics and pious young women, who would not hurt the hair of an innocent head, have i seen at springfield, making swords to slaughter the innocent citizens of vera cruz and jalapa. the ships of respectable men carry rum to intoxicate the savages of africa, powder and balls to shoot them with; they carry opium to the chinese; nay, christian slaves from richmond and baltimore to new orleans and galveston. in all commercial countries, the average vice of the age is mixed up with the industry of the age, and unconsciously men learn the wickedness long intrenched in practical life. it is thought industrial operations are not amenable to the moral law, only to the law of trade. "let the supply follow the demand" is the maxim. a man who makes as practical a use of the golden rule as of his yard-stick, is still an exception in all departments of business. even in the commercial and manufacturing parts of america, money accumulates in large masses; now in the hands of an individual, now of a corporation. this money becomes an irresponsible power, acting by the laws, but yet above them. it is wielded by a few men, to whom it gives a high social position and consequent political power. they use this triple form of influence, pecuniary, social and political, in the spirit of commerce, not of humanity, not for the interest of mankind; thus the spirit of trade comes into the state. hence it is not thought wrong in politics to buy a man, more than in commerce to buy a ship; hence the rights of a man, or a nation, are looked on as articles of trade, to be sold, bartered, and pledged; and in the senate of the united states, we have heard a mass of men, more numerous than all our citizens seventy years ago, estimated as worth twelve hundred millions of dollars. in most countries business comes more closely into contact with men than the state, or the church, or the press, and is a more potent educator. here it not only does this, but controls the other three forces, which are mainly instruments of this; hence this form of evil is more dangerous than elsewhere, for there is no power organized to resist it as in england or rome; so it subtly penetrates everywhere, bidding you place the accidents before the substance of manhood, and value money more than man. * * * * * notwithstanding the good qualities of the press, the books it multiplies, and the great service it renders, it also has certain vices of its own. from the nature of the thing the greater part of literature represents only the public opinion of the time. it must therefore teach deference to that, not deference to truth and justice. it is only the eminent literature which can do more than this; books, which at first fall into few hands though fit, and like the acorns sown with the mulleins and the clover, destined to germinate but slowly, long to be over-topped by an ephemeral crop, at last, after half an hundred years, shall mature their own fruit for other generations of men. the current literature of this age only popularizes the thought of the eminent literature of the past. great good certainly comes from this, but also great evil. of all literature, the newspapers come most into contact with men--they are the literature of the people, read by such as read nothing else; read also by such as read all things beside. taken in the mass, they contain little to elevate men above the present standard. the political journals have the general vice of our politics, and the special faults of the particular party; the theological journals have the common failings of the church, intensified by the bigotry of the sects they belong to; the commercial journals represent the bad qualities of business. put all three together, and it is not their aim to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, nor to promote justice, the whole of justice, and nothing but justice. the popular literature helps bring to consciousness the sentiments and ideas which prevail in the state, the church, and business. it brings those sentiments and ideas intimately into connection with men, magnetizing them with the good and ill of those three powers, but it does little directly to promote a higher form of human character. so, notwithstanding the good influence of these four modes of national activity in educating the grown men of america, they yet do not afford the highest teaching which the people require, to realize individually the idea of a man, and jointly that of a democracy. the state does not teach perfect justice; the church does not teach that, or love of truth. business does not teach perfect morality, and the average literature, which falls into the hands of the million, teaches men to respect public opinion more than the word of god, which transcends that. thus these four teach only the excellence already organized or incorporated in the laws, the theology, the customs, and the books of the land. i cannot but think these four teachers are less deficient here than in other lands, and have excellences of their own, but the faults mentioned are inseparable from such institutions. an institution is an organized thought; of course, no institution can represent a truth which is too new or too high for the existing organizations, yet that is the truth which it is desirable to teach. so there will always be exceptional men, with more justice, truth and love than is represented by the institutions of the time, who seem therefore hostile to these institutions, which they seek to improve and not destroy. contemporary with the priests of judah and israel were the prophets thereof, antithetic to one another as the centripetal and centrifugal forces, but, like them, both necessary to the rhythmic movement of the orbs in heaven, and the even poise of the world. in rome and in england the idea of a theocracy and an aristocracy has become a fact in the institutions of the land, which accordingly favor the formation of priests and gentlemen. the teachers of the educated class, therefore, may trust to the machinery already established to do their work, only keeping off the spirit of the age which would make innovations; and such is the respectability and popular esteem of the institutions, that this is done easier than men think, by putting an exceptional book in the index at rome or in the academical fire at oxford. but here, the idea of a democracy is by no means so well established and organized in institutions. it is new, and while a theocrat and an aristocrat are respected everywhere, a democrat is held in suspicion; accordingly, to make men, the teacher cannot trust his educational machinery, he must make it, and invent anew as well as turn his mill. * * * * * these things being so, it is plain the teachers in the schools should be of such a character that they can give the children what they will most want when they become men; such an intellectual and moral development that they can appreciate and receive the good influence of these four educational forces, and withstand, resist, and exterminate the evil thereof. in the schools of a democracy which are to educate the people and make them men, you need more aboriginal virtue than in the schools of an aristocracy or a theocracy, where a few are to be educated as gentlemen or priests. since the institutions of the land do not represent the idea of a democracy, and the average spirit of the people, which makes the institutions, represents it no more, if the children of the people are to become better than their fathers, it is plain their teachers must be prophets, and not priests merely; must animate them with a spirit higher, purer and more holy than that which inspires the state, the church, business, or the common literature of the times. as the teacher cannot impart and teach what he does not possess and know, it is also plain that the teacher must have this superior spirit. * * * * * to accomplish the public education of the children of the people, we need the three classes of institutions just mentioned: free common schools, free high schools and free colleges. let me say a word of each. the design of the common school is to take children at the proper age from their mothers, and give them the most indispensable development, intellectual, moral, affectional and religious; to furnish them with as much positive, useful knowledge as they can master, and, at the same time, teach them the three great scholastic helps or tools of education--the art to read, to write and calculate. the children of most parents are easily brought to school, by a little diligence on the part of the teachers and school committee; but there are also children of low and abandoned, or, at least, neglected parents, who live in a state of continual truancy; they are found on the banks of your canals; they swarm in your large cities. when those children become men, through lack of previous development, instruction and familiarity with these three instruments of education, they cannot receive the full educational influence of the state and church, of business and the press: they lost their youthful education, and therefore they lose, in consequence, their manly culture. they remain dwarfs, and are barbarians in the midst of society; there will be exceptional men whom nothing can make vulgar; but this will be the lot of the mass. they cannot perform the intelligent labor which business demands, only the brute work, so they lose the development which comes through the hand that is active in the higher modes of industry, which, after all, is the greatest educational force; accordingly, they cannot compete with ordinary men, and remain poor; lacking also that self-respect which comes of being respected, they fall into beggary, into intemperance, into crime; so, from being idlers at first, a stumbling-block in the way of society, they become paupers, a positive burden which society must take on its shoulders; or they turn into criminals, active foes to the industry, the order, and the virtue of society. now if a man abandons the body of his child, the state adopts that body for a time; takes the guardianship thereof, for the child's own sake; sees that it is housed, fed, clad, and cared for. if a man abandons his child's spirit, and the child commits a crime, the state, for its own sake, assumes the temporary guardianship thereof, and puts him in a jail. when a man deserts his child, taking no concern about his education, i venture to make the suggestion, whether it would not be well, as a last resort, for the state to assume the guardianship of the child for its own sake, and for the child's sake. we allow no one, with ever so thick a skin, to grow up in nakedness; why should we suffer a child, with however so perverse a parent, to grow up in ignorance and degenerate into crime? certainly, a naked man is not so dangerous to society as an ignorant man, nor is the spectacle so revolting. i should have less hope of a state where the majority were so perverse as to continue ignorant of reading, writing and calculating, than of one where they were so thick-skinned as to wear no clothes. in massachusetts, there is an asylum for juvenile offenders, established by the city of boston, a farm school for bad boys, established by the characteristic benevolence of the rich men of that place, and a state reform school under the charge of the commonwealth: all these are for lads who break the laws of the land. would it not be better to take one step more, adopt them before they offended, and allow no child to grow up in the barbarism of ignorance? has any man an unalienable right to live a savage in the midst of civilization? we need also public high schools, to take children where the common schools leave them, and carry them further on. some states have done something towards establishing such institutions; they are common in new england. some have established normal schools, special high schools for the particular and professional education of public teachers. without these, it is plain there would not be a supply of competent educators for the public service. then we need free colleges, conducted by public officers, and paid for by the public purse. without these the scheme is not perfect. the idea which lies at the basis of the public education of a people in a democracy, is this: every man, on condition of doing his duty, has a right to the means of education, as much as a right, on the same condition, to the means of defence from a public enemy in time of war, or from starvation in time of plenty and of peace. i say every man, i mean every woman also. the amount of education must depend on the three factors named before,--on the general achievement of mankind, the special ability of the state, and the particular power of the individual. if all is free, common schools, high schools, and colleges, boys and girls of common ability and common love of learning, will get a common education; those of greater ability, a more extended education, and those of the highest powers, the best culture which the race can now furnish, and the state afford. hitherto no nation has established a public college, wholly at the public cost, where the children of the poor and the rich could enjoy together the great national charity of superior education. to do this is certainly not consistent with the idea of a theocracy or an aristocracy, but it is indispensable to the complete realization of a democracy. otherwise the children of the rich will have a monopoly of superior education, which is the case with the girls everywhere--for only the daughters of rich men can get a superior education, even in the united states--and with boys in england and france, and of course the offices, emoluments and honors which depend on a superior education; or else the means thereof will be provided for poor lads by private benefactions, charity-funds and the like, which some pious and noble man has devoted to this work. in this case the institutions will have a sectarian character, be managed by narrow, bigoted men, and the gift of the means of education be coupled with conditions which must diminish its value, and fetter the free spirit of the young man. this takes place in many of the collegiate establishments of the north, which, notwithstanding those defects, have done a great good to mankind. the common schools giving their pupil the power of reading, writing and calculating, developing his faculties and furnishing him with much elementary knowledge, put him in communication with all that is written in a common form, in the english tongue; its treasures lie level to his eye and hand. the high school and the college, teaching him also other languages, afford him access to the treasures contained there; teaching him the mathematics and furnishing him with the discipline of science, they enable him to understand all that has hitherto been recorded in the compendious forms of philosophy, and thus place the child of large ability in connection with all the spiritual treasures of the world. in the mean time, for all these pupils, there is the material and the human world about them, the world of consciousness within. they can study both and add what they may to the treasures of human discovery or invention. it seems to me that it is the duty of the state to place the means of this education within the reach of all children of superior ability,--a duty that follows from the very idea of a democracy, not to speak of the idea of christianity. it is not less the interest of the state to do so, for then, youths, well born, with good abilities, will not be hindered from getting a breeding proportionate to their birth, and from occupying the stations which are adequately filled only by men of superior native abilities, enriched by culture, and developed to their highest power. then the work of such stations will fall to the lot of such men, and of course be done. eminent ability, talent, or genius, should have eminent education, and so serve the nation in its eminent kind; for when god makes a million-minded man, as once or twice in the ages, or a myriad-minded man, as he does now and then, it is plain that this gift also is to be accounted precious, and used for the advantage of all. i say no state has ever attempted to establish such institutions; yet the government of the united states has a seminary for the public education of a few men at the public cost. but it is a school to qualify men to fight; they learn the science of destruction, the art thereof, the kindred art and science of defence. if the same money we now pay for military education at west point were directed to the education of teachers of the highest class, say professors and presidents of colleges; if the same pains were taken to procure able men, to furnish them with the proper instruction for their special work, and give them the best possible general development of their powers, not forgetting the moral, the affectional and the religious, and animating them with the philanthropic spirit needed for such a work, how much better results would appear! but in the present intellectual condition of the people it would be thought unworthy of a nation to train up school-masters! but is it only soldiers that we need? all these institutions are but introductory, a preparatory school, in three departments, to fit youths for the great educational establishment of practical life. this will find each youth and maiden as the schools leave him, moulding him to their image, or moulded by him to a better. so it is plain what the teachers are to do:--besides teaching the special branches which fall to their lot, they are to supply for the pupils, the defects of the state, of the church, of business, and the press, especially the moral defects. for this great work of mediating between the mother and the world, for so furnishing and fitting the rising generation, introducing them into practical life, that they shall receive all the good of these public educational forces with none of the ill, but enhance the one while they withstand the other, and so each in himself realize the idea of man, and all in their social capacity, the idea of a democracy--it is also plain what sort of men we need for teachers: we need able men, well endowed by nature, well disciplined by art; we need superior men--men juster than the state, truer and better than the churches, more humane than business, and higher than the common literature of the press. there are always men of that stamp born into the world; enough of them in any age to do its work. how shall we bring them to the task? give young men and women the opportunity to fit themselves for the work, at free common schools, high schools, normal schools, and colleges; give them a pay corresponding to their services, as in england and rome; give them social rank and honor in that proportion, and they will come; able men will come; men well disciplined will come; men of talent and even genius for education will come. in the state you pay a man of great political talents large money and large honors; hence there is no lack of ability in politics, none of competition for office. in the church you pay a good deal for a "smart minister," one who can preach an audience into the pews and not himself out of the pulpit. talent enough goes to business; educated talent too, at least with a special education for this, honor, and social distinction. private colleges and theological schools, often, have powerful men for their professors and presidents; sometimes, men of much talent for education; commonly, men of ripe learning and gentlemanly accomplishments. even men of genius seek a place as teachers in some private college, where they are under the control of the leaders of a sect--and must not doubt its creed, nor set science a-going freely lest it run over some impotent theological dogma--or else of a little coterie, or close corporation of men selected because radical or because conservative, men chosen not on account of any special fitness for superintending the superior education of the people, but because they were one-sided, and leaned this way in massachusetts and that in virginia. able men seek such places because they get a competent pay, competent honors, competent social rank. senators and ambassadors are not ashamed to be presidents of a college, and submit to the control of a coterie, or a sect, and produce their results. if such men can be had for private establishments to educate a few to work in such trammels and such company, certainly, it is not difficult to get them for the public and for the education of all. as the state has the most children to educate, the most money to pay with, it is clear, not only that they need the best ability for this work, but that they can have it soon as they make the teacher's calling gainful and respectable. in england and rome, the most important spiritual function of the state is the production of the gentleman and the priest; in democratic america it is the production of the man. some nations have taken pains with the military training of all the people, for the sake of the state, and made every man a soldier. no nation has hitherto taken equivalent pains with the general education of all, for the sake of the state and the sake of the citizens;--"the heathens of china" have done more than any christian people, for the education of all. this was not needed in a theocracy, nor an aristocracy; it is essential to a democracy. this is needed politically; for where all men are voters, the ignorant man, who cannot read the ballot which he casts; the thief, the pirate, and the murderer, may, at any time, turn the scale of an election, and do us a damage which it will take centuries to repair. ignorant men are the tools of the demagogue; how often he uses them, and for what purposes, we need not go back many years to learn. let the people be ignorant and suffrage universal, a very few men will control the state, and laugh at the folly of the applauding multitude whose bread they waste, and on whose necks they ride to insolence and miserable fame. america has nothing to fear from any foreign foe; for nearly forty years she has had no quarrel but of her own making. such is our enterprise and our strength, that few nations would, carelessly, engage in war with us; none, without great provocation. in the midst of us, is our danger; not in foreign arms, but in the ignorance and the wickedness of our own children, the ignorance of the many, the wickedness of the few who will lead the many to their ruin. the bulwark of america is not the army and navy of the united states, with all the men at public cost instructed in the art of war; it is not the swords and muskets idly bristling in our armories; it is not the cannon and the powder carefully laid by; no, nor is it yet the forts, which frown in all their grim barbarity of stone along the coast, defacing the landscape, else so fair: these might all be destroyed to-night, and the nation be as safe as now. the more effectual bulwark of america is her schools. the cheap spelling-book, or the vane on her school-house is a better symbol of the nation than "the star-spangled banner;" the printing press does more than the cannon; the press is mightier than the sword. the army that is to keep our liberties--you are part of that, the noble army of teachers. it is you, who are to make a great nation greater, even wise and good,--the next generation better than their sires. europe shows us, by experiment, that a republic cannot be made by a few well-minded men, however well-meaning. they tried for it at rome, full of enlightened priests; in germany, the paradise of the scholar, but there was not a people well educated, and a democracy could not stand upright long enough to be set a-going. in france, where men are better fitted for the experiment than elsewhere in continental europe, you see what comes of it--the first step is a stumble, and for their president, the raw republicans chose an autocrat, not a democrat; not a mere soldier, but only the name of a soldier; one that thinks it an insult if liberty, equality, and fraternity be but named! think you a democracy can stand without the education of all; not barely the smallest pittance thereof which will keep a live soul in a live body, but a large, generous cultivation of mind and conscience, heart and soul? a man, with half an eye, can see how we suffer continually in politics for lack of education among the people. some nations are priest-ridden, some king-ridden, some ridden of nobles; america is ridden by politicians, a heavy burden for a foolish neck. our industrial interests demand the same education. the industrial prosperity of the north, our lands yearly enriching, while they bear their annual crop; our railroads, mills and machines, the harness with which we tackle the elements,--for we domesticate fire and water, yes, the very lightning of heaven--all these are but material results of the intelligence of the people. our political success and our industrial prosperity, both come from the pains taken with the education of the people. halve this education, and you take away three fourths of our political welfare, three fourths of our industrial prosperity; double this education, you greaten the political welfare of the people, you increase their industrial success fourfold. yes, more than that, for the results of education increase by a ratio of much higher powers. it seems strange that so few of the great men in politics have cared much for the education of the people; only one of those, now prominent before the north, is intimately connected with it. he, at great personal sacrifice of money, of comfort, of health, even of respectability, became superintendent of the common schools of massachusetts, a place whence we could ill spare him, to take the place of the famous man he succeeds. few of the prominent scholars of the land interest themselves in the public education of the people. the men of superior culture think the common school beneath their notice; but it is the mother of them all. none of the states of the north has ever given this matter the attention it demands. when we legislate about public education, this is the question before us:--shall we give our posterity the greatest blessing that one generation can bestow upon another? shall we give them a personal power which will create wealth in every form, multiply ships, and roads of earth, or of iron; subdue the forest, till the field, chain the rivers, hold the winds as its vassals, bind with an iron yoke the fire and water, and catch and tame the lightning of god? shall we give them a personal power which will make them sober, temperate, healthy, and wise; that shall keep them at peace, abroad and at home, organize them so wisely that all shall be united, and yet, each left free, with no tyranny of the few over the many, or the little over the great? shall we enable them to keep, to improve, to double manifold the political, social, and personal blessings they now possess; shall we give them this power to create riches, to promote order, peace, happiness--all forms of human welfare, or shall we not? that is the question. give us intelligent men, moral men, men well developed in mind and conscience, heart and soul, men that love man and god, industrial prosperity, social prosperity, and political prosperity, are sure to follow. but without such men, all the machinery of this threefold prosperity is but a bauble in a child's hand, which he will soon break or lose, which he cannot replace when gone, nor use while kept. rich men, who have intelligence and goodness, will educate their children, at whatever cost. there are some men, even poor men's sons, born with such native power that they will achieve an education, often a most masterly culture; men whom no poverty can degrade, or make vulgar, whom no lack of means of culture can keep from being wise and great. such are exceptional men; the majority, nine tenths of the people, will depend, for their culture, on the public institutions of the land. if there had never been a free public school in new england, not half of her mechanics and farmers would now be able to read, not a fourth part of her women. i need not stop to tell what would be the condition of her agriculture, her manufactures, her commerce; they would have been, perhaps, even behind the agriculture, commerce and manufactures of south carolina. i need not ask what would be the condition of her free churches, or the republican institutions which now beautify her rugged shores and sterile soil; there would be no such churches, no such institutions. if there had been no such schools in new england, the revolution would yet remain to be fought. take away the free schools, you take away the cause of our manifold prosperity; double their efficiency and value, you not only double and quadruple the prosperity of the people, but you will enlarge their welfare--political, social, personal--far more than i now dare to calculate. i know men object to public schools; they say, education must be bottomed on religion, and that cannot be taught unless we have a state religion, taught "by authority" in all our schools; we cannot teach religion, without teaching it in a sectarian form. this objection is getting made in new york; we have got beyond it in new england. it is true, all manly education must be bottomed on religion; it is essential to the normal development of man, and all attempts at education, without this, must fail of the highest end. but there are two parts of religion which can be taught in all the schools, without disturbing the denominations, or trenching upon their ground, namely, piety, the love of god, and goodness, the love of man. the rest of religion, after piety and goodness are removed, may safely be left to the institutions of any of the sects, and so the state will not occupy their ground. it is often said that superior education is not much needed; the common schools are enough, and good enough, for it is thought that superior education is needed for men as lawyers, ministers, doctors, and the like, not for men as men. it is not so. we want men cultivated with the best discipline, everywhere, not for the profession's sake, but for man's sake. every man with a superior culture, intellectual, moral, and religious, every woman thus developed, is a safeguard and a blessing. he may sit on the bench of a judge or a shoemaker, be a clergyman or an oysterman, that matters little, he is still a safeguard and a blessing. the idea that none should have a superior education but professional men--they only for the profession's sake--belongs to dark ages, and is unworthy of a democracy. * * * * * it is the duty of all men to watch over the public education of the people, for it is the most important work of the state. it is particularly the duty of men who, hitherto, have least attended to it, men of the highest culture, men, too, of the highest genius. if a man with but common abilities has attained great learning, he is one of the "public administrators," to distribute the goods of men of genius, from other times and lands, to mankind, their legal heirs. why does god sometimes endow a man with great intellectual power, making, now and then, a million-minded man? is that superiority of gift solely for the man's own sake? shame on such a thought. it is of little value to him unless he use it for me; it is for your sake and my sake, more than for his own. he is a precious almoner of wisdom; one of the public guardians of mankind, to think for us, to help us think for ourselves; born to educate the world of feebler men. i call on such men, men of culture, men of genius, to help build up institutions for the education of the people. if they neglect this, they are false to their trust. the culture which hinders a man from sympathy with the ignorant, is a curse to both, and the genius which separates a man from his fellow-creatures, lowlier born than he, is the genius of a demon. * * * * * men and women, practical teachers now before me, a great trust is in your hands; nine tenths of the children of the people depend on you for their early culture, for all the scholastic discipline they will ever get; their manly culture will depend on that, their prosperity thereon, all these on you. when they are men, you know what evils they will easily learn from state and church, from business and the press. it is for you to give them such a developing and such a furnishing of their powers, that they will withstand, counteract and exterminate that evil. teach them to love justice better than their native land, truth better than their church, humanity more than money, and fidelity to their own nature better than the public opinion of the press. as the chief thing of all, teach them to love man and god. your characters will be the inspiration of these children; your prayers their practice, your faith their works. the rising generation is in your hands, you can fashion them in your image, you will, you must do this. great duties will devolve on these children when grown up to be men; you are to fit them for these duties. since the revolution, there has not been a question before the country, not a question of constitution or confederacy, free trade or protective tariff, sub-treasury or bank, of peace or war, freedom or slavery, the extension of liberty, or the extension of bondage--not a question of this sort has come up before congress, or the people, which could not have been better decided by seven men, honest, intelligent, and just, who loved man and god, and looked, with a single eye, to what was right in the case. it is your business to train up such men. a representative, a senator, a governor may be made, any day, by a vote. ballots can make a president out of almost any thing; the most ordinary material is not too cheap and vulgar for that. but all the votes of all the conventions, all the parties, are unable to make a people capable of self-government. they cannot put intelligence and justice into the head of a single man. you are to do that. you are the "sacred legion," the "theban brothers" to repel the greatest foes that can invade the land, the only foes to be feared; you are to repel ignorance, injustice, unmanliness, and irreligion. with none else to help you, in ten years' time you can double the value of your schools; double the amount of development and instruction you annually furnish. so doing, you shall double, triple, quadruple, multiply manifold the blessings of the land. you can, if you will. i ask if you will? if your works say "yes," then you will be the great benefactors of the land, not giving money, but a charity far nobler yet, education, the greatest charity. you will help fulfil the prophecy which noble men long since predicted of mankind, and help found the kingdom of heaven on earth; you will follow the steps of that noblest man of men, the great educator of the human race, whom the christians still worship as their god. yes, you will work with god himself; he will work with you, work for you, and bless you with everlasting life. v. the political destination of america and the signs of the times.--delivered before several literary societies, . every nation has a peculiar character, in which it differs from all others that have been, that are, and possibly from all that are to come; for it does not yet appear that the divine father of the nations ever repeats himself and creates either two nations or two men exactly alike. however, as nations, like men, agree in more things than they differ, and in obvious things too, the special peculiarity of any one tribe does not always appear at first sight. but if we look through the history of some nation which has passed off from the stage of action, we find certain prevailing traits which continually reappear in the language and laws thereof; in its arts, literature, manners, modes of religion--in short, in the whole life of the people. the most prominent thing in the history of the hebrews is their continual trust in god, and this marks them from their first appearance to the present day. they have accordingly done little for art, science, philosophy, little for commerce and the useful arts of life, but much for religion; and the psalms they sung two or three thousand years ago are at this day the hymns and prayers of the whole christian world. three great historical forms of religion, judaism, christianity, and mahometanism, all have proceeded from them. he that looks at the ionian greeks finds in their story always the same prominent characteristic, a devotion to what is beautiful. this appears often to the neglect of what is true, right, and therefore holy. hence, while they have done little for religion, their literature, architecture, sculpture, furnish us with models never surpassed, and perhaps not equalled. yet they lack the ideal aspiration after religion that appears in the literature and art, and even language of some other people, quite inferior to the greeks in elegance and refinement. science, also, is most largely indebted to these beauty-loving greeks for truth is one form of loveliness. if we take the romans, from romulus their first king, to augustulus the last of the cæsars, the same traits of national character appear, only the complexion and dress thereof changed by circumstances. there is always the same hardness and materialism, the same skill in organizing men, the same turn for affairs and genius for legislation. rome borrowed her theology and liturgical forms; her art, science, literature, philosophy, and eloquence; even her art of war was an imitation. but law sprung up indigenous in her soil; her laws are the best gift she offers to the human race,--the "monument more lasting than brass," which she has left behind her. we may take another nation, which has by no means completed its history, the saxon race, from hengist and horsa to sir robert peel: there also is a permanent peculiarity in the tribe. they are yet the same bold, handy, practical people as when their bark first touched the savage shores of britain; not over religious; less pious than moral; not so much upright before god, as downright before men; servants of the understanding more than children of reason; not following the guidance of an intuition, and the light of an idea, but rather trusting to experiment, facts, precedents, and usages; not philosophical, but commercial; warlike through strength and courage, not from love of war or its glory; material, obstinate, and grasping, with the same admiration of horses, dogs, oxen, and strong drink; the same willingness to tread down any obstacle, material, human or divine, which stands in their way; the same impatient lust of wealth and power; the same disposition to colonize and reannex other lands; the same love of liberty and love of law; the same readiness in forming political confederations. in each of these four instances, the hebrews, the ionians, the romans, and the anglo-saxon race, have had a nationality so strong, that while they have mingled with other nations in commerce and in war, as victors and vanquished, they have stoutly held their character through all; they have thus modified feebler nations joined with them. to take the last, neither the britons nor the danes affected very much the character of the anglo-saxons; they never turned it out of its course. the normans gave the saxon manners, refinement, letters, elegance. the anglo-saxon bishop of the eleventh century, dressed in untanned sheep-skins, "the woolly side out and the fleshy side in;" he ate cheese and flesh, drank milk and mead. the norman taught him to wear cloth, to eat also bread and roots, to drink wine. but in other respects the norman left him as he found him. england has received her kings and her nobles from normandy, anjou, the provence, scotland, holland, hanover, often seeing a foreigner ascend her throne; yet the sturdy anglo-saxon character held its own, spite of the new element infused into its blood: change the ministries, change the dynasties often as they will, john bull is obstinate as ever, and himself changes not; no philosophy or religion makes him less material. no nation but the english could have produced a hobbes, a hume, a paley, or a bentham; they are all instantial and not exceptional men in that race. * * * * * now this idiosyncrasy of a nation is a sacred gift; like the genius of a burns, a thorwaldsen, a franklin, or a bowditch, it is given for some divine purpose, to be sacredly cherished and patiently unfolded. the cause of the peculiarities of a nation or an individual man we cannot fully determine as yet, and so we refer it to the chain of causes which we call providence. but the national persistency in a common type is easily explained. the qualities of father and mother are commonly transmitted to their children, but not always, for peculiarities may lie latent in a family for generations, and reappear in the genius or the folly of a child--often in the complexion and features: and besides, father and mother are often no match. but such exceptions are rare, and the qualities of a race are always thus reproduced, the deficiency of one man getting counterbalanced by the redundancy of the next: the marriages of a whole tribe are not far from normal. some nations, it seems, perish through defect of this national character, as individuals fail of success through excess or deficiency in their character. thus the celts, that great flood of a nation which once swept over germany, france, england, and, casting its spray far over the alps, at one time threatened destruction to rome itself, seem to have been so filled with love of individual independence that they could never accept a minute organization of human rights and duties, and so their children would not group themselves into a city, as other races, and submit to a strong central power, which should curb individual will enough to insure national unity of action. perhaps this was once the excellence of the celts, and thereby they broke the trammels and escaped from the theocratic or despotic traditions of earlier and more savage times, developing the power of the individual for a time, and the energy of a nation loosely bound; but when they came in contact with the romans, franks and saxons, they melted away as snow in april--only, like that, remnants thereof yet lingering in the mountains and islands of europe. no external pressure of famine or political oppression now holds the celts in ireland together, or gives them national unity of action enough to resist the saxon foe. doubtless in other days this very peculiarity of the irish has done the world some service. nations succeed each other as races of animals in the geological epochs, and like them, also, perish when their work is done. the peculiar character of a nation does not appear nakedly, without relief and shadow. as the waters of the rhone, in coming from the mountains, have caught a stain from the soils they have traversed which mars the cerulean tinge of the mountain snow that gave them birth, so the peculiarities of each nation become modified by the circumstances to which it is exposed, though the fundamental character of a nation, it seems, has never been changed. only when the blood of the nation is changed by additions from another stock is the idiosyncrasy altered. now, while each nation has its peculiar genius or character which does not change, it has also and accordingly a particular work to perform in the economy of the world, a certain fundamental idea to unfold and develop. this is its national task, for in god's world, as in a shop, there is a regular division of labor. sometimes it is a limited work, and when it is done the nation may be dismissed, and go to its repose. _non omnia possumus omnes_ is as true of nations as of men; one has a genius for one thing, another for something different, and the idea of each nation and its special work will depend on the genius of the nation. men do not gather grapes of thorns. in addition to this specific genius of the nation and its corresponding work, there are also various accidental or subordinate qualities, which change with circumstances, and so vary the nation's aspect that its peculiar genius and peculiar duty are often hid from its own consciousness, and even obscured to that of the philosophic looker-on. these subordinate peculiarities will depend first on the peculiar genius, idea and work of the nation, and next on the transient circumstances, geographical, climactic, historical and secular, to which the nation has been exposed. the past helped form the circumstances of the present age, and they the character of the men now living. thus new modifications of the national type continually take place; new variations are played, but on the same old strings and of the same old tune. once circumstances made the hebrews entirely pastoral, now as completely commercial; but the same trust in god, the same national exclusiveness appear, as of old. as one looks at the history of the ionians, romans, saxons, he sees unity of national character, a continuity of idea and of work; but it appears in the midst of variety, for while these remained ever the same to complete the economy of the world, subordinate qualities--sentiments, ideas, actions--changed to suit the passing hour. the nation's _course_ was laid towards a certain point, but they stood to the right hand or the left, they sailed with much canvas or little, and swift or slow, as the winds and waves compelled: nay, sometimes the national ship "heaves to," and lies with her "head to the wind," regardless of her destination; but when the storm is overblown resumes her course. men will carelessly think the ship has no certain aim, but only drifts. * * * * * the most marked characteristic of the american nation is love of freedom; of man's natural rights. this is so plain to a student of american history, or of american politics, that the point requires no arguing. we have a genius for liberty: the american idea is freedom, natural rights. accordingly, the work providentially laid out for us to do seems this,--to organize the rights of man. this is a problem hitherto unattempted on a national scale, in human history. often enough attempts have been made to organize the powers of priests, kings, nobles, in a theocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, powers which had no foundation in human duties or human rights, but solely in the selfishness of strong men. often enough have the mights of men been organized, but not the rights of man. surely there has never been an attempt made on a national scale to organize the rights of man as man; rights resting on the nature of things; rights derived from no conventional compact of men with men; not inherited from past generations, nor received from parliaments and kings, nor secured by their parchments; but rights that are derived straightway from god, the author of duty and the source of right, and which are secured in the great charter of our being. at first view it will be said, the peculiar genius of america is not such, nor such her fundamental idea, nor that her destined work. it is true that much of the national conduct seems exceptional when measured by that standard, and the nation's course as crooked as the rio grande; it is true that america sometimes seems to spurn liberty, and sells the freedom of three million men for less than three million annual bales of cotton; true, she often tramples, knowingly, consciously, tramples on the most unquestionable and sacred rights. yet, when one looks through the whole character and history of america, spite of the exceptions, nothing comes out with such relief as this love of freedom, this idea of liberty, this attempt to organize right. there are numerous subordinate qualities which conflict with the nation's idea and work, coming from our circumstances, not our soul, as well as many others which help the nation perform her providential work. they are signs of the times, and it is important to look carefully among the most prominent of them, where, indeed, one finds striking contradictions. * * * * * the first is an impatience of authority. every thing must render its reason, and show cause for its being. we will not be commanded, at least only by such as we choose to obey. does some one say, "thou shalt," or "thou shalt not," we ask, "who are you?" hence comes a seeming irreverence. the shovel hat, the symbol of authority, which awed our fathers, is not respected unless it covers a man, and then it is the man we honor, and no longer the shovel hat. "i will complain of you to the government!" said a prussian nobleman to a yankee stage-driver, who uncivilly threw the nobleman's trunk to the top of the coach. "tell the government to go to the devil!" was the symbolical reply. old precedents will not suffice us, for we want something anterior to all precedents; we go beyond what is written, asking the cause of the precedent and the reason of the writing. "our fathers did so," says some one. "what of that?" say we. "our fathers--they were giants, were they? not at all, only great boys, and we are not only taller than they, but mounted on their shoulders to boot, and see twice as far. my dear wise man, or wiseacre, it is we that are the ancients, and have forgotten more than all our fathers knew. we will take their wisdom joyfully, and thank god for it, but not their authority, we know better; and of their nonsense not a word. it was very well that they lived, and it is very well that they are dead. let them keep decently buried, for respectable dead men never walk." tradition does not satisfy us. the american scholar has no folios in his library. the antiquary unrolls his codex, hid for eighteen hundred years in the ashes of herculaneum, deciphers its fossil wisdom, telling us what great men thought in the bay of naples, and two thousand years ago. "what do you tell of that for?" is the answer to his learning. "what has pythagoras to do with the price of cotton? you may be a very learned man; you can read the hieroglyphics of egypt, i dare say, and know so much about the pharaohs, it is a pity you had not lived in their time, when you might have been good for something; but you are too old-fashioned for our business, and may return to your dust." an eminent american, a student of egyptian history, with a scholarly indignation declared, "there is not a man who cares to know whether shoophoo lived one thousand years before christ, or three." the example of other and ancient states does not terrify or instruct us. if slavery were a curse to athens, the corruption of corinth, the undoing of rome, and all history shows it was so, we will learn no lesson from that experience, for we say, "we are not athenians, men of corinth, nor pagan romans, thank god, but free republicans, christians of america. we live in the nineteenth century, and though slavery worked all that mischief then and there, we know how to make money out of it, twelve hundred millions of dollars, as mr. clay counts the cash." the example of contemporary nations furnishes us little warning or guidance. we will set our own precedents, and do not like to be told that the prussians or the dutch have learned some things in the education of the people before us, which we shall do well to learn after them. so when a good man tells us of their schools and their colleges, "patriotic" school-masters exclaim, "it is not true; our schools are the best in the world! but if it were true, it is unpatriotic to say so; it aids and comforts the enemy." jonathan knows little of war; he has heard his grandfather talk of lexington and saratoga; he thinks he should like to have a little touch of battle on his own account: so when there is difficulty in setting up the fence betwixt his estate and his neighbors, he blusters for awhile, talks big, and threatens to strike his father; but, not having quite the stomach for that experiment, falls to beating his other neighbor, who happens to be poor, weak, and of a sickly constitution; and when he beats her at every step,-- "for 'tis no war, as each one knows, when only one side deals the blows, and t' other bears 'em,"-- jonathan thinks he has covered himself "with imperishable honors," and sets up his general for a great king. poor jonathan--he does not know the misery, the tears, the blood, the shame, the wickedness, and the sin he has set a-going, and which one day he is to account for with god who forgets nothing! yet while we are so unwilling to accept the good principles, to be warned by the fate, or guided by the success, of other nations, we gladly and servilely copy their faults, their follies, their vice and sin. like all upstarts, we pique ourselves on our imitation of aristocratic ways. how many a blusterer in congress,--for there are two denominations of blusterers, differing only in degree, your great blusterer in congress and your little blusterer in a bar-room,--has roared away hours long against aristocratic influence, in favor of the "pure democracy," while he played the oligarch in his native village, the tyrant over his hired help, and though no man knows who his grandfather was, spite of the herald's office, conjures up some trumpery coat of arms! like a clown, who, by pinching his appetite, has bought a gaudy cloak for sabbath wearing, we chuckle inwardly at our brave apery of foreign absurdities, hoping that strangers will be astonished at us--which, sure enough, comes to pass. jonathan is as vain as he is conceited, and expects that the fiddlers, and the trollopes, and others, who visit us periodically as the swallows, and likewise for what they can catch, shall only extol, or at least stand aghast at the brave spectacle we offer, of "the freest and most enlightened nation in the world;" and if they tell us that we are an ill-mannered set, raw and clownish, that we pick our teeth with a fork, loll back in our chairs, and make our countenance hateful with tobacco, and that with all our excellences we are a nation of "rowdies,"--why, we are offended, and our feelings are hurt. there was an african chief, long ago, who ruled over a few miserable cabins, and one day received a french traveller from paris, under a tree. with the exception of a pair of shoes, our chief was as naked as a pestle, but with great complacency he asked the traveller, "what do they say of me at paris?" such is our dread of authority, that we like not old things; hence we are always a-changing. our house must be new, and our book, and even our church. so we choose a material that soon wears out, though it often outlasts our patience. the wooden house is an apt emblem of this sign of the times. but this love of change appears not less in important matters. we think "of old things all are over old, of new things none are new enough." so the age asks of all institutions their right to be: what right has the government to existence? who gave the majority a right to control the minority, to restrict trade, levy taxes, make laws, and all that? if the nation goes into a committee of the whole and makes laws, some little man goes into a committee of one and passes his counter resolves. the state of south carolina is a nice example of this self-reliance, and this questioning of all authority. that little brazen state, which contains only about half so many free white inhabitants as the single city of new york, but which none the less claims to have monopolized most of the chivalry of the nation, and its patriotism, as well as political wisdom--that chivalrous little state says, "if the nation does not make laws to suit us; if it does not allow us to imprison all black seamen from the north; if it prevents the extension of slavery wherever we wish to carry it--then the state of south carolina will nullify, and leave the other nine-and-twenty states to go to ruin!" men ask what right have the churches to the shadow of authority which clings to them--to make creeds, and to bind and to loose! so it is a thing which has happened, that when a church excommunicates a young stripling for heresy, he turns round, fulminates his edict, and excommunicates the church. said a sly jesuit to an american protestant at rome, "but the rites and customs and doctrines of the catholic church go back to the second century, the age after the apostles!" "no doubt of it," said the american, who had also read the fathers, "they go back to the times of the apostles themselves; but that proves nothing, for there were as great fools in the first century as the last. a fool or a folly is no better because it is an old folly or an old fool. there are fools enough now, in all conscience. pray don't go back to prove their apostolical succession." there are always some men who are born out of due season, men of past ages, stragglers of former generations, who ought to have been born before dr. faustus invented printing, but who are unfortunately born now, or, if born long ago, have been fraudulently and illegally concealed by their mothers, and are now, for the first time, brought to light. the age lifts such aged juveniles from the ground, and bids them live, but they are sadly to seek in this day; they are old-fashioned boys; their authority is called in question; their traditions and old wives' fables are laughed at, at any rate disbelieved; they get profanely elbowed in the crowd--men not knowing their great age and consequent venerableness; the shovel hat, though apparently born on their head, is treated with disrespect. the very boys laugh pertly in their face when they speak, and even old men can scarce forbear a smile, though it may be a smile of pity. the age affords such men a place, for it is a catholic age, large-minded, and tolerant,--such a place as it gives to ancient armor, indian bibles, and fossil bones of the mastodon; it puts them by in some room seldom used, with other old furniture, and allows them to mumble their anilities by themselves; now and then takes off its hat; looks in, charitably, to keep the mediæval relics in good heart, and pretends to listen, as they discourse of what comes of nothing and goes to it; but in matters which the age cares about, commerce, manufactures, politics, which it cares much for, even in education, which it cares far too little about, it trusts no such counsellors, nor tolerates, nor ever affects to listen. then there is a philosophical tendency, distinctly visible; a groping after ultimate facts, first principles, and universal ideas. we wish to know first the fact, next the law of that fact, and then the reason of the law. a sign of this tendency is noticeable in the titles of books; we have no longer "treatises" n the eye, the ear, sleep, and so forth, but in their place we find works professing to treat of the "philosophy" of vision, of sound, of sleep. even in the pulpits, men speak about the "philosophy" of religion; we have philosophical lectures, delivered to men of little culture, which would have amazed our grandfathers, who thought a shoemaker should never go beyond his last, even to seek for the philosophy of shoes. "what a pity," said a grave scotchman, in the beginning of this century, "to teach the beautiful science of geometry to weavers and cobblers." here nothing is too good or high for any one tall and good enough to get hold of it. what audiences attend the lowell lectures in boston--two or three thousand men, listening to twelve lectures on the philosophy of fish! it would not bring a dollar or a vote, only thought to their minds! young ladies are well versed in the philosophy of the affections, and understand the theory of attraction, while their grandmothers, good easy souls, were satisfied with the possession of the fact. the circumstance, that philosophical lectures get delivered by men like walker, agassiz, emerson, and their coadjutors, men who do not spare abstruseness, get listened to, and even understood, in town and village, by large crowds of men, of only the most common culture; this indicates a philosophical tendency, unknown in any other land or age. our circle of professed scholars, men of culture and learning, is a very small one, while our circle of thinking men is disproportionately large. the best thought of france and germany finds a readier welcome here than in our parent land: nay, the newest and the best thought of england, finds its earliest and warmest welcome in america. it was a little remarkable, that bacon and newton should be reprinted here, and la place should have found his translator and expositor coming out of an insurance office in salem! men of no great pretensions object to an accomplished and eloquent politician: "that is all very well; he made us cry and laugh, but the discourse was not philosophical; he never tells us the reason of the thing; he seems not only not to know it, but not to know that there is a reason for the thing, and if not, what is the use of this bobbing on the surface?" young maidens complain of the minister, that he has no philosophy in his sermons, nothing but precepts, which they could read in the bible as well as he; perhaps in heathen seneca. he does not feed their souls. one finds this tendency where it is least expected: there is a philosophical party in politics, a very small party it may be, but an actual one. they aim to get at everlasting ideas and universal laws, not made by man, but by god, and for man, who only finds them; and from them they aim to deduce all particular enactments, so that each statute in the code shall represent a fact in the universe; a point of thought in god; so, indeed, that legislation shall be divine in the same sense that a true system of astronomy is divine--or the christian religion--the law corresponding to a fact. men of this party, in new england, have more ideas than precedents, are spontaneous more than logical; have intuitions, rather than intellectual convictions, arrived at by the process of reasoning. they think it is not philosophical to take a young scoundrel and shut him up with a party of old ones, for his amendment; not philosophical to leave children with no culture, intellectual, moral, or religious, exposed to the temptations of a high and corrupt civilization, and then, when they go astray--as such barbarians needs must, in such temptations--to hang them by the neck for the example's sake. they doubt if war is a more philosophical mode of getting justice between two nations, than blows to settle a quarrel between two men. in either case, they do not see how it follows, that he who can strike the hardest blow is always in the right. in short, they think that judicial murder, which is hanging, and national murder, which is war, are not more philosophical than homicide, which one man commits on his own private account. theological sects are always the last to feel any popular movement. yet all of them, from the episcopalians to the quakers, have each a philosophical party, which bids fair to outgrow the party which rests on precedent and usage, to overshadow and destroy it. the catholic church itself, though far astern of all the sects, in regard to the great movements of the age, shares this spirit, and abroad, if not here, is wellnigh rent asunder by the potent medicine which this new daniel of philosophy has put into its mouth. everywhere in the american churches there are signs of a tendency to drop all that rests merely on tradition and hearsay, to cling only to such facts as bide the test of critical search, and such doctrines as can be verified in human consciousness here and to-day. doctors of divinity destroy the faith they once preached. true, there are antagonistic tendencies, for, soon as one pole is developed, the other appears; objections are made to philosophy, the old cry is raised--"infidelity," "denial," "free-thinking." it is said that philosophy will corrupt the young men, will spoil the old ones, and deceive the very elect. "authority and tradition," say some, "are all we need consult; reason must be put down, or she will soon ask terrible questions." there is good cause for these men warring against reason and philosophy; it is purely in self-defence. but this counsel and that cry come from those quarters before mentioned, where the men of past ages have their place, where the forgotten is re-collected, the obsolete preserved, and the useless held in esteem. the counsel is not dangerous; the bird of night, who overstays his hour, is only troublesome to himself, and was never known to hurt a dovelet or a mouseling after sun-rise. in the night only is the owl destructive. some of those who thus cry out against this tendency, are excellent men in their way, and highly useful, valuable as conveyancers of opinions. so long as there are men who take opinions as real estate, "to have and to hold for themselves and their heirs forever," why should there not be such conveyancers of opinions, as well as of land? and as it is not the duty of the latter functionary to ascertain the quality or the value of the land, but only its metes and bounds, its appurtenances and the title thereto; to see if the grantor is regularly seized and possessed thereof, and has good right to convey and devise the same, and to make sure that the whole conveyance is regularly made out,--so is it with these conveyancers of opinion; so should it be, and they are valuable men. it is a good thing to know that we hold under scotus, and ramus, and albertus magnus, who were regularly seized of this or that opinion. it gives an absurdity the dignity of a relic. sometimes these worthies, who thus oppose reason and her kin, seem to have a good deal in them, and, when one examines, he finds more than he looked for. they are like a nest of boxes from hingham and nuremburg, you open one, and behold another; that, and lo! a third. so you go on, opening and opening, and finding and finding, till at last you come to the heart of the matter, and then you find a box that is very little, and entirely empty. * * * * * yet, with all this tendency--and it is now so strong that it cannot be put down, nor even howled down, much as it may be howled over--there is a lamentable want of first principles, well known and established; we have rejected the authority of tradition, but not yet accepted the authority of truth and justice. we will not be treated as striplings, and are not old enough to go alone as men. accordingly, nothing seems fixed. there is a perpetual see-sawing of opposite principles. somebody said ministers ought to be ordained on horseback, because they are to remain so short a time in one place. it would be as emblematic to inaugurate american politicians, by swearing them on a weathercock. the great men of the land have as many turns in their course as the euripus or the missouri. even the facts given in the spiritual nature of man are called in question. an eminent unitarian divine regards the existence of god as a matter of opinion, thinks it cannot be demonstrated, and publicly declares that it is "not a certainty." some american protestants no longer take the bible as the standard of ultimate appeal, yet venture not to set up in that place reason, conscience, the soul getting help of god; others, who affect to accept the scripture as the last authority, yet, when questioned as to their belief in the miraculous and divine birth of jesus of nazareth, are found unable to say yes or no, not having made up their minds. in politics, it is not yet decided whether it is best to leave men to buy where they can buy cheapest, and sell where they can sell dearest, or to restrict that matter. it was a clear case to our fathers, in ' , that all men were "created equal," each with "unalienable rights." that seemed so clear, that reasoning would not make it appear more reasonable; it was taken for granted, as a self-evident proposition. the whole nation said so. now, it is no strange thing to find it said that negroes are not "created equal" in unalienable rights with white men. nay, in the senate of the united states, a famous man declares all this talk a dangerous mistake. the practical decision of the nation looks the same way. so, to make our theory accord with our practice, we ought to recommit the declaration to the hands which drafted that great state-paper, and instruct mr. jefferson to amend the document, and declare that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, if born of white mothers; but if not, not." in this lack of first principles, it is not settled in the popular consciousness, that there is such a thing as an absolute right, a great law of god, which we are to keep, come what will come. so the nation is not upright, but goes stooping. hence, in private affairs, law takes the place of conscience, and, in public, might of right. so the bankrupt pays his shilling in the pound, and gets his discharge, but afterwards, becoming rich, does not think of paying the other nineteen shillings. he will tell you the law is his conscience; if that be satisfied, so is he. but you will yet find him letting money at one or two per cent. a month, contrary to law; and then he will tell you that paying a debt is a matter of law, while letting money is only a matter of conscience. so he rides either indifferently--now the public hack, and now his own private nag, according as it serves his turn. so a rich state borrows money and "repudiates" the debt, satisfying its political conscience, as the bankrupt his commercial conscience, with the notion that there is no absolute right; that expediency is the only justice, and that king people can do no wrong. no calm voice of indignation cries out from the pulpit and the press and the heart of the people, to shame the repudiators into decent morals; because it is not settled in the popular mind that there is any absolute right. then, because we are strong and the mexicans weak, because we want their land for a slave-pasture and they cannot keep us out of it, we think that is reason enough for waging an infamous war of plunder. grave men do not ask about "the natural justice" of such an undertaking, only about its cost. have we not seen an american congress vote a plain lie, with only sixteen dissenting voices in the whole body; has not the head of the nation continually repeated that lie; and do not both parties, even at this day, sustain the vote? now and then there rises up an honest man, with a great christian heart in his bosom, and sets free a score or two of slaves inherited from his father; watches over and tends them in their new-found freedom: or another, who, when legally released from payment of his debts, restores the uttermost farthing. we talk of this and praise it, as an extraordinary thing. indeed it is so; justice is an unusual thing, and such men deserve the honor they thus win. but such praise shows that such honesty is a rare honesty. the northern man, born on the battle-ground of freedom, goes to the south and becomes the most tyrannical of slave-drivers. the son of the puritan, bred up in austere ways, is sent to congress to stand up for truth and right, but he turns out a "dough-face," and betrays the duty he went to serve. yet he does not lose his place, for every dough-faced representative has a dough-faced constituency to back him. it is a great mischief that comes from lacking first principles, and the worst part of it comes from lacking first principles in morals. thereby our eyes are holden so that we see not the great social evils all about us. we attempt to justify slavery, even to do it in the name of jesus christ. the whig party of the north loves slavery; the democratic party does not even seek to conceal its affection therefor. a great politician declares the mexican war wicked, and then urges men to go and fight it; he thinks a famous general not fit to be nominated for president, but then invites men to elect him. politics are national morals, the morals of thomas and jeremiah, multiplied by millions. but it is not decided yet that honesty is the best policy for a politician; it is thought that the best policy is honesty, at least as near it as the times will allow. many politicians seem undecided how to turn, and so sit on the fence between honesty and dishonesty. mr. facing-both-ways is a popular politician in america just now, sitting on the fence between honesty and dishonesty, and, like the blank leaf between the old and new testaments, belonging to neither dispensation. it is a little amusing to a trifler to hear a man's fitness for the presidency defended on the ground that he has no definite convictions or ideas! there was once a man who said he always told a lie when it would serve his special turn. it is a pity he went to his own place long ago. he seemed born for a party politician in america. he would have had a large party, for he made a great many converts before he died, and left a numerous kindred busy in the editing of newspapers, writing addresses for the people, and passing "resolutions." it must strike a stranger as a little odd, that a republic should have a slaveholder for president five sixths of the time, and most of the important offices be monopolized by other slaveholders; a little surprising that all the pulpits and most of the presses should be in favor of slavery, at least not against it. but such is the fact. everybody knows the character of the american government for some years past, and of the american parties in politics. "like master, like man," used to be a true proverb in old england, and "like people, like ruler," is a true proverb in america; true now. did a decided people ever choose dough-faces?--a people that loved god and man, choose representatives that cared for neither truth nor justice? now and then, for dust gets into the brightest eyes; but did they ever choose such men continually? the people are always fairly represented; our representatives do actually represent us, and in more senses than they are paid for. congress and the cabinet are only two thermometers hung up in the capital, to show the temperature of the national morals. but amid this general uncertainty there are two capital maxims which prevail amongst our huxters of politics: to love your party better than your country, and yourself better than your party. there are, it is true, real statesmen amongst us, men who love justice and do the right, but they seem lost in the mob of vulgar politicians and the dust of party editors. since the nation loves freedom above all things, the name democracy is a favorite name. no party could live a twelvemonth that should declare itself anti-democratic. saint and sinner, statesman and politician, alike love the name. so it comes to pass that there are two things which bear that name; each has its type and its motto. the motto of one is, "you are as good as i, and let us help one another." that represents the democracy of the declaration of independence, and of the new testament; its type is a free school, where children of all ranks meet under the guidance of intelligent and christian men, to be educated in mind, and heart, and soul. the other has for its motto, "i am as good as you, so get out of my way." its type is the bar-room of a tavern--dirty, offensive, stained with tobacco, and full of drunken, noisy, quarrelsome "rowdies," just returned from the mexican war, and ready for a "buffalo hunt," for privateering, or to go and plunder any one who is better off than themselves, especially if also better. that is not exactly the democracy of the declaration, or of the new testament; but of--no matter whom. * * * * * then, again, there is a great intensity of life and purpose. this displays itself in our actions and speeches; in our speculations; in the "revivals" of the more serious sects; in the excitements of trade; in the general character of the people. all that we do we overdo. it appears in our hopefulness; we are the most aspiring of nations. not content with half the continent, we wish the other half. we have this characteristic of genius: we are dissatisfied with all that we have done. somebody once said we were too vain to be proud. it is not wholly so; the national idea is so far above us that any achievement seems little and low. the american soul passes away from its work soon as it is finished. so the soul of each great artist refuses to dwell in his finished work, for that seems little to his dream. our fathers deemed the revolution a great work; it was once thought a surprising thing to found that little colony on the shores of new england; but young america looks to other revolutions, and thinks she has many a plymouth colony in her bosom. if other nations wonder at our achievements, we are a disappointment to ourselves, and wonder we have not done more. our national idea out-travels our experience, and all experience. we began our national career by setting all history at defiance--for that said, "a republic on a large scale cannot exist." our progress since has shown that we were right in refusing to be limited by the past. the political ideas of the nation are transcendant, not empirical. human history could not justify the declaration of independence and its large statements of the new idea: the nation went behind human history and appealed to human nature. we are more spontaneous than logical; we have ideas, rather than facts or precedents. we dream more than we remember, and so have many orators and poets, or poetasters, with but few antiquaries and general scholars. we are not so reflective as forecasting. we are the most intuitive of modern nations. the very party in politics which has the least culture, is richest in ideas which will one day become facts. great truths--political, philosophical, religious--lie a-burning in many a young heart which cannot legitimate nor prove them true, but none the less feels, and feels them true. a man full of new truths finds a ready audience with us. many things which come disguised as truths under such circumstances pass current for a time, but by and by their bray discovers them. the hope which comes from this intensity of life and intuition of truths is a national characteristic. it gives courage, enterprise, and strength. they can who think they can. we are confident in our star; other nations may see it or not, we know it is there above the clouds. we do not hesitate at rash experiments--sending fifty thousand soldiers to conquer a nation with eight or nine millions of people. we are up to every thing, and think ourselves a match for any thing. the young man is rash, for he only hopes, having little to remember; he is excitable, and loves excitement; change of work is his repose; he is hot and noisy, sanguine and fearless, with the courage that comes from warm blood and ignorance of dangers; he does not know what a hard, tough, sour old world he is born into. we are a nation of young men. we talked of annexing texas and northern mexico, and did both; now we grasp at cuba, central america,--all the continent,--and speak of a railroad to the pacific as a trifle for us to accomplish. our national deeds are certainly great, but our hope and promise far outbrags them all. if this intensity of life and hope have its good side, it has also its evil; with much of the excellence of youth we have its faults--rashness, haste, and superficiality. our work is seldom well done. in english manufactures there is a certain solid honesty of performance; in the french a certain air of elegance and refinement: one misses both these in american works. it is said america invents the most machines, but england builds them best. we lack the phlegmatic patience of older nations. we are always in a hurry, morning, noon and night. we are impatient of the process, but greedy of the result; so that we make short experiments but long reports, and talk much though we say little. we forget that a sober method is a short way of coming to the end, and that he who, before he sets out, ascertains where he is going and the way thither, ends his journey more prosperously than one who settles these matters by the way. quickness is a great desideratum with us. it is said an american ship is known far off at sea by the quantity of canvas she carries. rough and ready is a popular attribute. quick and off would be a symbolic motto for the nation at this day, representing one phase of our character. we are sudden in deliberation; the "one-hour rule" works well in congress. a committee of the british parliament spends twice or thrice our time in collecting facts, understanding and making them intelligible, but less than our time in speech-making after the report; speeches there commonly being for the purpose of facilitating the business, while here one sometimes is half ready to think, notwithstanding our earnestness, that the business is to facilitate the speaking. a state revises her statutes with a rapidity that astonishes a european. yet each revision brings some amendment, and what is found good in the constitution or laws of one state gets speedily imitated by the rest; each new state of the north becoming more democratic than its predecessor. we are so intent on our purpose that we have no time for amusement. we have but one or two festivals in the year, and even then we are serious and reformatory. jonathan thinks it a very solemn thing to be merry. a frenchman said we have but two amusements in america--theology for the women and politics for the men; preaching and voting. if this be true, it may help to explain the fact that most men take their theology from their wives, and women politics from their husbands. no nation ever tried the experiment of such abstinence from amusement. we have no time for sport, and so lose much of the poetry of life. all work and no play does not always make a dull boy, but it commonly makes a hard man. we rush from school into business early; we hurry while in business; we aim to be rich quickly, making a fortune at a stroke, making or losing it twice or thrice in a lifetime. "soft and fair, goes safe and far," is no proverb to our taste. we are the most restless of people. how we crowd into cars and steamboats; a locomotive would well typify our fuming, fizzing spirit. in our large towns life seems to be only a scamper. not satisfied with bustling about all day, when night comes we cannot sit still, but alone of all nations have added rockers to our chairs. all is haste, from the tanning of leather to the education of a boy, and the old saw holds its edge good as ever--"the more haste the worse speed." the young stripling, innocent of all manner of lore, whom a judicious father has barrelled down in a college, or law-school, or theological seminary, till his beard be grown, mourns over the few years he must spend there awaiting that operation. his rule is, "to make a spoon or spoil a horn;" he longs to be out in the world "making a fortune," or "doing good," as he calls what his father better names "making noisy work for repentance, and doing mischief." so he rushes into life not fitted, and would fly towards heaven, this young icarus, his wings not half fledged. there seems little taste for thoroughness. in our schools as our farms, we pass over much ground but pass over it poorly. in education the aim is not to get the most we can, but the least we can get along with. a ship with over-much canvas and over-little ballast were no bad emblem of many amongst us. in no country is it so easy to get a reputation for learning--accumulated thought, because so few devote themselves to that accumulation. in this respect our standard is low. so a man of one attainment is sure to be honored, but a man of many and varied abilities is in danger of being undervalued. a spurzheim would be warmly welcomed, while a humboldt would be suspected of superficiality, as we have not the standard to judge him by. yet in no country in the world is it so difficult to get a reputation for eloquence, as many speak and that well. it is surprising with what natural strength and beauty the young american addresses himself to speak. some hatter's apprentice, or shoemaker's journeyman, at a temperance or anti-slavery meeting, will speak words like the blows of an axe, that cut clean and deep. the country swarms with orators, more abundantly where education is least esteemed--in the west or south. we have secured national unity of action for the white citizens, without much curtailing individual variety of action, so we have at the north pretty well solved that problem which other nations have so often boggled over; we have balanced the centripetal power, the government and laws, with the centrifugal power, the mass of individuals, into harmonious proportions. if one were to leave out of sight the three million slaves, one sixth part of the population, the problem might be regarded as very happily solved. as the consequences of this, in no country is there more talent, or so much awake and active. in the south this unity is attained by sacrificing all the rights of three million slaves, and almost all the rights of the other colored population. in despotic countries this unity is brought about by the sacrifice of freedom, individual variety of action, in all except the despot and his favorites; so, much of the nation's energy is stifled in the chains of the state, while here it is friendly to institutions which are friendly to it, goes to its work, and approves itself in the vast increase of wealth and comfort throughout the north, where there is no class of men which is so oppressed that it cannot rise. one is amazed at the amount of ready skill and general ability which he finds in all the north, where each man has a little culture, takes his newspaper, manages his own business, and talks with some intelligence of many things--especially of politics and theology. in respect to this general intellectual ability and power of self-help, the mass of people seem far in advance of any other nation. but at the same time our scholars, who always represent the nation's higher modes of consciousness, will not bear comparison with the scholars of england, france, and germany, men thoroughly furnished for their work. this is a great reproach and mischief to us, for we need most accomplished leaders, who by their thought can direct this national intensity of life. our literature does not furnish them; we have no great men there; irving, channing, cooper, are not names to conjure with in literature. one reads thick volumes devoted to the poets of america, or her prose writers, and finds many names which he wonders he never heard of before, but when he turns over their works, he finds consolation and recovers his composure. american literature may be divided into two departments: the permanent literature, which gets printed in books, that sometimes reach more than one edition; and the evanescent literature, which appears only in the form of speeches, pamphlets, reviews, newspaper articles, and the like extempore productions. now our permanent literature, as a general thing, is superficial, tame, and weak; it is not american; it has not our ideas, our contempt of authority, our philosophical turn, nor even our uncertainty as to first principles, still less our national intensity, our hope, and fresh intuitive perceptions of truth. it is a miserable imitation. love of freedom is not there. the real national literature is found almost wholly in speeches, pamphlets, and newspapers. the latter are pretty thoroughly american; mirrors in which we see no very flattering likeness of our morals or our manners. yet the picture is true: that vulgarity, that rant, that bragging violence, that recklessness of truth and justice, that disregard of right and duty, are a part of the nation's everyday life. our newspapers are low and "wicked to a fault;" only in this weakness are they un-american. yet they exhibit, and abundantly, the four qualities we have mentioned as belonging to the signs of our times. as a general rule, our orators are also american, with our good and ill. now and then one rises who has studied demosthenes in leland or francis, and got a second-hand acquaintance with old models: a man who uses literary commonplaces, and thinks himself original and classic because he can quote a line or so of horace, in a western house of representatives, without getting so many words wrong as his reporter; but such men are rare, and after making due abatement for them, our orators all over the land are pretty thoroughly american, a little turgid, hot, sometimes brilliant, hopeful, intuitive, abounding in half truths, full of great ideas; often inconsequent; sometimes coarse; patriotic, vain, self-confident, rash, strong, and young-mannish. of course the most of our speeches are vulgar, ranting, and worthless, but we have produced some magnificent specimens of oratory, which are fresh, original, american, and brand new. the more studied, polished, and elegant literature is not so; that is mainly an imitation. it seems not a thing of native growth. sometimes, as in channing, the thought and the hope are american, but the form and the coloring old and foreign. we dare not be original; our american pine must be cut to the trim pattern of the english yew, though the pine bleed at every clip. this poet tunes his lyre at the harp of goethe, milton, pope, or tennyson. his songs might be better sung on the rhine than the kennebec. they are not american in form or feeling; they have not the breath of our air; the smell of our ground is not in them. hence our poet seems cold and poor. he loves the old mythology; talks about pluto--the greek devil, the fates and furies--witches of old time in greece, but would blush to use our mythology, or breathe the name in verse of our devil, or our own witches, lest he should be thought to believe what he wrote. the mother and sisters, who with many a pinch and pain sent the hopeful boy to college, must turn over the classical dictionary before they can find out what the youth would be at in his rhymes. our poet is not deep enough to see that aphrodite came from the ordinary waters, that homer only hitched into rhythm and furnished the accomplishment of verse to street-talk, nursery tales, and old men's gossip in the ionian towns; he thinks what is common is unclean. so he sings of corinth and athens, which he never saw, but has not a word to say of boston, and fall river, and baltimore, and new york, which are just as meet for song. he raves of thermopylæ and marathon, with never a word for lexington and bunker-hill, for cowpens, and lundy's lane, and bemis's heights. he loves to tell of the ilyssus, of "smooth-sliding mincius, crowned with vocal reeds," yet sings not of the petapsco, the susquehanna, the aroostook, and the willimantick. he prates of the narcissus and the daisy, never of american dandelions and blue-eyed grass; he dwells on the lark and the nightingale, but has not a thought for the brown thrasher and the bobolink, who every morning in june rain down such showers of melody on his affected head. what a lesson burns teaches us, addressing his "rough bur-thistle," his daisy, "wee crimson tippit thing," and finding marvellous poetry in the mouse whose nest his plough turned over! nay, how beautifully has even our sweet poet sung of our own green river, our waterfowl, of the blue and fringed gentian, the glory of autumnal days. hitherto, spite of the great reading public, we have no permanent literature which corresponds to the american idea. perhaps it is not time for that; it must be organized in deeds before it becomes classic in words; but as yet we have no such literature which reflects even the surface of american life, certainly nothing which portrays our intensity of life, our hope, or even our daily doings and drivings, as the odyssey paints old greek life, or don quixote and gil bias portray spanish life. literary men are commonly timid; ours know they are but poorly fledged as yet, so dare not fly away from the parent tree, but hop timidly from branch to branch. our writers love to creep about in the shadow of some old renown, not venturing to soar away into the unwinged air, to sing of things here and now, making our life classic. so, without the grace of high culture, and the energy of american thought, they become weak, cold, and poor; are "curious, not knowing, not exact, but nice." too fastidious to be wise, too unlettered to be elegant, too critical to create, they prefer a dull saying that is old to a novel form of speech, or a natural expression of a new truth. in a single american work,--and a famous one too,--there are over sixty similes, not one original, and all poor. a few men, conscious of this defect, this sin against the holy spirit of literature, go to the opposite extreme, and are american-mad; they wilfully talk rude, write in-numerous verse, and play their harps all jangling, out of tune. a yet fewer few are american without madness. one such must not here be passed by, alike philosopher and bard, in whose writings "ancient wisdom shines with new-born beauty," and who has enriched a genius thoroughly american in the best sense, with a cosmopolitan culture and literary skill, which were wonderful in any land. but of american literature in general, and of him in special, more shall be said at another time. * * * * * another remarkable feature is our excessive love of material things. this is more than a utilitarianism, a preference of the useful over the beautiful. the puritan at plymouth had a corn-field, a cabbage-garden, and a patch for potatoes, a school-house, and a church, before he sat down to play the fiddle. he would have been a fool to reverse this process. it were poor economy and worse taste to have painters, sculptors, and musicians, while the rude wants of the body are uncared for. but our fault in this respect is, that we place too much the charm of life in mere material things,--houses, lands, well-spread tables, and elegant furniture,--not enough in man, in virtue, wisdom, genius, religion, greatness of soul, and nobleness of life. we mistake a perfection of the means of manliness for the end--manhood itself. yet the housekeeping of a shakspeare, milton, franklin, had only one thing worth boasting of. strange to say, that was the master of the house. a rich and vulgar man once sported a coach and four, and at its first turn-out rode into the great commercial street of a large town in new england. "how fine you must feel with your new coach and four," said one of his old friends, though not quite so rich. "yes," was the reply, "as fine as a beetle in a gold snuff-box." all of his kindred are not so nice and discriminating in their self-consciousness. this practical materialism is a great affliction to us. we think a man cannot be poor and great also. so we see a great man sell himself for a little money, and it is thought "a good operation." a conspicuous man, in praise of a certain painter, summed up his judgment with this: "why, sir, he has made twenty thousand dollars by his pictures." "a good deal more than michael angelo, leonardo, and raphael together," might have been the reply. but it is easier to weigh purses than artistic skill. it was a characteristic praise bestowed in boston on a distinguished american writer, that his book brought him more money than any man had ever realized for an original work in this country. "commerce," said mr. pitt, "having got into both houses of parliament, privilege must be done away,"--the privilege of wit and genius, not less than rank. clergymen estimate their own and their brothers' importance, not by their apostolical gifts, or even apostolic succession, but by the value of the living. all other nations have this same fault, it may be said. but there is this difference: in other nations the things of a man are put before the man himself; so a materialism which exalts the accidents of the man--rank, wealth, birth, and the like--above the man, is not inconsistent with the general idea of england or austria. in america it is a contradiction. besides, in most civilized countries, there is a class of men living on inherited wealth, who devote their lives to politics, art, science, letters, and so are above the mere material elegance which surrounds them. that class has often inflicted a deep wound on society, which festers long and leads to serious trouble in the system, but at the same time it redeems a nation from the reproach of mere material vulgarity; it has been the source of refinement, and has warmed into life much of the wisdom and beauty which have thence spread over all the world. in america there is no such class. young men inheriting wealth very rarely turn to any thing noble; they either convert their talents into gold, or their gold into furniture, wines, and confectionary. a young man of wealth does not know what to do with himself or it; a rich young woman seems to have no resource but marriage! yet it must be confessed, that at least in one part of the united states wealth flows freely for the support of public institutions of education. here it is difficult for a man of science to live by his thought. was bowditch one of the first mathematicians of his age? he must be at the head of an annuity office. if socrates should set up as a dealer in money, and outwit the brokers as formerly the sophists, and shave notes as skilfully as of old, we should think him a great man. but if he adopted his old plan, what should we say of him? manliness is postponed and wealth preferred. "what a fine house is this," one often says; "what furniture; what feasting. but the master of the house!--why every stone out of the wall laughs at him. he spent all of himself in getting this pretty show together, and now it is empty, and mocks its owner. he is the emblematic coffin at the egyptian feast." "oh, man!" says the looker-on, "why not furnish thyself with a mind, and conscience, a heart and a soul, before getting all this brass and mahogany together; this beef and these wines?" the poor wight would answer,--"why, sir, there were none such in the market!"--the young man does not say, "i will first of all things be a man, and so being will have this thing and the other," putting the agreeable after the essential. but he says, "first of all, by hook or by crook, i will have money, the manhood may take care of itself." he has it,--for tough and hard as the old world is, it is somewhat fluid before a strong man who resolutely grapples with difficulty and will swim through, it can be made to serve his turn. he has money, but the man has evaporated in the process; when you look he is not there. true, other nations have done the same thing, and we only repeat their experiment. the old devil of conformity says to our american adam and eve, "do this and you shall be as gods," a promise as likely to hold good as the devil's did in the beginning. a man was meant for something more than a tassel to a large estate, and a woman to be more than a rich housekeeper. with this offensive materialism we copy the vices of feudal aristocracy abroad, making our vulgarity still more ridiculous. we are ambitious or proud of wealth, which is but labor stored up, and at the same time are ashamed of labor which is wealth in process. with all our talk about democracy, labor is thought less honorable in boston than in berlin and leipsic. thriving men are afraid their children will be shoemakers, or ply some such honorable and useful craft. yet little pains are taken to elevate the condition or improve the manners and morals of those who do all the manual work of society. the strong man takes care that his children and himself escape that condition. we do not believe that all stations are alike honorable if honorably filled; we have little desire to equalize the burdens of life, so that there shall be no degraded class; none cursed with work, none with idleness. it is popular to endow a college; vulgar to take an interest in common schools. liberty is a fact, equality a word, and fraternity, we do not think of yet. in this struggle for material wealth and the social rank which is based thereon, it is amusing to see the shifting of the scenes; the social aspirations of one and the contempt with which another rebuts the aspirant. an old man can remember when the most exclusive of men, and the most golden, had scarce a penny in their purse, and grumbled at not finding a place where they would. now the successful man is ashamed of the steps he rose by. the gentleman who came to boston half a century ago, with all his worldly goods tied up in a cotton handkerchief, and that not of so large a pattern as are made now-a-days, is ashamed to recollect that his father was a currier, or a blacksmith, or a skipper at barnstable or beverly; ashamed, also, of his forty or fifty country cousins, remarkable for nothing but their large hands and their excellent memory. nay, he is ashamed of his own humble beginnings, and sneers at men starting as he once started. the generation of english "snobs" came in with the conqueror, and migrated to america at an early day, where they continue to thrive marvellously--the chief "conservative party" in the land. through this contempt for labor, a certain affectation runs through a good deal of american society, and makes our aristocracy vulgar and contemptible. what if burns had been ashamed of his plough, and franklin had lost his recollection of the candle-moulds and the composing stick? mr. chubbs, who got rich to-day, imitates mr. swipes, who got rich yesterday, buys the same furniture, gives similar entertainments, and counts himself "as good a man as swipes, any day." nay, he goes a little beyond him, puts his servants in livery, with the "chubbs arms" on the button; but the new-found family arms are not descriptive of the character of the chubbses, or of their origin and history--only of their vanity. then mr. swipes looks down on poor chubbs, and curls his lip with scorn; calls him a "parvenu," "an upstart," "a plebeian;" speaks of him as one of "that sort of people," "one of your ordinary men;" "thrifty and well off in the world, but a little vulgar." at the same time mr. swipes looks up to mr. bung, who got rich the day before yesterday, as a gentleman of old family and quite distinguished, and receives from that quarter the same treatment he bestows on his left-hand neighbor. the real gentleman is the same all the world over. such are by no means lacking here, while the pretended gentlemen swarm in america. chaucer said a good word long ago: "--this is not mine intendément to clepen no wight in no age only gentle for his lineáge; but whoso that is virtuous, and in his port not outragéous: when such one thou see'st thee beforn, though he be not gentle born, thou mayest well see this in soth, that he is gentle, because he doth as 'longeth to a gentleman; of them none other deem i can; for certainly withouten drede, a churl is deeméd by his deed, of high or low, as ye may see, or of what kindred that he be." it is no wonder vulgar men, who travel here and eat our dinners, laugh at this form of vulgarity. wiser men see its cause, and prophesy its speedy decay. every nation has its aristocracy, or controlling class: in some lands it is permanent, an aristocracy of blood; men that are descended from distinguished warriors, from the pirates and freebooters of a rude age. the nobility of england are proud of their fathers' deeds, and emblazon the symbols thereof in their family arms, emblems of barbarism. ours is an aristocracy of wealth, not got by plunder, but by toil, thrift, enterprise; of course it is a movable aristocracy: the first families of the last century are now forgot, and their successors will give place to new names. now earning is nobler than robbing, and work is before war; but we are ashamed of both, and seek to conceal the noble source of our wealth. an aristocracy of gold is far preferable to the old and immovable nobility of blood, but it has also its peculiar vices: it has the effrontery of an upstart, despises its own ladder, is heartless and lacks noble principle, vulgar and cursing. this lust of wealth, however, does us a service, and gives the whole nation a stimulus which it needs, and, low as the motive is, drives us to continual advancement. it is a great merit for a nation to secure the largest amount of useful and comfortable and beautiful things which can be honestly earned, and used with profit to the body and soul of man. only when wealth becomes an idol, and material abundance is made the end, not the means, does the love of it become an evil. no nation was ever too rich, or overthrifty, though many a nation has lost its soul by living wholly for the senses. now and then we see noble men living apart from this vulgarity and scramble; some rich, some poor, but both content to live for noble aims, to pinch and spare for virtue, religion, for truth and right. such men never fail from any age or land, but everywhere they are the exceptional men. still they serve to keep alive the sacred fire in the hearts of young men, rising amid the common mob as oaks surpass the brambles or the fern. * * * * * in these secondary qualities of the people which mark the special signs of the times, there are many contradictions, quality contending with quality; all by no means balanced into harmonious relations. here are great faults not less than great virtues. can the national faults be corrected? most certainly; they are but accidental, coming from our circumstances, our history, our position as a people--heterogeneous, new, and placed on a new and untamed continent. they come not from the nation's soul; they do not belong to our fundamental idea, but are hostile to it. one day our impatience of authority, our philosophical tendency, will lead us to a right method, that to fixed principles, and then we shall have a continuity of national action. considering the pains taken by the fathers of the better portion of america to promote religion here, remembering how dear is christianity to the heart of all, conservative and radical--though men often name as christian what is not--and seeing how truth and right are sure to win at last,--it becomes pretty plain that we shall arrive at true principles, laws of the universe, ideas of god; then we shall be in unison also with it and him. when that great defect--lack of first principles--is corrected, our intensity of life, with the hope and confidence it inspires, will do a great work for us. we have already secured an abundance of material comforts hitherto unknown; no land was ever so full of corn and cattle, clothing, comfortable houses, and all things needed for the flesh. the desire of those things, even the excessive desire thereof, performs an important part in the divine economy of the human race; nowhere is its good effect more conspicuous than in america, where in two generations the wild irishman becomes a decent citizen, orderly, temperate, and intelligent. this done or even a-doing, as it is now, we shall go forth to realize our great national idea, and accomplish the great work of organizing into institutions the unalienable rights of man. the great obstacle in the way of that is african slavery--the great exception in the nation's history; the national sin. when that is removed, as soon it must be, lesser but kindred evils will easily be done away; the truth which the land-reformers, which the associationists, the free-traders, and others, have seen, dimly or clearly, can readily be carried out. but while this monster vice continues, there is little hope of any great and permanent national reform. the positive things which we chiefly need for this work, are first, education, next, education, and then education, a vigorous development of the mind, conscience, affections, religious power of the whole nation. the method and the means for that i shall not now discuss. the organization of human rights, the performance of human duties, is an unlimited work. if there shall ever be a time when it is all done, then the race will have finished its course. shall the american nation go on in this work, or pause, turn off, fall, and perish? to me it seems almost treason to doubt that a glorious future awaits us. young as we are, and wicked, we have yet done something which the world will not let perish. one day we shall attend more emphatically to the rights of the hand, and organize labor and skill; then to the rights of the head, looking after education, science, literature, and art; and again to the rights of the heart, building up the state with its laws, society with its families, the church with its goodness and piety. one day we shall see that it is a shame, and a loss, and a wrong, to have a criminal, or an ignorant man, or a pauper, or an idler, in the land; that the jail, and the gallows, and the almshouse are a reproach which need not be. out of new sentiments and ideas, not seen as yet, new forms of society will come, free from the antagonism of races, classes, men--representing the american idea in its length, breadth, depth, and height, its beauty and its truth, and then the old civilization of our time shall seem barbarous and even savage. there will be an american art commensurate with our idea and akin to this great continent; not an imitation, but a fresh, new growth. an american literature also must come with democratic freedom, democratic thought, democratic power--for we are not always to be pensioners of other lands, doing nothing but import and quote; a literature with all of german philosophic depth, with english solid sense, with french vivacity and wit, italian fire of sentiment and soul, with all of grecian elegance of form, and more than hebrew piety and faith in god. we must not look for the maiden's ringlets on the baby's brow; we are yet but a girl; the nameless grace of maturity, and womanhood's majestic charm, are still to come. at length we must have a system of education, which shall uplift the humblest, rudest, worst born child in all the land; which shall bring forth and bring up noble men. an american state is a thing that must also be; a state of free men who give over brawling, resting on industry, justice, love, not on war, cunning, and violence,--a state where liberty, equality, and fraternity are deeds as well as words. in its time the american church must also appear, with liberty, holiness, and love for its watchwords, cultivating reason, conscience, affection, faith, and leading the world's way in justice, peace, and love. the roman church has been all men know what and how; the american church, with freedom for the mind, freedom for the heart, freedom for the soul, is yet to be, sundering no chord of the human harp, but tuning all to harmony. this also must come; but hitherto no one has risen with genius fit to plan its holy walls, conceive its columns, project its towers, or lay its corner-stone. is it too much to hope all this? look at the arena before us--look at our past history. hark! there is the sound of many million men, the trampling of their freeborn feet, the murmuring of their voice; a nation born of this land that god reserved so long a virgin earth, in a high day married to the human race,--rising, and swelling, and rolling on, strong and certain as the atlantic tide; they come numerous as ocean waves when east winds blow, their destination commensurate with the continent, with ideas vast as the mississippi, strong as the alleghanies, and awful as niagara; they come murmuring little of the past, but, moving in the brightness of their great idea, and casting its light far on to other lands and distant days--come to the world's great work, to organize the rights of man. vi. a discourse occasioned by the death of john quincy adams. delivered at the melodeon, in boston, march , . within a few days one of the most distinguished statesmen of the age has passed away; a man who has long been before the public, familiarly known in the new world and the old. he was one of the prominent monuments of the age. it becomes us to look at his life, works, and public character, with an impartial eye; to try him by the christian standard. let me extenuate nothing, add nothing, and set down nought from any partial love or partial hate. his individuality has been so marked in a long life, his good and evil so sharply defined, that one can scarcely fail to delineate its most important features. god has made some men great and others little. the use of great men is to serve the little men; to take care of the human race, and act as practical interpreters of justice and truth. this is not the hebrew rule, nor the heathen, nor the common rule, only the christian. the great man is to be the servant of mankind, not they of him. perhaps greatness is always the same thing in kind, differing only in mode and in form, as well as degree. the great man has more of human nature than other men, organized in him. so far as that goes, therefore, he is more me than i am myself. we feel that superiority in all our intercourse with great men, whether kings, philosophers, poets, or saints. in kind we are the same; different in degree. in nature we find individuals, not orders and genera; but for our own convenience in understanding and recollecting, we do a little violence to nature, and put the individuals into classes. in this way we understand better both the whole and each of its parts. human nature furnishes us with individual great men; for convenience we put them into several classes, corresponding to their several modes or forms of greatness. it is well to look at these classes before we examine any one great man; this will render it easier to see where he belongs and what he is worth. actual service is the test of actual greatness; he who renders, of himself, the greatest actual service to mankind, is actually the greatest man. there may be other tests for determining the potential greatness of men, or the essential; this is the christian rule for determining the actual greatness. let us arrange these men in the natural order of their work. first of all, there are great men who discover general truths, great ideas, universal laws, or invent methods of thought and action. in this class the vastness of a man's genius may be measured, and his relative rank ascertained by the transcendency of his ideas, by the newness of his truth, by its practical value, and the difficulty of attaining it in his time, and under his peculiar circumstances. in literature it is such men who originate thoughts, and put them into original forms; they are the great men of letters. in philosophy we meet with such; and they are the great men of science. thus socrates discovered the philosophical method of minute analysis that distinguished his school, and led to the rapid advance of knowledge in the various and even conflicting academies, which held this method in common, but applied it in various ways, well or ill, and to various departments of human inquiry; thus newton discovered the law of gravitation, universal in nature, and by the discovery did immense service to mankind. in politics we find similar, or analogous men, who discover yet other laws of god, which bear the same relation to men in society that gravitation bears to the orbs in heaven, or to the dust and stones in the street; men that discover the first truths of politics, and teach the true method of human society. such are the great men in politics. we find corresponding men in religion; men who discover an idea so central that all sectarianism of parties or of nations seems little in its light; who discover and teach the universal law which unifies the race, binding man to man, and men to god; who discover the true method of religion conducting to natural worship without limitation, to free piety, free goodness, free thought. to my mind such are the greatest of great men, when measured by the transcendency of their doctrine and the service they render to all. by the influence of their idea, letters, philosophy, and politics become nobler and more beautiful, both in their forms and their substance. such is the class of discoverers; men who get truth at first hand, truth pertaining either especially to literature, philosophy, politics, religion, or at the same time to each and all of them. * * * * * the next class consists of such as organize these ideas, methods, truths, and laws; they concretize the abstract, particularize the general; they apply philosophy to practical purposes, organizing the discoveries of science into a railroad, a mill, a steam-ship, and by their work an idea becomes fact. they organize love into families, justice into a state, piety into a church. wealth is power, knowledge is power, religion power; they organize all these powers, wealth, knowledge, religion, into common life, making divinity humanity, and that society. this organizing genius is a very great one, and appears in various forms. one man spreads his thought out on the soil, whitening the land with bread-corn; another applies his mind to the rivers of new england, making them spin and weave for the human race; this man will organize his thought into a machine with one idea, joining together fire and water, iron and wood, animating them into a new creature, ready to do man's bidding; while that with audacious hand steals the lightning of heaven, organizes his plastic thought within that pliant fire, and sends it of his errands to fetch and carry tidings between the ends of the earth. another form of this mode of greatness is seen in politics, in organizing men. the man spreads his thought out on mankind, puts men into true relations with one another and with god; he organizes strength, wisdom, justice, love, piety; balances the conflicting forces of a nation, so that each man has his natural liberty as complete as if the only man, yet, living in society, gathers advantages from all the rest. the highest degree of this organizing power is the genius for legislation, which can enact justice and eternal right into treaties and statutes, codifying the divine thought into human laws, making absolute religion common life and daily custom, and balancing the centripetal power of the mass, with the centrifugal power of the individual, into a well-proportioned state, as god has balanced these two conflicting forces into the rhythmic ellipses above our heads. it need not be disguised, that politics are the highest business for men of this class, nor that a great statesman or legislator is the greatest example of constructive skill. it requires some ability to manage the brute forces of nature, or to combine profitably nine-and-thirty clerks in a shop; how much more to arrange twenty millions of intelligent, free men, not for a special purpose, but for all the ends of universal life! such is the second class of great men; the organizers, men of constructive heads, who form the institutions of the world, the little and the great. * * * * * the next class consists of men who administer the institutions after they are founded. to do this effectually and even eminently, it requires no genius for original organization of truths freshly discovered, none for the discovery of truths, outright. it requires only a perception of those truths, and an acquaintance with the institutions wherein they have become incarnate; a knowledge of details, of formulas, and practical methods, united with a strong will and a practised understanding,--what is called a turn for affairs, tact, or address; a knowledge of routine and an acquaintance with men. the success of such men will depend on these qualities; they "know the ropes" and the soundings, the signs of the times; can take advantage of the winds and the tides. in a shop, farm, ship, factory, or army, in a church or a state, such men are valuable; they cannot be dispensed with; they are wheels to the carriage; without them cannot a city be inhabited. they are always more numerous than both the other classes; more such are needed, and therefore born. the american mind, just now, runs eminently in this direction. these are not men of theories, or of new modes of thought or action, but what are called practical men, men of a few good rules, men of facts and figures, not so full of ideas as of precedents. they are called common-sense men; not having too much common-sense to be understood. they are not likely to be fallen in with far off at sea; quite as seldom out of their reckoning in ordinary weather. such men are excellent statesmen in common times, but in times of trouble, when old precedents will not suit the new case, and men must be guided by the nature of man, not his history, they are not strong enough for the place, and get pushed off by more constructive heads. these men are the administrators, or managers. if they have a little less of practical sense, such men fall a little below, and turn out only critics, of whom i will not now stop to discourse. to have a railroad, there must have been first the discoverers, who found out the properties of wood and iron, fire and water, and their latent power to carry men over the earth; next, the organizers, who put these elements together, surveyed the route, planned the structure, set men to grade the hill, to fill the valley, and pave the road with iron bars; and then the administrators, who, after all that is done, procure the engines, engineers, conductors, ticket-distributors, and the rest of the "hands;" they buy the coal and see it is not wasted, fix the rates of fare, calculate the savings, and distribute the dividends. the discoverers and organizers often fare hard in the world, lean men, ill clad and suspected, often laughed at, while the administrator is thought the greater man, because he rides over their graves and pays the dividends, where the organizer only called for the assessments, and the discoverer told what men called a dream. what happens in a railroad happens also in a church, or a state. let us for a moment compare these three classes of great men. measured by the test referred to, the discoverers are the greatest of all. they anticipate the human race, with long steps, striding before their kind. they learn not only from the history of man, but man's nature; not by empirical experience alone, but by a transcendent intuition of truth, now seen as a law, now as an idea. they are wiser than experience, and by divination through their nobler nature know at once what the human race has not learned in its thousands of years, kindling their lamp at the central fire now streaming from the sky, now rushing broad-sheeted and terrible as ground-lightning from the earth. of such men there are but few, especially in the highest mode of this greatness. a single one makes a new world, and men date ages after him. next in order of greatness comes the organizer. he, also, must have great intellect, and character. it is no light work to make thoughts things. it requires mind to make a mill out of a river, bricks, iron, and stone, and set all the connecticut to spinning cotton. but to construct a state, to harness fittingly twenty million men, animated by such divergent motives, possessing interests so unlike--this is the greatest work of constructive skill. to translate the ideas of the discoverer into institutions, to yoke men together by mere "abstractions," universal laws, and by such yoking save the liberty of all and secure the welfare of each--that is the most creative of poetry, the most constructive of sciences. in modern times, it is said, napoleon is the greatest example of this faculty; not a discoverer, but an organizer of the highest power and on the largest scale. in human history he seems to have had no superior, perhaps no equal. some callings in life afford little opportunity to develop the great qualities above alluded to. how much genius lies latent no man can know; but he that walks familiarly with humble men often stumbles over masses of unsunned gold, where men proud in emptiness, looked only for common dust. how many a milton sits mute and inglorious in his shop; how many a cromwell rears only corn and oxen for the world's use, no man can know. some callings help to light, some hide and hinder. but there is none which demands more ability than politics; they develop greatness, if the man have the germ thereof within him. true, in politics, a man may get along with a very little ability, without being a discoverer or an organizer; were it otherwise we should not be blessed with a very large house, or a crowded senate. nay, experience shows that in ordinary times one not even a great administrator may creep up to a high place and hang on there awhile. few able administrators sit on the thrones of europe at this day. but if power be in the man, the hand of politics will draw out the spark. in america, politics more than elsewhere demand greatness, for ours is, in theory, the government of all, for all, and by all. it requires greater range of thought to discover the law for all than for a few; after the discovery thereof it is more difficult to construct a democracy than a monarchy, or an aristocracy, and after that is organized, it is more difficult to administer. it requires more manhood to wield at will "the fierce democratie" of america than to rule england or france; yet the american institutions are germane to human nature, and by that fact are rendered more easy, complicated as they are. in politics, when the institutions are established, men often think there is no room for discoverers and organizers; that administrators alone are needed, and choose accordingly. but there are ideas well known, not yet organized into institutions: that of free trade, of peace, of universal freedom, universal education, universal comfort, in a word, the idea of human brotherhood. these wait to be constructed into a state without injustice, without war, without slavery, ignorance, or want. it is hardly true that infinity is dry of truths, unseen as yet; there are truths enough waiting to be discovered; all the space betwixt us and god is full of ideas, waiting for some columbus to disclose new worlds. men are always saying there is no new thing under the sun, but when the discoverer comes, they see their mistake. we want the new eye. * * * * * now, it is quite plain where we are to place the distinguished person of whom i speak. mr. adams was not a discoverer; not an organizer. he added no truth to mankind, not known before, and even well known; he made no known truth a fact. he was an administrator of political institutions. taking the whole land into consideration, comparing him with his competitors, measuring him by his apparent works, at first sight he does not seem very highly eminent in this class of political administrators. nay, some would set him down, not an administrator so much as a political critic. here there is danger of doing him injustice, by neglecting a fact so obvious, that it is seldom seen. mr. adams was a northern man, with northern habits, methods, and opinions. by the north, i mean the free states. the chief business of the north is to get empire over nature; all tends to that. young men of talents become merchants, merchant-manufacturers, merchant-traders. the object directly aimed at, is wealth; not wealth by plunder, but by productive work. now, to get dominion over nature, there must be education, universal education, otherwise there is not enough intelligent industry, which alone insures that dominion. with widespread intelligence, property will be widely distributed, and, of course, suffrage and civil power will get distributed. all is incomplete without religion. i deny not that these peculiarities of the north, come, also, from other sources, but they all are necessary to attain the chief object thereof--dominion over the material world. the north subdues nature by thought, and holds her powers in thrall. as results of this, see the increase in wealth which is signified by northern railroads, ships, mills, and shops; in the colleges, schools, churches, which arise; see the skill developed in this struggle with nature, the great enterprises which come of that, the movements of commerce, manufactures, the efforts--and successful, too--for the promotion of education, of religion. all is democratic, and becomes more so continually, each descendant founding institutions more liberal than those of the parent state. men designedly, and, as their business, become merchants, mechanics, and the like; they are politicians by exception, by accident, from the necessity of the case. few northern men are politicians by profession; they commonly think it better to be a collector or a postmaster, than a senator, estimating place by money, not power. northern politicians are bred as lawyers, clergymen, mechanics, farmers, merchants. political life is an accident, not an end. in the south, the aim is to get dominion over men; so, the whole working population must be in subjection, in slavery. while the north makes brute nature half intelligent, the south makes human nature half brutal, the man becoming a thing. talent tends to politics, not trade. young men of ability go to the army or navy, to the public offices, to diplomatic posts, in a word, to politics. they learn to manage men. to do this, they not only learn what men think, but why they think it. the young man of the north seeks a fortune; of the south, a reputation and political power. the politician of the south makes politics the study and work of his whole life; all else is accidental and subordinate. he begins low, but ends high; he mingles with men; has bland and agreeable manners; is frank, honorable, manly, and knows how to persuade. see the different results of causes so unlike. the north manages the commercial affairs of the land, the ships, mills, farms, and shops; the spiritual affairs, literature, science, morals, education, religion;--writes, calculates, instructs, and preaches. but the south manages the political affairs, and has free-trade or tariff, war or peace, just as she will. of the eight presidents who were elected in fifty years, only three were northern men. each of them has retired from office, at the end of a single term, in possession of a fortune, but with little political influence. each of the five southern presidents has been twice elected; only one of them was rich. there is no accident in all this. the state of rhode island has men that can administer the connecticut or the mississippi; that can organize niagara into a cotton factory; yes, that can get dominion over the ocean and the land: but the state of south carolina has men that can manage the congress, can rule the north and south, and make the nation do their bidding. so the south succeeds in politics, but grows poor, and the north fails in politics, but thrives in commerce and the arts. there great men turn to politics, here to trade. it is so in time of peace, but, in the day of trouble, of storms, of revolution like the old one, men of tall heads will come up from the ships and the shops, the farms and the colleges of the north, born discoverers and organizers, the aristocracy of god, and sit down in the nation's councils to control the state. the north made the revolution, furnished the men, the money, the ideas, and the occasion for putting them into form. at the making of the constitution, the south out-talked the north; put in such claims as it saw fitting, making the best bargain it could, violating the ideas of the revolution, and getting the north, not only to consent to slavery, but to allow it to be represented in congress itself. now, the south breaks the constitution just when it will, puts northern sailors in its jails, and the north dares not complain, but bears it "with a patient shrug." an eastern merchant is great on a southern exchange, makes cotton rise or fall, but no northern politician has much weight at the south, none has ever been twice elected president. the north thinks it is a great thing to get an inoffensive northern man as speaker, in the house of representatives. the south is an aristocracy, which the democracy of the north would not tolerate a year, were it at the north itself. now it rules the land, has the northern masses, democrats and whigs, completely under its thumb. does the south say, "go," they hasten; "come," they say "here we are;" "do this," they obey in a moment; "whist," there is not a mouse stirring in all the north. does the south say "annex," it is done; "fight," men of the north put on the collar, lie lies, issue their proclamations, enroll their soldiers, and declare it is moral treason for the most insignificant clergyman to preach against the war. all this needs to be remembered in judging of mr. adams. true he was regularly bred to politics, and "to the manor born;" but he was a new england man, with northern notions, northern habits, and though more than fifty years in public life, yet he seems to have sought the object of new england far more than the object of the south. measure his greatness by his service; but that is not to be measured by immediate and apparent success. * * * * * in a notice so brief as this, i can say but little of the details of mr. adams's life, and purposely pass over many things, dwelling mainly on such as are significant of his character. he was born at quincy, the th of july, ; in he went to europe with his father, then minister to france. he remained in europe most of the time, his powers developing with rapidity and promise of future greatness, till , when he returned and entered the junior class in harvard college. in , he graduated with distinguished honors. he studied law at newburyport, with judge parsons, till , and was a lawyer in boston, till . that may be called the period of his education he enjoyed the advantages of a residence abroad, which enabled him to acquire a knowledge of foreign languages, modes of life, and habits of thought. his father's position brought the son in contact with the ablest men of the age. he was secretary of the american minister to russia at the age of fourteen. he early became acquainted with franklin and jefferson, men who had a powerful influence on his youthful mind. for three years he was a student with judge parsons, a very remarkable man. these years, from to , form a period marked by intense mental activity in america and in europe. the greatest subjects which claim human attention, the laws that lie at the foundation of society, the state, the church, and the family, were discussed as never before. mr. adams drew in liberty and religion from his mother's breast. his cradle rocked with the revolution. when eight years old, from a hill-top hard by his house he saw the smoke of charlestown, burning at the command of the oppressor. the lullaby of his childhood was the roar of cannon at lexington and bunker hill. he was born in the gathering of the storm, of a family that felt the blast, but never bent thereto; he grew up in its tumult. circumstances like these make their mark on the character. his attention was early turned to the most important matters. in , he wrote several papers in the "centinel," at boston, on neutral rights, advising the american government to remain neutral in the quarrel between france, our ally, and others; the papers attracted the attention of washington, who appointed the author minister to holland. he remained abroad in various diplomatic services in that country, in russia and england, till , when he was recalled by his father, and returned home. it was an important circumstance, that he was abroad during that time when the nation divided into two great parties. he was not called on to take sides with either; he had a vantage ground whence he could overlook both, approve their good and shun their evil. the effect of this is abundantly evident in all his life. he was not dyed in the wool by either political party,--the moral sense of the man drowned in the process of becoming a federalist or a democrat. in , he was elected to the senate of massachusetts, yet not wholly by the votes of one party. in , he was chosen to the senate of the united states. in the massachusetts legislature he was not a strict party man; he was not elected to the senate by a strictly party vote. in , he was inaugurated as professor of rhetoric and oratory at harvard university, and continued in that office about three years. in , he resigned his place in the senate. in , he was sent by mr. madison as minister to russia, and remained abroad in various ministries and commissions, till , when he returned, and became secretary of state under mr. monroe. this office he filled till he became president, in . in , failing of reëlection, he retired to private life. in , he was elected as one of the representatives to congress from massachusetts, and continued there till his death, the first president that ever sat in an american congress. it will be fifty-four years the thirtieth of next may, since he began his public career. what did he aim at in that long period? at first sight, it is easy to see the aim of some of the conspicuous men of america. it has obviously been the aim of mr. clay to build up the "american system," by the establishment of protective duties; that of mr. calhoun to establish free trade, leaving a man to buy where he can buy cheapest, and sell where he can sell dearest. in respect to these matters the two are exactly opposite to one another--antithetic as the poles. but each has also, and obviously, another aim,--to build up the institution of slavery in the south. in this they agree, and if i understand them aright, this is the most important political design of each; for which mr. calhoun would forego even free trade, and mr. clay would "compromise" even a tariff. looked at in reference to their aims, there is a certain continuity of action in both these gentlemen. i speak not now of another object which both have equally and obviously aimed at; not of the personal, but the political object. at first sight, it does not appear that mr. adams had any definite scheme of measures which he aimed to establish; there is no obvious unity of idea, or continuity of action, that forces itself upon the spectator. he does not seem to have studied the two great subjects of our political economy, finance and trade, very deeply, or even with any considerable width of observation or inquiry; he had no financial or commercial hobby. he has worked with every party, and against every party; all have claimed, none held him. now he sides with the federalists, then with the democrats; now he opposes france, showing that her policy is that of pirates; now he contends against england; now he works in favor of general jackson, who put down the nullification of south carolina with a rough hand; then he opposes the general in his action against the bank; now he contends for the indians, then for the negroes; now attacks masonry, and then free trade. he speaks in favor of claiming and holding "the whole of oregon;" then against annexing texas. but there is one sentiment which runs through all his life: an intense love of freedom for all men; one idea, the idea that each man has unalienable rights. these are what may be called the american sentiment, and the american idea; for they lie at the basis of american institutions, except the "patriarchal," and shine out in all our history--i should say, our early history. these two form the golden thread on which mr. adams's jewels are strung. love of human freedom in its widest sense is the most marked and prominent thing in his character. this explains most of his actions. studied with this in mind, his life is pretty consistent. this explains his love of the constitution. he early saw the peculiarity of the american government; that it rested in theory on the natural rights of man, not on a compact, not on tradition, but on somewhat anterior to both, on the unalienable rights universal in man, and equal in each. he looked on the american constitution as an attempt to organize these rights; resting, therefore, not on force, but natural law; not on power, but right. but with him the constitution was not an idol; it was a means, not an end. he did more than expound it; he went back of the constitution, to the declaration of independence, for the ideas of the constitution; yes, back of the declaration to human nature and the laws of god, to legitimate these ideas. the constitution is a compromise between those ideas and institutions and prejudices existing when it was made; not an idol, but a servant. he saw that the constitution is "not the work of eternal justice, ruling through the people," but the work "of man; frail, fallen, imperfect man, following the dictates of his nature, and aspiring to be perfect."[ ] though a "constitutionalist," he did not worship the constitution. he was much more than a "defender of the constitution,"--a defender of human rights. mr. adams had this american sentiment and idea in an heroic degree. perhaps no political man now living has expressed them so fully. with a man like him, not very genial or creative, having no great constructive skill, and not without a certain pugnacity in his character, this sentiment and idea would naturally develop themselves in a negative form, that of opposition to wrong, more often than in the positive form of direct organization of the right; would lead to criticism oftener than to creation. especially would this be the case if other men were building up institutions in opposition to this idea. in him they actually take the form of what he called "the unalienable right of resistance to oppression." his life furnishes abundant instances of this. he thought the indians were unjustly treated, cried out against the wrong; when president, endeavored to secure justice to the creeks in georgia, and got into collision with governor troup. he saw, or thought he saw, that england opposed the american idea, both in the new world and the old. in his zeal for freedom he sometimes forgot the great services of england in that same cause, and hated england, hated her with great intensity of hatred, hated her political policy, her monarchy, and her aristocracy, mocked at the madness of her king, for he thought england stood in the way of freedom.[ ] yet he loved the english name and the english blood, was "proud of being himself descended from that stock," thinking it worth noting, "that chatham's language was his mother tongue, and wolfe's great name compatriot with his own." he confessed no nation had done more for the cause of human improvement. he loved the common law of england, putting it far above the roman law, perhaps not without doing a little injustice to the latter.[ ] the common law was a rude and barbarous code. but human liberty was there; a trial by jury was there; the habeas corpus was there. it was the law of men "regardful of human rights." this sentiment led him to defend the right of petition in the house of representatives, as no other man had dared to do. he cared not whether it was the petition of a majority, or a minority; of men or women, free men or slaves. it might be a petition to remove him from a committee, to expel him from the house, a petition to dissolve the union--he presented it none the less. to him there was but one nature in all, man or woman, bond or free, and that was human nature, the most sacred thing on earth. each human child had unalienable rights, and though that child was a beggar or slave, had rights, which all the power in the world, bent into a single arm, could not destroy nor abate, though it might ravish away. this induced him to attempt to procure the right of suffrage for the colored citizens of the district of columbia. this sentiment led him to oppose tyranny in the house of representatives, the tyranny of the majority. in one of his juvenile essays, published in , contending against a highly popular work, he opposed the theory that a state has the right to do what it pleases, declaring it had no right to do wrong.[ ] in his old age he had not again to encounter the empty hypothesis of thomas paine, but the substantial enactment of the "representatives" of the people of the united states. the hypothesis was trying to become a fact. the south had passed the infamous gag-law, which a symbolical man from new hampshire had presented, though it originated with others.[ ] by that law the mouth of the north was completely stopped in congress, so that not one word could be said about the matter of slavery. the north was quite willing to have it stopped, for it did not care to speak against slavery, and the gag did not stop the mouth of the northern purse. you may take away from the north its honor, if you can find it; may take away its rights; may imprison its free citizens in the jails of louisiana and the carolinas; yes, may invade the "sacred soil of the north," and kidnap a man out of boston itself, within sight of faneuil hall, and the north will not complain; will bear it with that patient shrug, waiting for yet further indignities. only when the northern purse is touched, is there an uproar. if the postmaster demands silver for letters, there is instant alarm; the repeal of a tariff rouses the feelings, and an embargo once drove the indignant north to the perilous edge of rebellion! mr. adams loved his dollars as well as most new england men; he looked out for their income as well; guarded as carefully against their outgo; though conscientiously upright in all his dealings, kind and hospitable, he has never been proved generous, and generosity is the commonest virtue of the north; is said to have been "close," if not mean. he loved his dollars as well as most men, but he loved justice more; honor more; freedom more; the unalienable rights of man far more. he looked on the constitution as an instrument for the defence of the rights of man. the government was to act as the people had told how. the federal government was not sovereign; the state government was not sovereign;[ ] neither was a court of ultimate appeal;--but the people was sovereign; had the right of eminent domain over congress and the constitution, and making that, had set limits to the government. he guarded therefore against all violation of the constitution, as a wrong done to the people; he would not overstep its limits in a bad cause; not even in a good one. did mr. jefferson obtain louisiana by a confessed violation of the constitution, mr. adams would oppose the purchase of louisiana, and was one of the six senators who voted against it. making laws for that territory, he wished to extend the trial by jury to all criminal prosecutions, while the law limited that form of trial to capital offences. before that territory had a representative in congress, the american government wished to collect a revenue there. mr. adams opposed that too. it was "assuming a dangerous power;" it was government without the consent of the governed, and therefore an unjust government. "all exercise of human authority must be under the limitation of right and wrong." all other power is despotic, and "in defiance of the laws of nature and of god."[ ] this love of freedom led him to hate and oppose the tyranny of the strong over the weak, to hate it most in its worst form; to hate american slavery, doubtless the most infamous form of that tyranny now known amongst the nations of christendom, and perhaps the most disgraceful thing on earth. mr. adams called slavery a vessel of dishonor so base that it could not be named in the constitution with decency. in , he wished to lay a duty on the importation of slaves, and was one of five senators who voted to that effect. he saw the power of this institution--the power of money and the power of votes which it gives to a few men. he saw how dangerous it was to the union; to american liberty, to the cause of man. he saw that it trod three millions of men down to the dust, counting souls but as cattle. he hated nothing as he hated this; fought against nothing so manfully. it was the lion in the pathway of freedom, which frightened almost all the politicians of the north and the east and the west, so that they forsook that path; a lion whose roar could wellnigh silence the forum and the bar, the pulpit and the press; a lion who rent the constitution, trampled under foot the declaration of independence, and tore the bible to pieces. mr. adams was ready to rouse up this lion, and then to beard him in his den. hating slavery, of course he opposed whatever went to strengthen its power; opposed mr. atherton's gag-law; opposed the annexation of texas; opposed the mexican war; and, wonderful to tell, actually voted against it, and never took back his vote. when secretary of state, this same feeling led him to oppose conceding to the british the right of searching american vessels supposed to be concerned in the slave-trade, and when representative to oppose the repeal of the law giving "protection" to american sailors. it appeared also in private intercourse with men. no matter what was a man's condition, mr. adams treated him as an equal. * * * * * this devotion to freedom and the unalienable rights of man, was the most important work of his life. compared with some other political men, he seems inconsistent, because he now opposes one evil, then its opposite evil. but his general course is in this direction, and, when viewed in respect to this idea, seems more consistent than that of mr. webster, or calhoun, or clay, when measured by any great principle. this appears in his earlier life. in , he became a member of the massachusetts senate. the majority of the general court were federalists. it was a time of intense political excitement, the second year of mr. jefferson's administration. the custom is well known--to take the whole of the governor's council from the party which has a majority in the general court. on the th of may, , mr. adams stood up for the rights of the minority. he wanted some anti-federalists in the council of governor strong, and as senator threw his first vote to secure that object. such was the first legislative action of john quincy adams. in the house of representatives, in , the first thing he did was to present fifteen petitions for the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia, though, from constitutional scruples, opposed to granting the petitions. the last public act of his life was this:--the question was before the house on giving medals to the men distinguished in the mexican war; the minority opposing it wanted more time for debate; the previous question was moved, mr. adams voted for the last time,--voted "no," with unusual emphasis; the great loud no of a man going home to god full of "the unalienable right of resistance to oppression," its emphatic word on his dying lips. there were the beginning, the middle, and the end, all three in the same spirit, all in favor of mankind; a remarkable unity of action in his political drama. somebody once asked him, what are the recognized principles of politics? mr. adams answered that there were none: the recognized precepts are bad ones, and so not principles. but, continued the inquirer, is not this a good one--to seek "the greatest good of the greatest number?" no, said he, that is the worst of all, for it looks specious while it is ruinous. what shall become of the minority, in that case? this is the only principle,--"to seek the greatest good of all." i do not say there were no exceptions to this devotion to freedom in a long life; there are some passages in his history which it is impossible to justify, and hard to excuse. in early life he was evidently ambitious of place, and rank, and political power. i must confess, it seems to me, at some times, he was not scrupulous enough about the means of attaining that place and power. he has been much censured for his vote in favor of the embargo, in . his vote, howsoever unwise, may easily have been an honest vote. to an impartial spectator at this day, perhaps it will be evidently so. his defence of it i cannot think an honest defence, for in that he mentions arguments as impelling him to his vote which could scarcely have been present to his mind at the time, and, if they were his arguments then, were certainly kept in silence--they did not appear in the debate,[ ] they were not referred to in the president's message.[ ] i am not to praise mr. adams simply because he is dead; what is wrong before is wrong after death. it is no merit to die; shall we tell lies about him because he is dead? no, the egyptian people scrutinized and judged their kings after death--much more should we our fellow-citizens, intrusted with power to serve the state. "a lavish and undistinguishing eulogium is not praise." i know what coals of terrible fire lie under my feet, as i speak of this matter, and how thin and light is the coat of ashes deposited there in forty years; how easily they are blown away at the slightest breath of "hartford convention," or the "embargo," and the old flame of political animosity blazes forth anew, while the hostile forms of "federalists" and "democrats" come back to light. i would not disquiet those awful shades, nor bring them up again. but a word must be said. the story of the embargo is well known: the president sent his message to the senate recommending it, and accompanied with several documents. the message was read and assigned to a committee; the ordinary rule of business was suspended; the bill was reported by the committee; drafted, debated, engrossed, and completely passed through all its stages, the whole on the same day, in secret session, and in about four hours! yet it was a bill that involved the whole commerce of the country, and prostrated that commerce, seriously affecting the welfare of hundreds of thousands of men. eight hundred thousand tons of shipping were doomed to lie idle and rot in port. the message came on friday. some of the senators wanted yet further information and more time for debate, at least for consideration,--till monday. it could not be! till saturday, then. no; the bill must pass now, no man sleeping on that question. mr. adams was the most zealous for passing the bill. in that "debate," if such it can be called, while opposing a postponement for further information and reflection, he said, "the president has recommended the measure on his high responsibility; i would _not consider_, i would _not deliberate_; i would _act_. doubtless the _president possesses such further information as will justify the measure_!"[ ] to my mind, that is the worst act of his public life; i cannot justify it. i wish i could find some reasonable excuse for it. what had become of the "sovereignty of the people," the "unalienable right of resistance to oppression?" would _not consider_; would _not deliberate_; would _act_ without doing either; leave it all to the "high responsibility" of the president, with a "doubtless" he has "further information" to justify the measure! it was a shame to say so; it would have disgraced a senator in st. petersburg. why not have the "further information" laid before the senate? what would mr. adams have said, if president jackson, tyler, or polk, had sent such a message, and some senator or representative had counselled submissive action, without considering, without deliberation? with what appalling metaphors would he describe such a departure from the first duty of a statesman; how would the tempestuous eloquence of that old patriot shake the hall of congress till it rung again, and the nation looked up with indignation in its face! it is well known what mr. adams said in , when mr. polk, in the house of representatives, seemed over-laudatory of the president: "i shall never be disposed to interfere with any member who shall rise on this floor and pronounce a panegyric upon the chief magistrate. 'no, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp, and crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning.'" yet the future of mr. polk was not so obvious in , as the reward of mr. adams in . this act is particularly glaring in mr. adams. the north often sends men to washington who might have done it without any great inconsistency; men, too, not so remarkable for infirmity in the head, as for that less pardonable weakness in the knees and the neck; men that bend to power "right or wrong." mr. adams was not afflicted with that weakness, and so the more to be censured for this palpable betrayal of a trust so important. i wish i could find some excuse for it. he was forty years old; not very old, but old enough to know better. his defence made the matter worse. the massachusetts legislature disapproved of his conduct; chose another man to succeed him in the senate. then mr. adams resigned his seat, and soon after was sent minister to russia, as he himself subsequently declared,[ ] "in consequence of the support he had for years given to the measures of mr. jefferson's administration against great britain." but his father said of that mission of his son, "aristides is banished because he is too just."[ ] it is easy to judge of the temper of the times, when such words as those of the father could be said on such an occasion, and that by a man who had been president of the united states! when a famine occurs, disease appears in the most hideous forms; men go back to temporary barbarism. in times of political strife, such diseases appear of the intellectual and moral powers. no man who did not live in those times can fully understand the obliquity of mind and moral depravity which then displayed themselves amongst those otherwise without reproach. says mr. adams himself, referring to that period, "imagination in her wildest vagaries can scarcely conceive the transformation of temper, the obliquities of intellect, the perversions of moral principle, effected by junctures of nigh and general excitement." however, it must be confessed that this, though not the only instance of injustice, is the only case of servile compliance with the executive to be found in the whole life of the man. it was a grievous fault, but grievously did he answer it; and if a long life of unfaltering resistance to every attempt at the assumption of power is fit atonement, then the expiation was abundantly made. about the same time, mr. adams was chairman of a committee of the senate, appointed to consider the case of a senator from ohio. his conduct, on that occasion, has been the theme of violent attack, and defence as violent. to the calm spectator, at this day, his conduct seems unjustifiable, inconsistent with the counsels of justice, which, though moving with her "pace of snail," looks always towards the right, and will not move out of her track, though the heavens fall. while mr. adams was president, hayti became free; but he did not express any desire that the united states should acknowledge her independence, and receive her minister at washington,--an african plenipotentiary. in his message,[ ] he says, "there are circumstances that have hitherto forbidden the acknowledgment," and mentions "additional reasons for withholding that acknowledgment." in the instructions to the american functionary, sent to the celebrated congress of panama, it is said, the president "is not prepared now to say that hayti ought to be recognized as an independent sovereign power;" he "does not think it would be proper at this time to recognize it as a new state." he was unwilling to consent to the independence of cuba, for fear of an insurrection of her slaves, and the effect at home. the duty of the united states would be "to defend themselves against the contagion of such near and dangerous examples," that would "constrain them ... to employ all means necessary to their security." that is, the president would be constrained to put down the blacks in cuba, who were exercising "the unalienable right of resistance to oppression," for fear the blacks in the united states would discover that they also were men, and had "unalienable rights!" had he forgotten the famous words, "resistance to tyrants is obedience to god?" the defence of such language on such an occasion is, that mr. adams's eyes were not yet open to the evil of slavery. that is a good defence, if true. to me it seems a true defence. even great men do not see every thing. in , fisher ames, while delivering the eulogy on general washington, censured even the british government, because, "in the wilds of africa, it obstructed the commerce in slaves!" no man is so wise as mankind. it must be confessed that mr. adams, while secretary of state, and again, while president, showed no hostility to the institution of slavery. his influence all went the other way. he would repress the freedom of the blacks, in the west indies, lest american slavery should be disturbed, and its fetters broke; he would not acknowledge the independence of hayti, he would urge spain to make peace with her descendants, for the same reason--"not for those new republics," but lest the negroes in cuba and porto rico should secure their freedom. he negotiated with england, and she paid the united states more than a million of dollars[ ] for the fugitive slaves who took refuge under her flag during the late war. mr. adams had no scruples about receiving the money during his administration. an attempt was repeatedly made by his secretary, mr. clay, through mr. gallatin, and then through mr. barbour, to induce england to restore the "fugitive slaves who had taken refuge in the canadian provinces," who, escaping from the area of freedom, seek the shelter of the british crown.[ ] nay, he negotiated a treaty with mexico, which bound her to deliver up fugitive slaves, escaping from the united states--a treaty which the mexican congress refused to ratify! should a great man have known better? great men are not always wise. afterwards, public attention was called to the matter; humble men gave lofty counsel; mr. adams used different language, and recommended different measures. but long before that, on the th of december, , mr. pickering, his colleague in the senate of the united states, offered a resolution, for the purpose of amending the constitution, so as to apportion representatives, and direct taxes among the states, according to their free inhabitants. but there are other things in mr. adams's course and conduct, which deserve the censure of a good man. one was, the attempt to justify the conduct of england, in her late war with china, when she forced her opium upon the barbarians with the bayonet. to make out his case, he contended that "in the celestial empire ... the patriarchal system of sir robert filmer, flourished in all its glory," and the chinese claimed superior dignity over all others; they refused to hold equal and reciprocal commercial intercourse with other nations, and "it is time this enormous outrage upon the rights of human nature, and the first principles of the laws of nations, should cease."[ ] it is true, the chinese were "barbarians;" true, the english carried thither the bible and christianity, at least their own christianity. but, even by the law of nations, letting alone the law of nature, the barbarians had a right to repel both bible and christianity, when they came in a contraband shape--that of opium and cannon balls. to justify this outrage of the strong against the weak, he quite forgets his old antipathy to england, his devotion to human freedom, and the sovereignty of the people, calling the cause of england "a righteous cause." he defended the american claim to the whole of oregon, up to ° ´. he did not so much undertake to make out a title to either, by the law of nature or of nations, but cut the matter short, and claimed the whole of oregon, on the strength of the first chapter of genesis. this was the argument: god gave mankind dominion over all the earth;[ ] between christian nations, the command of the creator lays the foundation of all titles to land, of titles to territory, of titles to jurisdiction. then in the psalms,[ ] god gives the "uttermost part of the earth for a possession" to the messiah, as the representative of all mankind, who held the uttermost parts of the earth in chief. but the pope, as head of the visible church, was the representative of christ, and so, holding under him, had the right to give to any king or prelate, authority to subdue barbarous nations, possess their territory, and convert them to christianity. in , the pope, in virtue of the above right, gave the american continent to the spanish monarchs, who, in time, sold their title to the people of the united states. that title may be defective, as the pope may not be the representative of christ, and so the passage in the psalms will not help the american claim, but then the united states will hold under the first clause in the testament of god, that is, in genesis. the claim of great britain is not valid, for she does not want the land for the purpose specified in that clause of the testament, to "replenish the earth and subdue it." she wants it, "that she may keep it open as a hunting-ground," while the united states want it, that it may grow into a great nation, and become a free and sovereign republic.[ ] this strange hypothesis, it seems, lay at the bottom of his defence of the british in their invasion of china. it would have led him, if consistent, to claim also the greater part of mexico. but, as he did not publicly declare his opinion on that matter, no more need be said concerning it. * * * * * such was the most prominent idea in his history; such the departures from it. let us look at other events in his life. while president, the most important object of his administration was the promotion of internal improvements, especially the internal communication between the states. for this purpose the government lent its aid in the construction of roads and canals, and a little more than four millions of dollars were devoted to this work in his administration. on the th of july, , he helped break ground for the chesapeake and ohio canal, thinking it an important event in his life. he then said there were three great steps in the progress of america. the first was the declaration of independence and the achievement thereof; the second, the union of the whole country under the constitution; but the third was more arduous than both of the others: "it is," said he, "the adaptation of the powers, physical, moral, and intellectual, of the whole union, to the improvement of its own condition; of its _moral_ and _political_ condition, by wise and liberal institutions; by the cultivation of the understanding and the heart; by academies, schools, and learned institutions; by the pursuit and patronage of learning and the arts; of its _physical_ condition, by associated labor to improve the bounties and supply the deficiencies of nature; to stem the torrent in its course; to level the mountain with the plain; to disarm and fetter the raging surge of the ocean."[ ] he faithfully adhered to these words in his administration. he was careful never to exceed the powers which the constitution prescribed for him. he thought the acquisition of louisiana was "accomplished by a flagrant violation of the constitution,"[ ] and himself guarded against such violations. he revered the god of limits, who, in the roman mythology, refused to give way or remove, even for jupiter himself. no man was ever more conscientious on that ground. to him the constitution meant something; his oath to keep it meant something. no great political event occurred in his administration; the questions which now vex the country had not arisen. there was no quarrel between freedom and slavery; no man in congress ventured to denounce slavery as a crime; the african slave-trade was thought wrong, not the slavery which caused it. party lines, obliterated under mr. monroe's administration, were viewed and marked with a good deal of care and exactness; but the old lines could not be wholly restored. mr. adams was not the president of a section of the country; not the president of a party, but of the nation. he favored no special interest of a class, to the injury of another class. he did not reward his friends, nor punish his foes; the party of the spoils, patent or latent at all times, got no spoils from him. he never debauched his country by the removal and appointment of officers. had he done otherwise, done as all his successors have done, used his actual power to promote his own ambition, no doubt he might have been reëlected. but he could not stoop to manage men in that way. no doubt he desired a reëlection, and saw the method and means to effect that, but conscience said, "it is not right." he forbore, lost his election, and gained--we shall soon see what he gained. on the th of july, , at a public dinner at edgefield court-house, south carolina, mr. mcduffie said, "mr. adams came into power upon principles utterly subversive of the republican system; substituting the worst species of aristocracy, that of speculating politicians and office-hunters, in the place of a sound and wholesome republican democracy." when mr. adams retired from office, he could remember, with the virtuous athenian, that no man had put on mourning for him because unjustly deprived of his post. was an office-holder or an office-wanter a political friend of mr. adams, that did not help him; a foe, that did not hinder. he looked only to the man's ability and integrity. i wish it was no praise to say these things; but it is praise i dare not apply to any other man since washington. mr. adams once said, "there is no official act of the chief magistrate, however momentous, or however minute, but it should be traceable to a dictate of duty, pointing to the welfare of the people." that was his executive creed. * * * * * as a public servant, he had many qualities seldom united in the same person. he was simple, and unostentatious; he had none of the airs of a great man; seemed humble, modest, and retiring; caring much for the substance of manhood, he let the show take care of itself. he carried the simplicity of a plain new england man into the president's house, spending little in its decorations--about one fourth, it is said, of the amount of his successor. in his housekeeping, public or private, there was only one thing much to be boasted of and remarked upon: strange to say, that was the master of the house. he was never eclipsed by his own brass and mahogany. he had what are called democratic habits, and served himself in preference to being served by others. he treated all that were about him with a marked deference and courtesy, carrying his respect for human rights into the minutest details of common life. he was a model of diligence, though not, perhaps, very systematic. his state papers, prepared while he was minister, secretary, or member of congress, his numerous orations and speeches, though not always distinguished for that orderly arrangement of parts which is instinctive with minds of a high philosophical character, are yet astonishing for their number, and the wide learning they display. he was well acquainted with the classic and most modern languages; at home in their literature. he was surprisingly familiar with modern history; perhaps no political man was so thoroughly acquainted with the political history of america, and that of christian europe for the last two hundred years. he was widely read and profoundly skilled in all that relates to diplomacy, and to international law. he was fond of belles-lettres, and commented on shakspeare more like a professor than a layman in that department. few theologians in america, it is said, were so widely read in their peculiar lore as he. he had read much, remembered much, understood much. however, he seems to have paid little attention to physical science, and perhaps less to metaphysical. his speeches and his conversation, though neither brilliant, nor rich in ideas, astonished young men with an affluence of learning, which seemed marvellous in one all his life devoted to practical affairs. but this is a trifle: to achieve that, nothing is needed but health, diligence, memory, and a long life. mr. adams had all these requisites. he had higher qualities: he loved his country, perhaps no man more so; he had patriotism in an heroic degree, yet was not thereby blinded to humanity. he thought it a vital principle of human society, that each nation should contribute to the happiness of all; and, therefore, that no nation should "regulate its conduct by the exclusive or even the paramount consideration of its own interest."[ ] yet he loved his country, his whole country, and when she was in the wrong he told her so, because he loved her. this, said he, would be a good sentiment: "our country! may she be always successful; but, whether successful or not, may she be always in the right." he saw the faults of america, saw the corruption of the american government. he did not make gain by this in private, but set an honest face against it. he was a conscientious man. this peculiarity is strongly marked in most of his life. he respected the limit between right and wrong. he did not think it unworthy of a statesman to refer to moral principles, to the absolutely right. i do not mean to say, that in his whole life there was no departure from the strict rule of duty. i have mentioned already some examples, but kept one more for this place: he pursued persons with a certain vindictiveness of spirit. i will not revive again the old quarrels, nor dig up his hard words, long ago consigned to oblivion; it would be unjust to the living. he was what is called a good hater. if he loved an idea, he seemed to hate the man who opposed it. he was not content with replying; he must also retort, though it manifestly weakened the force of the reply. in his attacks on persons he was sometimes unjust, violent, sharp, and vindictive; sometimes cruel, and even barbarous. did he ever forgive an enemy? every opponent was a foe, and he thrashed his foes with an iron hoof and winnowed them with a storm. the most awful specimens of invective which the language affords can be found in his words--bitter, revengeful, and unrelenting. i am sorry to say these things; it hurts my feelings to say them, yours not less to hear them. but it is not our fault they are true; it would be mine, if, knowing they were true, i did not on this occasion point them out in warning words. mr. adams says that roger williams was conscientious and contentious; it is equally true of himself. perhaps mr. adams had little humor, but certainly a giant's wit; he used it tyrannously and like a giant. wit has its place in debate; in controversy it is a legitimate weapon, offensive and defensive. after one has beaten the single barley-corn of good sense out of a whole wagon-load of chaff, the easiest way to be rid of the rubbish is to burn it up with the lightning of wit; the danger is, that the burning should begin before the separation is made; that the fire consume the good and bad indifferently. when argument is edged and pointed with wit, it is doubly effective; but when that edge is jagged with ill-will, poisoned, too, with personal spleen, then it becomes a weapon unworthy of a man. sometimes mr. adams used his wit as fairly as his wisdom; and bags of wind, on which hercules might have stamped and beaten a twelvemonth, but in vain--at a single puncture from that keen wit gave up their ghost and flattened into nothing; a vanity to all men, but a vexation of spirit to him who had blown them so full of his own soul. but sometimes, yes, often, mr. adams's wit performs a different part: it sits as a judge, unjust and unforgiving, "often deciding wrong, and when right from wrong motives." it was the small dagger with which he smote the fallen foe. it is a poor praise for a famous man, churchman, or statesman, to beat a blackguard with his own weapons. it must be confessed, that in controversy, mr. adams's arrows were sharp and deftly delivered; but they were often barbed, and sometimes poisoned. true, he encountered more political opposition than any man in the nation. for more than forty years he has never been without bitter and unrelenting enemies, public and private. no man in america, perhaps, ever had such provocations; surely, none had ever such opportunities to reply without retorting. how much better would it have been, if, at the end of that long life and fifty years' war, he could say he had never wasted a shot; had never sinned with his lips, nor once feathered his public arrow with private spleen! wise as he was, and old, he never learned that for undeserved calumny, for personal insult and abuse, there is one answer, christian, manly, and irrefutable--the dignity of silence. a just man can afford to wait till the storm of abuse shall spend its rage and vanish under the rainbow, which itself furnishes and leaves behind. the retorting speech of such a man may be silvern or iron; his silence, victorious and golden. it is easy to censure mr. adams for such intemperance of speech and persecution of persons; unfortunately, too easy to furnish other examples of both. we know what he spoke--god only what he repressed. who knows out of how deep a fulness of indignation such torrents gush? tried by the standard of other men, his fellow politicians of america and europe, he was no worse than they, only abler.[ ] the mouse and the fox have as great a proportionate anger as the lion, though the one is ridiculous and the other terrific. mr. adams must be tried by his own standard, the rule of right, the standard of conscience and of christianity; then surely he did wrong. for such a man the vulgarity of the offence is no excuse. with this and the other exceptions he appears a remarkably conscientious man in his public life. he may often have erred, as all men, without violating his own sense of right. while he was president he would not consent to any "public manifestation of honors personal to himself." he would not accept a present, for his bible taught him what experience continually enforces, that a gift blinds the eyes of wise men and perverts their judgment. while at st. petersburg, the russian minister of the interior, then an old man, felt uneasy on account of the presents accepted during his official service, and, calculating the value of all gifts received, returned it to the imperial treasury. this fact made an impression on mr. adams, and led to a resolution which he faithfully kept. when a bookseller sent him a costly bible, he kept the book, but paid its full value. no bribes, no pensions in any form, ever soiled justice in his hands. he would never be indebted to any body of men, lest they might afterwards sway him from the right path. because he was a conscientious man he would never be the servant of a party, and never was. it was of great advantage to him that he was absent while the two chief parties were forming in the united states. he came into the massachusetts legislature as a federalist, but some anti-federalists also voted for him. his first vote showed he was not limited by the common principles of a party. he was chosen to the senate of the united states, not by a party vote. at first he acted mainly with the federalists, though not always voting with his colleague; but in acted with the administration in the matter of the embargo. this was the eventful crisis of his life; this change in his politics, while it gave him station and political power, yet brought upon him the indignation of his former friends; it has never been forgotten nor forgiven. be the outward occasion and inward motive what they may, this led to the sundering of friendships long cherished and deservedly dear; it produced the most bitter experience of his life. political men would naturally undertake to judge his counsel by its probable and obvious consequences, the favor of the executive, rather than attribute it to any latent motive of patriotism in his heart. while at the head of the nation he would not be the president of a party, but of the people; when he became a representative in congress he was not the delegate of a party, but of justice and the eternal right, giving his constituents an assurance that he would hold himself in allegiance to no party, national or political. he has often been accused of hatred to the south; i can find no trace of it. "i entered congress," says he, "without one sentiment of discrimination between the north and south." at first he acted with mr. jackson, to arrest the progress of nullification, for the democracy of south carolina was putting in practice what the federalists of new england have so often been alleged to have held in theory, and condemned on that allegation. here he was consistent. in , he approved the spirit of the same president in demanding justice of france; but afterwards he did not hesitate to oppose, and perhaps abuse him. he had a high reverence for religion; none of our public men more. he aimed to be a christian man. signs of this have often been sought in his habits of church-going, of reading the bible; they may be found rather in the general rectitude of his life, public and private, and in the high motives which swayed him, in his opposition to slavery, in the self-denial which cost him his reëlection. in his public acts he seems animated by the thought that he stood in the presence of god. though rather unphilosophical in his theology, resting to a great degree on the authority of tradition and the letter, and attaching much value to forms and times, he yet saw the peculiar excellence of christianity,--that it recognized "love as the paramount and transcendent law of human nature." i do not say that his life indicates the attainment of a complete religious repose, but that he earnestly and continually labored to achieve that. you shall find few statesmen, few men, who act with a more continual and obvious reference to religion as a motive, as a guide, as a comfort. he was, however, no sectarian. his devotion to freedom appeared, where it seldom appears, in his notions about religion. he thought for himself, and had a theology of his own, rather old-fashioned, it is true, and not very philosophical or consistent, it may be, and in that he was not very singular, but he allowed others to think also for themselves, and have a theology of their own. mr. adams was a unitarian. it is no great merit to be a unitarian, or a calvinist, or a catholic, perhaps no more merit to be one than the other. but he was not ashamed of his belief when unitarianism was little, despised, mocked at, and called "infidelity" on all sides. when the unitarian church at washington, a small and feeble body, met for worship in an upper room--not large, but obscure, over a public bathing-house--john quincy adams, the secretary of state and expecting to be president, came regularly to worship with them. it was not fashionable; it was hardly respectable, for the unitarians were not then, as now, numerous and rich: but he went and worshipped. it was no merit to think with any sect, it was a great merit to dare be true to his convictions. in his theology, as in politics, he feared not to stand in a minority. if there ever was an american who loved the praise of god more than the praise of men, i believe mr. adams was one. his devotion to freedom, his love of his country, his conscientiousness, his religion, are four things strong and noticeable in his character. you shall look long amongst our famous men before you find his equal in these things.[ ] * * * * * somebody says, no man ever used all his intellectual faculties as far as possible. if any man is an exception to this rule, it is mr. adams. he was temperate and diligent; industrious almost to a fault, though not orderly or systematic. his diplomatic letters, his orations, his reports and speeches, all indicate wide learning, the fruit of the most remarkable diligence. the attainments of a well-bred scholar are not often found in the american congress, or the president's house. yet he never gives proof that he had the mind of a great man. in his special department of politics he does not appear as a master. he has no great ideas with which to solve the riddles of commerce and finance; has done little to settle the commercial problems of the world,--for that work there is needed not only a retrospective acquaintance with the habits and history of men, but the foresight which comes from a knowledge of the nature of things and of man. his chief intellectual excellence seems to have been memory; his great moral merit, a conscientious and firm honesty; his practical strength lay in his diligence. his counsels seem almost always to have come from a knowledge of human history, seldom to have been prompted by a knowledge of the nature of man. hence he was a critic of the past, or an administrator of the present, rather than a prophetic guide for the future. he had many facts and precedents, but few ideas. few examples of great political foresight can be quoted from his life; and therein, to his honor be it spoken, his heart seems to have out-travelled his head. the public affairs of the united states seem generally to be conducted by many men of moderate abilities, rather than by a few men of great genius for politics. * * * * * mr. adams wrote much. some of his works are remarkable for their beauty, for the graceful proportions of their style, and the felicity of their decoration. such are his celebrated lectures on rhetoric and oratory, which are sufficiently learned and sagacious, not very philosophical, but written in an agreeable style, and at the present day not wholly without value. his review of the works of fisher ames, i speak only of the rhetoric, is, perhaps, the finest of his compositions. some of his productions are disorderly, ill-compacted, without "joints or contexture," and homely to a fault: this oration is a growth out of a central thought, marked by an internal harmony; that, a composition, a piece of carpentry distinguished by only an outward symmetry of members; others are neither growth nor composition, only a mass of materials huddled and lumped together. most of his later productions, with the exception of his congressional speeches, are hard, cold, and unfinished performances, with little order in the thoughts, and less beauty in the expression. his extemporaneous speeches have more of both; they are better finished than his studied orations. he could judge and speak with fury, though he wrote with phlegm. his illustrations are usually drawn from literature, not from nature or human life; his language is commonly cold, derived from the roman stream which has been filtered through books, rather than from the deep and original well of our saxon home. his published letters are compact, written in a cold style, without playfulness or wit, with no elegance, and though mostly business letters, they are not remarkable for strength or distinctness. his diligence appears in verse as well as prose. he wrote much that rhymed tolerably; little that was poetical. the same absence of nature, the same coldness and lack of inspiration, mark his poetry and prose. but in all that he wrote, with the exceptions mentioned above, though you miss the genial warmth, the lofty thought, the mind that attracts, embraces, warms, and inspires the reader, you find always a spirit of humanity, of justice, and love to god. mr. adams was seldom eloquent. eloquence is no great gift. it has its place among subordinate powers, not among the chief. alas for the statesman or preacher who has only that to save the state withal! washington had none of it, yet how he ruled the land! no man in america has ever had a political influence so wide and permanent as mr. jefferson; yet he was a very indifferent writer, and never made a speech of any value. the acts of washington, the ideas of jefferson, made eloquence superfluous. true, it has its value: if a man have at command the electricity of truth, justice, love, the sentiments and great ideas thereof, it is a good thing to be able with olympian hand to condense that electric fire into bolted eloquence; to thunder and lighten in the sky. but if a man have that electric truth, it matters little whether it is moses that speaks, or only aaron; whether or not paul's bodily presence be weak and his speech contemptible: it is moses' thought which thunders and lightens out of sinai; it is paul's idea that is powerful and builds up the church. of true eloquence, the best thoughts put in the best words, and uttered in the best form, mr. adams had little, and that appeared mainly in the latter part of his life. hundreds have more. what passes for eloquence is common in america, where the public mouth is always a-going. his early orations are poor in their substance and faulty in their form. his ability as an orator developed late; no proofs of it appear before he entered the house of representatives, at a good old age. in his manner of speaking there was little dignity and no grace, though sometimes there was a terrible energy and fire. he was often a powerful speaker--by his facts and figures, by his knowledge, his fame, his age, and his position, but most of all by his independent character. he spoke worthily of great men, of madison or lafayette, kindling with his theme, and laying aside all littleness of a party. however, he was most earnest and most eloquent not when he stood up the champion of a neglected truth, not when he dwelt on great men now venerable to us all, but when he gathered his strength to attack a foe. incensed, his sarcasm was terrific; colossal vanity aspiring to be a ghenghis khan, at the touch of that ithuriel spear shrank to the dimensions of tom thumb. his invective is his masterpiece of oratoric skill. it is sad to say this, and to remember, that the greatest works of ancient or of modern rhetoric, from the thundering philippics of demosthenes down to the sarcastic and crazy rattle of lord brougham, are all of the same character, are efforts against a personal foe! men find hitherto the ablest acts and speech in the same cause,--not positive and creating, but critical and combative,--in war. if mr. adams had died in , he would have been remembered for awhile as a learned man; as an able diplomatist, who had served his country faithfully at home and abroad; as a president spotless and incorruptible, but not as a very important personage in american history. his mark would have been faint and soon effaced from the sands of time. but the last period of his life was the noblest. he had worn all the official honors which the nation could bestow; he sought the greater honor of serving that nation, who had now no added boon to give. all that he had done as minister abroad, as senator, as secretary, and president, is little compared with what he did in the house of representatives; and while he stood there, with nothing to hope, with nothing to fear, the hand of justice wrote his name high up on the walls of his country. it was surprising to see at his first attendance there, men who, while he was president, had been the loudest to call out "coalition, bargain, intrigue, corruption," come forward and express the involuntary confidence they felt in his wisdom and integrity, and their fear, actual though baseless, that his withdrawal from the committee on manufactures would "endanger the very union itself."[ ] great questions soon came up: nullification was speedily disposed of; the bank and the tariff got ended or compromised, but slavery lay in the consciousness of the nation, like the one dear but appalling sin in a man's heart. some wished to be rid of it, northern men and southern men. it would come up; to justify that, or excuse it, the american sentiment and idea must be denied and rejected utterly; the south, who had long known the charms of bathsheba, was ready for her sake to make way with uriah himself. to remove that monstrous evil, gradually but totally, and restore unity to the nation, would require a greater change than the adoption of the constitution. to keep slavery out of sight, yet in existence, unjustified, unexcused, unrepented of, a contradiction in the national consciousness, a political and deadly sin, the sin against the holy spirit of american liberty, known but not confessed, the public secret of the people--that would lead to suppressing petitions, suppressing debate in congress and out of congress, to silencing the pulpit, the press, and the people. under these circumstances, mr. adams went to congress, an old man, well known on both sides the water, the presidential laurels on his brow, independent and fearless, expecting no reward from men for services however great. in respect to the subject of slavery, he had no ideas in advance of the nation; he was far behind the foremost men. he "deprecated all discussion of slavery or its abolition, in the house, and gave no countenance to petitions for the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia or the territories." however, he acquired new ideas as he went on, and became the congressional leader in the great movement of the american mind towards universal freedom. here he stood as the champion of human rights; here he fought, and with all his might. in , by the celebrated resolution, forbidding debate on the subject of slavery, the south drove the north to the wall, nailed it there into shameful silence. a "northern man with southern principles," before entering the president's chair, declared, that if congress should pass a law to abolish slavery in the district of columbia, he would exercise his veto to prevent the law.[ ] mr. adams stood up manfully, sometimes almost alone, and contended for freedom of speech. did obstinate men of the north send petitions relative to slavery, asking for its abolition in the district or elsewhere? mr. adams was ready to present the petitions. did women petition? it made no difference with him. did slaves petition? he stood up there to defend their right to be heard. the south had overcome many an obstacle, but that one fearless soul would not bend, and could not be broken. spite of rules of order, he contrived to bring the matter perpetually before congress, and sometimes to read the most offensive parts of the petitions. when arkansas was made a state, he endeavored to abolish slavery in its domain; he sought to establish international relations with hayti, and to secure the right of suffrage for the colored citizens of the district of columbia. the laws which forbid blacks to vote in the northern states he held "in utter abhorrence." he saw from afar the plots of southern politicians, plots for extending the area of slavery, for narrowing the area of freedom, and exposed those plots. you all remember the tumult it excited when he rose in his place holding a petition from slaves; that the american congress was thrown into long and disgraceful confusion. you cannot have forgotten the uproar which followed his presenting a petition to dissolve the union![ ] i know few speeches more noble and manly than his on the right of petition,--occasioned by that celebrated attempt to stifle debate, and on the annexation of texas. some proposed to censure him, some clamored, "expel him," some cried out, "burn the petitions!" and "him with them," screamed yet others. some threatened to have him indicted by the grand jury of the district, "or be made amenable to _another tribunal_," hoping to see "an incendiary brought to condign punishment." "my life on it," said a southern legislator, "if he presents that petition from slaves, we shall yet see him within the walls of the penitentiary." some in secret threatened to assassinate him in the streets. they mistook their man; with justice on his side he did "not fear all the grand juries in the universe." he would not curl nor cringe, but snorted his defiance in their very face. in front of ridicule, of desertion, obloquy, rage, and brutal threats, stood up that old man, bald and audacious, and the chafed rock of cohasset stands not firmer mid the yesty waves, nor more triumphant spurns back into the ocean's face the broken billows of the storm. that new england knee bent only before his god. that unpretending man--the whole power of the nation could not move him from his post. men threatened to increase the slave power. said one of the champions of slavery with prophetic speech, but fatal as cassandra's in the classic tale, americans "would come up in thousands to plant the lone star of the texan banner on the mexican capital.... the boundless wealth of captured towns and rifled churches, and a lazy, vicious, and luxurious priesthood, would soon enable texas to pay her soldiery and redeem her state debt, and push her victorious arms to the very shores of the pacific. and would not all this extend the bounds of slavery? yes, the result would be, that before another quarter of a century the extension of slavery would not stop short of the western ocean." against this danger mr. adams armed himself, and fought in the holiest cause--the cause of human rights. i know few things in modern times so grand as that old man standing there in the house of representatives, the compeer of washington, a man who had borne himself proudly in kings' courts, early doing service in high places, where honor may be won; a man who had filled the highest office in any nation's gift; a president's son, himself a president, standing there the champion of the neediest of the oppressed: the conquering cause pleased others; him only, the cause of the conquered. had he once been servile to the hands that wielded power? no thunderbolt can scare him now! did he once make a treaty and bind mexico to bewray the wandering fugitive who took his life in his hand and fled from the talons of the american eagle? now he would go to the stake sooner than tolerate such a deed! when he went to the supreme court, after an absence of thirty years, and arose to defend a body of friendless negroes torn from their home and most unjustly held in thrall; when he asked the judges to excuse him at once both for the trembling faults of age and the inexperience of youth, the man having labored so long elsewhere that he had forgotten the rules of court; when he summed up the conclusion of the whole matter, and brought before those judicial but yet moistening eyes the great men whom he had once met there--chase, cushing, martin, livingston, and marshall himself; and while he remembered them that were "gone, gone, all gone," remembered also the eternal justice that is never gone,--why the sight was sublime. it was not an old patrician of rome who had been consul, dictator, coming out of his honored retirement at the senate's call, to stand in the forum to levy new armies, marshal them to victory afresh, and gain thereby new laurels for his brow;--but it was a plain citizen of america, who had held an office far greater than that of consul, king, or dictator, his hand reddened by no man's blood, expecting no honors, but coming in the name of justice to plead for the slave, for the poor barbarian negro of africa, for cinque and grabbo, for their deeds comparing them to harmodius and aristogeiton, whose classic memory made each bosom thrill. that was worth all his honors,--it was worth while to live fourscore years for that. when he stood in the house of representatives, the champion of the rights of a minority, of the rights of man, he stood colossal. frederick the great seems doubly so, when, single-handed, "that son of the dukes of brandenburg" contended against austria, france, england, russia, kept them all at bay, divided by his skill, and conquered by his might. surely he seems great, when measured merely by his deeds. but, in comparison, frederick the great seems frederick the little: for adams fought not for a kingdom, nor for fame, but for justice and the eternal right; fought, too, with weapons tempered in a heavenly stream![ ] he had his reward. who ever missed it? from mythological cain, who slew his brother, down to judas iscariot, and aaron burr; from jesus of nazareth, down to the least man that dies or lives--who ever lost his reward? none. no; not one. within the wicked heart there dwells the avenger, with unseen hands, to adjust the cord, to poison the fatal bowl. in the impenetrable citadel of a good man's consciousness, unseen by mortal eyes, there stands the palladium of justice, radiant with celestial light; mortal hands may make and mar,--this they can mar not, no more than they can make. things about the man can others build up or destroy; but no foe, no tyrant, no assassin, can ever steal the man out of the man. who would not have the consciousness of being right, even of trying to be right, though affronted by a whole world, rather than conscious of being wrong, and hollow, and false, have all the honors of a nation on his head? of late years, no party stood up for mr. adams, "the madman of massachusetts," as they called him, on the floor of congress; but he knew that he had, and in his old age, done one work,--he had contended for the unalienable rights of man, done it faithfully. the government of god is invisible, his justice the more certain,--and by that mr. adams had his abundant reward. but he had his poorer and outward rewards, negative and positive. for his zeal in behalf of freedom he was called "a monarchist in disguise," "an alien to the true interests of his country," "a traitor." a slaveholder from kentucky published to his constituents that he "was sincerely desirous to check that man, for if he could be removed from the councils of the nation, or silenced upon the exasperating subject to which he had devoted himself, none other, i believe, could be found hardy enough or bad enough to fill his place." it was worth something to have an enemy speak such praise as that: but the slaveholder was wrong in his conjecture; the north has yet other sons not less hardy, not more likely to be silenced. still more praise of a similar sort:--at a fourth of july dinner at walterborough, in south carolina, this sentiment was proposed and responded to with nine cheers: "may we never want a democrat to trip up the heels of a federalist, or a hangman to prepare a halter for john quincy adams." considering what he had done and whence those rewards proceeded, that was honor enough for a yet greater man. let me turn to things more grateful. mr. adams, through lack of genial qualities, had few personal friends, yet from good men throughout the north there went up a hearty thanksgiving for his manly independence, and prayers for his success. brave men forgot their old prejudices, forgot the "embargo," forgot the "hartford convention," forgot all the hard things which he had ever said, forgot his words in the senate, forgot their disappointments, and said--"for this our hearts shall honor thee, thou brave old man!" in , when, for the first time, he visited the west, to assist at the foundation of a scientific institution, all the west rose up to do him reverence. he did not go out to seek honors, they came to seek him. it was the movement of a noble people, feeling a noble presence about them no less than within. when cicero, the only great man whom rome never feared, returned from his exile, all italy rose up and went out to meet him; so did the north and the west welcome this champion of freedom, this venerable old man. they came not to honor one who had been a president, but one who was a man. that alone, said mr. adams, with tears of joy and grief filling his eyes, was reward enough for all that he had done, suffered, or undertaken. yes, it was too much; too much for one man as the reward of one life! you all remember the last time he was at any public meeting in this city. a man had been kidnapped in boston, kidnapped at noon-day, "on the high road between faneuil hall and old quincy," and carried off to be a slave! new england hands had seized their brother, sold him into bondage for ever, and his children after him. in the presence of slavery, as of arms, the laws are silent,--not always men. then it appears who are men, who not! a meeting was called to talk the matter over, in a plain way, and look in one another's faces. who was fit to preside in such a case? that old man sat in the chair in faneuil hall; above him was the image of his father, and his own; around him were hancock and the other adams,--washington, greatest of all; before him were the men and women of boston, met to consider the wrongs done to a miserable negro slave; the roof of the old cradle of liberty spanned over them all. forty years before, a young man and a senator, he had taken the chair at a meeting called to consult on the wrong done to american seamen, violently impressed by the british from an american ship of war, the unlucky chesapeake; some of you remember that event. now, an old man, clothed with half a century of honors, he sits in the same hall, to preside over a meeting to consider the outrage done to a single slave; a greater outrage--alas, not done by a hostile, not by an alien hand! one was the first meeting of citizens he ever presided over, the other was the last; both for the same object--the defence of the eternal right. * * * * * but i would not weary you. his death was noble; fit ending for such a life. he was an old man, the last that had held a diplomatic office under washington. he had uttered his oracles; had done his work. the highest honors of the nation he had worthily worn; but, as his townsmen tell us,--caring little for the president, and much for the man,--that was very little in comparison with his character. the good and ill of the human cup he had tasted, and plentifully, too, as son, husband, father. he had borne his testimony for freedom and the rights of mankind; he had stood in congress almost alone; with a few gallant men had gone down to the battlefield, and if victory escaped him, it was because night came on. he saw others enter the field in good heart, to stand in the imminent deadly breach; he lived long enough for his own welfare, for his own ambition; long enough to see the seal broken,--and then, this aged simeon, joyful in the consolation, bowed his head and went home in peace. his feet were not hurt with fetters; he died with his armor on; died like a senator in the capitol of the nation; died like an american, in the service of his country; died like a christian, full of immortality; died like a man, fearless and free! you will ask, what was the secret of his strength? whence did he gain such power to stand erect where others so often cringed and crouched low to the ground? it is plain to see: he looked beyond time, beyond men; looked to the eternal god, and fearing him forgot all other fear. some of his failings he knew to be such, and struggled with them though he did not overcome. a man, not over-modest, once asked him what he most of all lamented in his life, and he replied, "my impetuous temper and vituperative speech; that i have not always returned good for evil, but in the madness of my blood have said things that i am ashamed of before my god!" as the world goes, it needed some greatness to say that. when he was a boy, his mother, a still woman, and capable, deep-hearted, and pious, took great pains with his culture; most of all with his religious culture. when, at the age of ten, he was about to leave home for years of absence in another land, she took him aside to warn him of temptations which he could not then understand. she bade him remember religion and his god--his secret, silent prayer. often in his day there came the earthquake of party strife; the fire, the storm, and the whirlwind of passion; he listened--and god was not there; but there came, too, the remembrance of his mother's whispered words; god came in that memory, and earthquake and storm, the fire and the whirlwind were powerless, at last, before that still small voice. beautifully did she write to her boy of ten, "great learning and superior abilities will be of little value ... unless virtue, honor, truth, and integrity, are added to them. remember that you are accountable to your maker for all your words and your actions." "dear as you are to me," says this more than spartan, this christian mother, "dear as you are to me, i would much rather you should have found your grave in the ocean you have crossed, or that any untimely death cross you in your infant years, than see you an immoral, profligate, or graceless child. let your observations and comparisons produce in your mind an abhorrence of domination and power--the parents of slavery, ignorance, and barbarism. may you be led to an imitation of that disinterested patriotism and that noble love of your country, which will teach you to despise wealth, titles, pomp, and equipage, as mere external advantages, which cannot add to the internal excellence of your mind, or compensate for the want of integrity and virtue." she tells him in a letter, that her father, a plain new england clergyman, of braintree, who had just died, "left you a legacy more valuable than gold or silver; he left you his blessing, and his prayers that you might become a useful citizen, a guardian of the laws, liberty, and religion of your country.... lay this bequest up in your memory and practise upon it; believe me, you will find it a treasure that neither moth nor rust can destroy." if a child have such a mother, there is no wonder why he stood fearless, and bore a charmed life which no opposition could tame down. i wonder more that one so born and by such a mother bred, could ever once bend a servile knee; could ever indulge that fierce and dreadful hate; could ever stoop to sully those hands which hers had joined in prayer. it ill accords with teachings like her own. i wonder that he could ever have refused to "deliberate." religion is a quality that makes a man independent; disappointment will not render such an one sour, nor oppression drive him mad, nor elevation bewilder; power will not dazzle, nor gold corrupt; no threat can silence and no fear subdue. there are men enough born with greater abilities than mr. adams, men enough in new england, in all the walks of man. but how many are there in political life who use their gifts so diligently, with such conscience, such fearless deference to god?--nay, tell us one. i have not spared his faults; i am no eulogist, to paint a man with undiscriminating praise. let his follies warn us, while his virtues guide. but look on all his faults, and then compare him with our famous men of the north or the south; with the great whigs or the great democrats. ask which was the purest man, the most patriotic, the most honest; which did his nation the smallest harm and the greatest good; which for his country and his kind denied himself the most. shall i examine their lives, public and private, strip them bare and lay them down beside his life, and ask which, after all, has the least of blemish and the most of beauty? nay, that is not for me to do or to attempt. in one thing he surpassed most men,--he grew more liberal the more he grew old, ripening and mellowing, too, with age. after he was seventy years old, he welcomed new ideas, kept his mind vigorous, and never fell into that crabbed admiration of past times and buried institutions, which is the palsy of so many a man, and which makes old age nothing but a pity, and gray hairs provocative of tears. this is the more remarkable in a man of his habitual reverence for the past, in one who judged oftener by the history than by the nature of man. times will come when men shall look to that vacant seat. but the thunder is silent, the lightning gone; other men must take his place and fill it as they can. let us not mourn that he has gone from us; let us remember what was evil in him, but only to be warned of ambition, of party strife, to love more that large charity which forgives an enemy, and, through good and ill, contends for mankind. let us be thankful for the good he has said and done, be guided by it and blessed. there is a certain affluence of intellectual power granted to some men, which provokes admiration for a time, let the man of myriad gifts use his talent as he may. such merely cubic greatness of mind is matter of astonishment rather than a fit subject for esteem and praise. of that, mr. adams had little, as so many of his contemporaries had more. in him what most commands respect is, his independence, his love of justice, of his country and his kind. no son of new england has been ever so distinguished in political life. but it is no great thing to be president of the united states; some men it only makes ridiculous. a worm on a steeple's top is nothing but a worm, no more able to fly than while creeping in congenial mud; a mountain needs no steeple to lift its head and show the world what is great and high. the world obeys its great men, stand where they may. after all, this must be the greatest praise of mr. adams: in private he corrupted no man nor woman; as a politician he never debauched the public morals of his country, nor used public power for any private end; in public and private he lived clean and above board; he taught a fearless love of truth and the right, both by word and deed. i wish i could add, that was a small praise. but as the times go, as our famous men are, it is a very great fame, and there are few competitors for such renown; i must leave him alone in that glory. doubtless, as he looked back on his long career, his whole life, motives as well as actions, must have seemed covered with imperfections. i will seek no further to disclose his merits, or "draw his frailties from their dead abode." he has passed on, where superior gifts and opportunities avail not, nor his long life, nor his high station, nor his wide spread fame; where enemies cease from troubling, and the flattering tongue also is still. wealth, honor, fame, forsake him at the grave's mouth. it is only the living soul, sullied or clean, which the last angel bears off in his arms to that world where many that seem first shall be last, and the last first; but where justice shall be lovingly done to the great man full of power and wisdom who rules the state, and the feeblest slave whom oppression chains down in ignorance and vice--done by the all-seeing father of both president and slave, who loves both with equal love. the venerable man is gone home. he shall have his praise. but who shall speak it worthily? mean men and little, who shrank from him in life, who never shared what was manliest in the man, but mocked at his living nobleness, shall they come forward and with mealy mouths, to sing his requiem, forgetting that his eulogy is their own ban? some will rejoice at his death; there is one man the less to fear, and they who trembled at his life may well be glad when the earth has covered up the son she bore. strange men will meet with mutual solace at his tomb, wondering that their common foe is dead, and they are met! the herods and pilates of contending parties may be made friends above his grave, and clasping hands may fancy that their union is safer than before; but there will come a day after to-day! let us leave him to his rest. the slave has lost a champion who gained new ardor and new strength the longer he fought; america has lost a man who loved her with his heart; religion has lost a supporter; freedom an unfailing friend, and mankind a noble vindicator of our unalienable rights. it is not long since he was here in our own streets; three winter months have scantly flown: he set out for his toil--but went home to his rest. his labors are over. no man now threatens to assassinate; none to expel; none even to censure. the theatrical thunder of congress, noisy but harmless, has ended as it ought, in honest tears. south carolina need ask no more a halter for that one northern neck she could not bend nor break. the tears of his country are dropped upon his urn; the muse of history shall write thereon, in letters not to be effaced, the one great man since washington, whom america had no cause to fear. to-day that venerable form lies in the capitol,--the disenchanted dust. all is silent. but his undying soul, could we deem it still hovering o'er its native soil, bound to take leave yet lingering still, and loath to part, that would bid us love our country, love man, love justice, freedom, right, and above all, love god. to-morrow that venerable dust starts once more to join the dear presence of father and mother, to mingle his ashes with their ashes, as their lives once mingled, and their souls again. let his native state communicate her last sad sacrament, and give him now, it is all she can, a little earth for charity. but what shall we say as the dust returns? "where slavery's minions cower before the servile power, he bore their ban; and like the aged oak, that braved the lightning's stroke, when thunders round it broke, stood up a man. "nay, when they stormed aloud, and round him like a cloud, came thick and black,-- he single-handed strove, and like olympian jove, with his own thunder drove the phalanx back. "not from the bloody field, borne on his battered shield, by foes o'ercome;-- but from a sterner fight, in the defence of right, clothed with a conqueror's might, we hail him home. "his life in labors spent, that 'old man eloquent' now rests for aye;-- his dust the tomb may claim;-- his spirit's quenchless flame, his 'venerable name,'[ ] pass not away."[ ] footnotes: [ ] see _social compact_, etc. providence, , p. , _et al._ [ ] see _address at washington_, th of july, . second edition, cambridge, _passim_. [ ] reference is made to his _speech in the house of representatives_, may th and th, . (boston, .) it is a little remarkable, that the false principle of the common law, on which mr. adams was commenting, as laid down by blackstone, is corrected by a writer, m. pothier, who rests on the civil law for his authority. see pp. - , and , . [ ] _answer to paine's rights of man_ (london, ), originally published in the columbian centinel. the london edition bears the name of _john adams_ on the title-page. [ ] mr. atherton. [ ] see _oration at quincy_, , p. , _et seq._ (boston, .) [ ] the _social compact_, etc., etc. (providence, ). p. . [ ] see pickering's _letter to governor sullivan, on the embargo_. boston, . john quincy adams's _letter to the hon. h. g. otis_, etc. boston, . pickering's _interesting correspondence_, . _review of the correspondence between the hon. john adams and the late william cunningham_, etc. . but see, also, mr. adams's "appendix" to the above letter, published _sixteen_ years after the vote on the embargo. baltimore, . mr. pickering's _brief remarks on the appendix_. august, . [ ] reference is here made to british "_orders in council_" of nov. d, . they were not officially made known to the american congress till feb. th, . they were, however, published in the national intelligencer, the morning on which the message was sent to the senate, dec. th, , but were not mentioned in that document, nor in the debate. [ ] i copy this from the first letter of mr. pickering. mr. adams wrote a letter (to h. g. otis) in reply to this of mr. pickering, but said nothing respecting the words charged upon him; but in , in an appendix to that letter, he denies that he expressed the "sentiment" which mr. pickering charged him with. but he _does not deny the words themselves_. they rest on the authority of mr. pickering, his colleague in the senate, a strong party man, it is true, perhaps not much disposed to conciliation, but a man of most unquestionable veracity. the "sentiment" speaks for itself. [ ] adams's _remarks in the house of representatives_, jan. , . [ ] _correspondence between the hon. john adams and the late william cunningham, esq._ boston, , letter xliii. p. . [ ] march th, . [ ] see mr. adams's _message_, dec. , . the exact sum was $ , , . . [ ] see mr. clay's letter to mr. a. h. everett, april th, ; to mr. middleton, respecting the intervention of the emperor of russia, may th, and dec. th, ; to mr. gallatin, may th, and june th, , and feb. th, . _executive documents_, second session of the th congress, vol. i. [ ] report of mr. adams's _lecture on the chinese war_, in the boston atlas, for dec. th and th, . [ ] genesis i. - . [ ] psalms ii. - . [ ] see mr. adams's _speech on oregon_, feb. th, . arguments somewhat akin to this, may be found also in the oration delivered at newburyport, before cited. [ ] _address on breaking ground for the chesapeake and ohio canal._ [ ] _jubilee of the constitution_, p. . [ ] _lecture on china._ [ ] see his defence of this in his _address to his constituents at braintree_, sept. th, . boston, , p. , _et seq._ [ ] in a public address, mr. adams once quoted the well-known words of tacitus (annal vi. ), _par negotiis neque supra_,--applying them to a distinguished man lately deceased. a lady wrote to inquire whence they came. mr. adams informed her, and added, they could not be adequately translated in less than seven words in english. the lady replied that they might be well translated in five--_equal to, not above, duty_, but better in three--john quincy adams. [ ] _remarks_ of mr. cambreleng. [ ] mr. van buren. [ ] see the _debates of the house_, january d and following, ; or mr. adams's own account of the matter in his _letters to his constituents_, etc. (boston, .) see, too, his _series of speeches on the right of petition and the annexation of texas_, january th and following, . (printed in a pamphlet. washington, .) [ ] "acer et indomitus, quo spes, quoque ira vocasset, ferre manum, et nunquam temerando parcere ferro; successus urgere suos; instare favori numinis; impellens quiequid sibi summa petenti obstaret, gaudensque viam fecisse ruina." [ ] _clarum et venerabile nomen._ [ ] the above lines are from the pen of the rev. john pierpont. vii. speech at a meeting of the american anti-slavery society, to celebrate the abolition of slavery by the french republic, april , . mr. chairman,--the gentleman before me[ ] has made an allusion to rome. let me also turn to that same city. underneath the rome of the emperors, there was another rome; not seen by the sun, known only to a few men. above, in the sunlight, stood rome of the cæsars, with her markets and her armies, her theatres, her temples, and her palaces, glorious and of marble. a million men went through her brazen gates. the imperial city, she stood there, beautiful and admired, the queen of nations. but underneath all that, in caverns of the earth, in the tombs of dead men, in quarries whence the upper city had been slowly hewn, there was another population, another rome, with other thoughts; yes, a devout body of men, who swore not by the public altars; men whose prayers were forbidden; their worship disallowed, their ideas prohibited, their very lives illegal. time passed on; and gradually rome of the pagans disappeared, and rome of the christians sat there in her place, on the seven hills, and stretched out her sceptre over the nations. so underneath the laws and the institutions of each modern nation, underneath the monarchy and the republic, there is another and unseen state, with sentiments not yet become popular, and with ideas not yet confirmed in actions, not organized into institutions, ideas scarcely legal, certainly not respectable. slowly from its depths comes up this ideal state, the state of the future; and slowly to the eternal deep sinks down the actual state, the state of the present. but sometimes an earthquake of the nations degrades of a sudden the actual; and speedily starts up the ideal kingdom of the future. such a thing has just come to pass. in france, within five-and-forty days, a new state has arisen from underneath the old. men, whose words were suppressed, and their ideas reckoned illegal but two months ago, now hold the sceptre of five-and-thirty millions of grateful citizens, hold it in clean and powerful hands. a great revolution has taken place; one which will produce effects that we cannot foresee. it is itself the greatest act of this century. god only knows what it will lead to. we are here to express the sympathy of republicans for a new republic. we are here to rejoice over the rising hopes of a new state, not to exult over the fallen fortunes of the bourbons. louis philippe has done much which we may thank him for. he has kept mainly at peace the fiercest nation of the world; has kept the peace of europe for seventeen years. let us thank him for that. he has consolidated the french nation, helped to give them a new unity of thought and unity of action, which they had not before. perhaps he did not intend all this. since he has brought it about, let us thank him for it, even if his conduct transcended his intention. but, most of all, i would thank this "citizen king" for another thing. his greatest lesson is his last. he has shown that five-and-thirty millions of frenchmen, in this nineteenth century, are only to be ruled by justice and the eternal law of right. we have seen this crafty king, often wise and always cunning, driven from his throne. he was the richest man in europe, and the embodiment of the idea of modern wealth. he had an army the best disciplined, probably, in the world, and, as he thought, completely in his power. he had a chamber of peers of his own appointment; a chamber of deputies almost of his own election. he ruled a nation that contained three hundred thousand office-holders, appointed by himself, and only two hundred and forty thousand voters! who sat so safe as the citizen king on his throne, surrounded by republican institutions! so confident was he, as the journals tell, that he bade a friend stop a day or two, "and see how i will put down the people!" for once, this shrewd calculator reckoned without his host. well, we have seen this man, this citizen monarch, who married his children only to kings, rush from his place; his peers and his deputies were unavailing; his office-holders could not sustain him; his army "fraternized with the people;" and he, forgetful of his own children, ignominiously is hustled out of the kingdom, in a street cab, with nothing but a five-franc piece in his pocket. for the lesson thus taught, let us thank him most of all. men tell us it is too soon to rejoice: "perhaps the revolution will not hold;" "it will not last;" "the kings of europe will put it down." when a sound, healthy child is born, the friends of the family congratulate the parents then; they do not wait till the child has grown up, and got a beard. now this is a live child; it is well born in both senses, come of good parentage, and gives signs of a good constitution. let us rejoice at its birth, and not wait to see if it will grow up. let us now baptize it in the crystal fountain of our own hope. in a great revolution, there are always two things to be looked at, namely, the actions, and the ideas which produce the actions. the actions i will say little of; you have all read of them in the newspapers. some of the actions were bad. it is not true that all at once the french have become angels. there are low and base men, who swarm in the lanes and alleys of paris; for that great city also is like all capitals, girt about with a belt of misery, of vice and of crime, eating into her painful loins. it was a bad thing to sack the tuileries; to burn bridges, and chateaux, and railroad stations. property is under the insurance of mankind, and the human race must pay in public for private depredations. it was a bad thing to kill men; the human race cannot make up that loss; only suffer and be penitent. i am sorry for these bad actions; but i am not surprised at them. you cannot burn down the poor dwelling of a widow in boston, but some miserable man will steal pot or pan, in the confusion of the fire. how much more should we expect pillage and violence in the earthquake which throws down a king! i have said enough of the actions; but there was one deed too symbolical to be passed by. in the garden of the tuileries, before the great gate of the palace, there stands a statue of spartacus, a colossal bronze, his broken chain in the left hand, his roman sword in the right. spartacus was a roman gladiator. he broke his chains; gathered about him other gladiators, fugitive slaves, and assembled an army. he and his comrades fought for freedom; they cut off four consular armies sent against them; at last the hero fell amid a heap of men, slain by his own well-practised hand. when the people took the old and emblematic french throne, and burned it solemnly with emblematic fire, they stripped off some of the crimson trappings of the royal seat, made a tiara thereof, and bound it on the gladiator's brazen head! but red is the color of revolution, the color of blood; the unconscious gladiator was an image too savage for new france. so they hid the roman sword in his hand, and wreathed it all over with a chaplet of flowers! let us say a word of the ideas. three ideas filled the mind of the nation: the idea of liberty, equality and fraternity. three noble words. liberty meant liberty of all. so, at one word, they set free the slaves, and, if my friend's ciphers are correct, at once three hundred thousand souls rise up from the ground disenthralled, free men. that is a great act. a population as large as the whole family of our sober sister connecticut, all at once find their chains drop off, and they are free: not beasts, but men. this may not hold. our declaration of independence was not the confederation of ' --still less was it the constitution of ' . the french may be as false as the americans to their idea of liberty. at any rate, it is a good beginning. let us rejoice at that. equality means that all are equal before the law; equal in rights, however unequal in mights. so all titles of nobility come at once to the ground. the royal family is like the family of our presidents. the chamber of peers is abolished. universal suffrage is decreed; all men over twenty-one are voters. men here in america say, "the french are not ready for that." no doubt the king thought so. at any rate, he was not ready for it. but it is not a thing altogether unknown in france. it has been tried several times before. the french constitution was accepted by the whole people in ; napoleon was made consul by the whole people; made emperor by the whole people. even in , the "acte additionelle" to the "charte" was accepted by the whole people. to decree universal suffrage was the most natural thing in the world. those two ideas, liberty and equality, have long been american ideas; they were never american facts. america sought liberty only for the whites. our fathers thought not of universal suffrage. but france has not only attempted to make our ideas into facts; she has advanced an idea not hinted at in the american declaration; the idea of fraternity. by this she means human brotherhood. this points not merely to a political, but to a social revolution. it is not easy for us to understand how a government can effect this. here, all comes from the people, and the people have to take care of the government, meaning thereby the men in official power; have to furnish them with ideas, and tell them what application to make thereof. there all comes from the government. so the new provisional government of france must be one that can lead the nation; have ideas in advance of the nation. accordingly, it proposes many plans which with us could never have come from any party in power. here, the government is only the servant of the people. there, it aims to be the father and teacher thereof; a patriarchal government with christian thoughts and feelings. but as an eloquent man is to come after me, whose special aim is to develop the idea of human brotherhood into social institutions, i will not dwell on this, save to mention an act of the provisional authorities. they have abolished the punishment of death for all political offences. you remember the guillotine, the massacres of september, the drowning in the loire and the seine, the dreadful butchery in the name of the law. put this new decree side by side with the old, and you see why spartacus, though crowned by a revolution, bears peaceful blossoms in his hand. but let us hasten on; time would fail me to speak of the cause or point out the effect of this movement of the people. only a word concerning the objections made to it. some say, "it is only an extempore affair. men drunk with new power are telling their fancies, and trying in their heat to make laws thereof." it is not so. the ideas i have hinted at have been long known and deeply cherished by the best minds in france. last autumn, m. lamartine, in his own newspaper, for the deputy for macon is an editor, published the "programme and confession of his political faith."[ ] others say, "the whole thing seems rash." well, so it does; so does any good thing seem rash to all except the man who does it, and such as would do it if he did not. what is rash to one is not to another. it is dangerous for an old man to run, fatal for him to leap, while his grandson jumps over wall and ditch without hurt. the american revolution was a rash act; the english revolution a rash act; the protestant reformation was a rash act. was it safe to withstand the revolution? did the king of the french find it so? yet others say, "the leaders are unknown," "lamartine, you might as well put any man in the street at the head of the nation." but when the american revolution begun, who, in england, had ever heard of john hancock, president of the congress? to the men who knew him, john hancock was a country trader, the richest man in a town of ten thousand inhabitants: that did not sound very great at london. samuel adams, and john adams, and thomas jefferson, and all the other men, what did the world know of them? only that they had been christened with hebrew names. why, george washington was only, as gen. braddock called him, "a young buckskin." but the world heard of these men afterwards. let us leave the french statesmen to make to the future what report of themselves they can! let me tell a story of dupont de l'eure, the head of the government at this moment. he was one of the movers of the revolution of . he dined with the citizen king, once, in some council. at the table, he and the king differed; the king affirmed, and dupont denied. said the king, "do you tell me i lie?" said dupont, "when the king says yes, and dupont de l'eure replies no, france will know which to believe!" the king said, "yes, we will put the people down;" dupont said, "no, you shall not put the people down;" and now france knows which to believe. again, say others yet, "war may come; royalty may come back, despotism may come back. other kings will interpose, and put down a republic." other kings interpose to put down the french! perhaps they will. they tried it in , but did not like the experiment very well. they will be well off if they do not find it necessary to put down a republic a little nearer at hand; their anti-revolutionary work may begin at home. war followed the american revolution. it cost money, it cost men. but if we calculate the value of american ideas, they are worth what they cost. even the french revolution, with all its carnage, robbery and butchery, is worth what it cost. but it is possible that war will not come. from a foreign war, france has little to fear. there seems little danger that it will come at all. what monarchy will dare fight republican france? internal trouble may indeed come. it is to be expected that the new republic will make many a misstep. but is it likely that all the old tragedies will be enacted again? surely not; the burnt child dreads the fire. besides, the france of ' is not the france of ' . there is no triple despotism weighing on the nation's neck, a trinity of despotic powers--the throne, the nobility, the church. the king has fled; the nobles have ceased to be; the church seems republican. there is no hatred between class and class, as before. the men of ' sought freedom for the middle class, not for all classes, neither for the high, nor for the low. religion pervades the church and the people, as never before. better ideas prevail. it is not the gospel of jean jaques, and the scoffing negations of voltaire, that are now proclaimed to the people; but the broad maxims of christian men; the words of human brotherhood. the men of terror knew no weapon but the sword; the provisional government casts the sword from its hands, and will not shed blood for political crimes. still, troubles may come; war may come from without, and, worse still, from within; the republic may end. but if it lasts only a day, let us rejoice in that day. suppose it is only the dream of the nation; it is worth while to dream of liberty, of equality, of fraternity; and to dream that we are awake, and trying to make them all into institutions and common life. what is only a dream now, will be a fact at last. next sunday is the election day of france; six millions of voters are to choose nine hundred representatives! shall not the prayers of all christian hearts go up with them on that day, a great deep prayer for their success? the other day, the birthday of washington, the calm, noiseless spirit of death came to release the soul of the patriarch of american statesmen. while his sun was slowly sinking in the western sky, the life-star of a new nation was visibly rising there, far off in the east. a pagan might be pardoned for the thought, that the intrepid soul of that old man foresaw the peril, and, slowly quitting its hold of the worn-out body, went thither to kindle anew the flames of liberty he fanned so often here. that is but a pagan thought. this is a christian thought: the same god who formed the world for man's abode, presides also in the movements of mankind, and directs their voluntary march. see how this earth has been brought to her present firm and settled state. by storm and earthquake, continent has been rent from continent; oceans have swept over the mountains, and the scars of ancient war still mark our parent's venerable face. so is it in the growth of human society: it is the child of pain; revolutions have rocked its cradle, war and violence rudely nursed it into hardy life. good institutions, how painfully, how slowly have they come! "slowly as spreads the green of earth o'er the receding ocean's bed, dim as the distant stars come forth, uncertain as a vision slow, has been the old world's toiling pace, ere she can give fair freedom place." let us welcome the green spot, when it begins to spread; let us shout as the sterile sea of barbarism goes back; let us rejoice in the vision of good things to come; let us welcome the distant and rising orb, for it is the bethlehem star of a great nation, and they who behold it may well say--"peace on earth, and good-will to men." footnotes: [ ] mr. wendell phillips. [ ] see the _courier des etats unis_, for nov. , , which contains passages from m. lamartine's programme, which set forth all the schemes that the provisional government had afterwards tried to carry out. viii. speech at faneuil hall, before the new england anti-slavery convention, may , . the design of the abolitionists is this,--to remove and destroy the institution of slavery. to accomplish this well, two things are needed, ideas and actions. of the ideas first, and then a word of the actions. what is the idea of the abolitionists? only this, that all men are created free, endowed with unalienable rights; and in respect of those rights, that all men are equal. this is the idea of christianity, of human nature. of course, then, no man has a right to take away another's rights; of course, no man may use me for his good, and not my own good also; of course, there can be no ownership of man by man; of course, no slavery in any form. such is the idea, and some of the most obvious doctrines that follow from it. now, the abolitionists aim to put this idea into the minds of the people, knowing that if it be there, actions will follow fast enough. it seems a very easy matter to get it there. the idea is nothing new; all the world knows it. talk with men, democrats and whigs, they will say they like freedom in the abstract, they hate slavery in the abstract. but you find that somehow they like slavery in the concrete, and dislike abolitionism when it tries to set free the slave. slavery is the affair of the whole people; not congress, but the nation, made slavery; made it national, constitutional. not congress, but the voters, must unmake slavery; make it un-constitutional, un-national. they say congress cannot do it. well, perhaps it is so; but they that make can break. if the people made slavery, they can unmake it. you talk with the people; the idea of freedom is there. they tell you they believe the declaration of independence--that all men are created equal. but somehow they contrive to believe that negroes now in bondage are an exception to the rule, and so they tell us that slavery must not be meddled with, that we must respect the compromises of the constitution. so we see that respect for the constitution overrides respect for the inalienable rights of three millions of negro men. now, to move men, it is necessary to know two things--first, what they think, and next, why they think it. let us look a little at both. in new england, men over twenty-one years old may be divided into two classes. first, the men that vote, and secondly, the men that choose the governor. the voters in massachusetts are some hundred and twenty thousand; the men that choose the governor, who tell the people how to vote, whom to vote for, what laws to make, what to forbid, what policy to pursue--they are not very numerous. you may take one hundred men out of boston, and fifty men from the other large towns in the state--and if you could get them to be silent till next december, and give no counsel on political affairs, the people would not know what to do. the democrats would not know what to do, nor the whigs. we are a very democratic people, and suffrage is almost universal; but it is a very few men who tell us how to vote, who make all the most important laws. do i err in estimating the number at one hundred and fifty? i do not like to exaggerate--suppose there are six hundred men, three hundred in each party; that six hundred manage the political action of the state, in ordinary times. i need not stop to ask what the rest of the people think about freedom and slavery. what do the men who control our politics think thereof? i answer, they are not opposed to slavery; to the slavery of three millions of men. they may not like slavery in the abstract, or they may like it, i do not pretend to judge; but slavery in the concrete, at the south, they do like; opposition to that slavery, in the mildest form, or the sternest, they do hate. that is a serious charge to bring against the prominent rulers of the state. let me call your attention to a few facts which prove it. look at the men we send to congress. there are thirty-one new england men in congress. by the most liberal construction you can only make out five anti-slavery men in the whole number. who ever heard of an anti-slavery governor of massachusetts in this century? men know what they are about when they select candidates for election. do the voters always know what they are about when they choose them? then these men always are in favor of a pro-slavery president. the president must be a slaveholder. there have been fifteen presidential elections. men from the free states have filled the chair twelve years, or three terms; men from the slave states forty-four years, or eleven terms. during one term, the chair was filled by an amphibious presidency, by general harrison, who was nothing but a concrete availability, and john tyler, who was--john tyler. they called him an accident; but there are no accidents in politics. a slaveholder presides over the united states forty-eight years out of sixty! do those men who control the politics of new england not like it? it is no such thing. they love to have it so. we have just seen the democratic party, or their leaders, nominate general cass for their candidate--and general cass is a northern man; but on that account is he any the less a pro-slavery man? he did oppose the south once, but it was in pressing a war with england. everybody knows general cass, and i need say no more about him. but the northern whigs have their leaders--are they anti-slavery men? not a whit more. next week you will see them nominate, not the great eastern whig, though he is no opponent of slavery, only an expounder and defender of the constitution; not the great western whig, the compromiser, though steeped to the lips in slavery; no, they will nominate general taylor, a man who lives a little further south, and is at this moment dyed a little more scarlet with the sin of slavery. but go a step further as to the proof. those men who control the politics of massachusetts, or new england, or the whole north, they have never opposed the aggressive movements of the slave power. the annexation of texas, did they oppose that? no, they were glad of it. true, some earnest men came up here in faneuil hall, and passed resolutions, which did no good whatever, because it was well known that the real controllers of our politics thought the other way. then followed the mexican war. it was a war for slavery, and they knew it; they like it now--that is, if a man's likings can be found out by his doings, not his occasional and exceptional deeds, but his regular and constant actions. they knew that there would be a war against the currency, a war against the tariff, or a war against mexico. they chose the latter. they knew what they were about. the same thing is shown by the character of the press. no "respectable" paper is opposed to slavery; no whig paper, no democratic paper. you would as soon expect a catholic newspaper to oppose the pope and his church, for the slave power is the pope of america, though not exactly a pious pope. the churches show the same thing; they also are in the main pro-slavery, at least not anti-slavery. there are some forty denominations or sects in new england. mr. president, is one of these anti-slavery? not one! the land is full of ministers, respectable men, educated men--are they opposed to slavery? i do not know a single man, eminent in any sect, who is also eminent in his opposition to slavery. there was one such man, dr. channing; but just as he became eminent in the cause of freedom, he lost power in his own church, lost caste in his own little sect; and though men are now glad to make sectarian capital out of his reputation after he is dead, when he lived, they cursed him by their gods! then, too, all the most prominent men of new england fraternize with slavery. massachusetts received such an insult from south carolina as no state ever before received from another state in this union; an affront which no nation would dare offer another, without grinding its sword first. and what does massachusetts do? she does--nothing. but her foremost man goes off there, "the schoolmaster that gives no lessons,"[ ] to accept the hospitality of the south, to take the chivalry of south carolina by the hand; the defender of the constitution fraternizes with the state which violates the constitution, and imprisons his own constituents on account of the color of their skin. put all these things together, and they show that the men who control the politics of massachusetts, of all new england, do not oppose or dislike slavery. * * * * * so much for what they think; and now for the why they think so. first, there is the general indifference to what is absolutely right. men think little of it. the anglo-saxon race, on both sides of the water, have always felt the instinct of freedom, and often contended stoutly enough for their own rights. but they never cared much for the rights of other men. the slaves are at a distance from us, and so the wrong of this institution is not brought home to men's feelings as if it were our own wrong. then the pecuniary interests of the north are supposed to be connected with slavery, so that the north would lose dollars if the south lost slaves. no doubt this is a mistake; still, it is an opinion currently held. the north wants a market for its fabrics, freight for its ships. the south affords it; and, as men think, better than if she had manufactures and ships of her own, both of which she could have, were there no slaves. all this seems to be a mistake. freedom, i think, can be shown to be the interest of both north and south. yet another reason is found in devotion to the interests of a party. tell a whig he could make whig capital out of anti-slavery, he would turn abolitionist in a moment, if he believed you. tell a democrat that he can make capital out of abolition, and he also will come over to your side. but the fact is, each party knows it would gain nothing for its political purposes by standing out for the rights of man. the time will come, and sooner too than some men think, when it will be for the interest of a party to favor abolition; but that time is not yet. it does seem strange, that while you can find men who will practise a good deal of self-denial for their sect or their party, lending, and hoping nothing in return, you so rarely find a man who will compromise even his popularity for the sake of mankind. then again, there is the fear of change. men who control our politics seem to have little confidence in man, little in truth, little in justice, and the eternal right. therefore, while it is never out of season to do something for the tariff, for the moneyed interests of men, they think it is never in time to do much for the great work of elevating mankind itself. they have no confidence in the people, and take little pains to make the people worthy of confidence. so any change which gives a more liberal government to a people, which gives freedom to the slave, they look on with distrust, if not alarm. in , when the french expelled the despotic king who encumbered their throne, what said massachusetts, what said new england, in honor of the deed? nothing. your old men? nothing. your young men? not a word. what did they care for the freedom of thirty millions of men? they were looking at their imports and exports. in , when england set free eight hundred thousand men in a day, what did massachusetts say about that? what had new england to say? not a word in its favor from these political leaders of the land. nay, they thought the experiment was dangerous, and ever since that it is with great reluctance you can get them to confess that the scheme works well. in , when france again expels her king, and all the royalty in the kingdom is carted off in a one-horse cab--when the broadest principles of human government are laid down, and a great nation sets about the difficult task of moving out of her old political house, and into a new one, without tearing down the old, without butchering men in the process of removal,--why, what has boston to say to that? what have the political leaders of massachusetts, of new england, to say? they have nothing to say for liberty; they are sorry the experiment was made; they are afraid the french will not want so much cotton; they have no confidence in man, and fear every change. such are their opinions, to judge by what they do; such the reasons thereof, judging by what they say. * * * * * but now how can we change this, and get the idea of freedom into men's minds? something can be done by the gradual elevation of men, by schools and churches, by the press. the churches and colleges of new england have not directly aided us in the work of abolishing slavery. no doubt by their direct action they have retarded that work, and that a good deal. but indirectly they have done much to hasten the work. they have helped educate men; helped make men moral, in a general way; and now this moral power can be turned to this special business, though the churches say, "no, you shall not." i see before me a good and an earnest man,[ ] who, not opening his mouth in public against slavery, has yet done a great service in this way: he has educated the teachers of the commonwealth, has taught them to love freedom, to love justice, to love man and god. that is what i call sowing the seeds of anti-slavery. the honored and excellent secretary of education,[ ] who has just gone to stand in the place of a famous man, and i hope to fill it nobly, has done much in this way. i wish in his reports on education he had exposed the wrong which is done here in boston, by putting all the colored children in one school, by shutting them out of the latin school and the english high school. i wish he had done that duty, which plainly belongs to him to do. but without touching that, he has yet done, indirectly, a great work towards the abolition of slavery. he has sown the seeds of education wide spread over the state. one day these seeds will come up; come up men, men that will both vote and choose the governor; men that will love right and justice; will see the iniquity of american slavery, and sweep it off the continent, cost what it may cost, spite of all compromises of the constitution, and all compromisers. i look on that as certain. but that is slow work, this waiting for a general morality to do a special act. it is going without dinner till the wheat is grown for your bread. so we want direct and immediate action upon the people themselves. the idea must be set directly before them, with all its sanctions displayed, and its obligations made known. this can be done in part by the pulpit. dr. channing shows how much one man can do, standing on that eminence. you all know how much he did do. i am sorry that he came so late, sorry that he did not do more, but thankful for what he did do. however, you cannot rely on the pulpit to do much. the pulpit represents the average goodness and piety; not eminent goodness and piety. it is unfair to call ordinary men to do extraordinary works. i do not concur in all the hard things that are said about the clergy, perhaps it is because i am one of them; but i do not expect a great deal from them. it is hard to call a class of men all at once to rise above all other classes of men, and teach a degree of virtue which they do not understand. but you may call them to be true to their own consciences. so the pulpit is not to be relied on for much aid. if all the ministers of new england were abolitionists, with the same zeal that they are protestants, universalists, methodists, calvinists, or unitarians, no doubt the whole state would soon be an anti-slavery state, and the day of emancipation would be wonderfully hastened. but that we are not to look for. much can be done by lecturers, who shall go to the people and address them, not as whigs or democrats, not as sectarians, but as men, and in the name of man and god present the actual condition of the slaves, and show the duty of the north and the south, of the nation, in regard to this matter. for this business, we want money and men, the two sinews of war; money to pay the men, men to earn the money. they must appeal to the people in their primary capacity, simply as men. much also may be done by the press. how much may be done by these two means, and that in a few years, these men[ ] can tell; all the north and south can tell. men of the most diverse modes of thought can work together in this cause. here on my right is mr. phillips, an old-fashioned calvinist, who believes all the five points of calvinism. i am rather a new-fashioned unitarian, and believe only one of the five points, the one mr. phillips has proved--the perseverance of the saints; but we get along without any quarrel by the way. some men will try political action. the action of the people, of the nation, must be political action. it may be constitutional, it may be un-constitutional. i see not why men need quarrel about that. let not him that voteth, condemn him that voteth not; nor let not him that voteth not, condemn him that voteth, but let every man be faithful to his own convictions. it is said, the abolitionists waste time and wind in denunciation. it is partly true. i make no doubt it inspires the slaveholder's heart to see division amongst his foes. i ought to say his friends, for such we are. he thinks the day of justice is deferred, while the ministers thereof contend. i do not believe a revolution is to be baptized with rose-water. i do not believe a great work is to be done without great passions. it is not to be supposed that the leviathan of american slavery will allow himself to be drawn out of the mire in which he has made his nest, and grown fat and strong, without some violence and floundering. when we have caught him fairly, he will put his feet into the mud to hold on by; he will reach out and catch hold of every thing that will hold him. he has caught hold of mr. clay and mr. webster. he will catch hold of general cass and general taylor. he will die, though slowly, and die hard. still it is a pity that men who essay to pull him out, should waste their strength in bickerings with one another, or in needless denunciation of the leviathan's friends. call slaveholding, slaveholding; let us tell all the evils which arise from it, if we can find language terrible enough; let us show up the duplicity of the nation, the folly of our wise men, the littleness of our great men, the baseness of our honorable men, if need be; but all that with no unkind feelings toward any one. virtue never appears so lovely as when destroying sin, she loves the sinner, and seeks to save him. absence of love is absence of the strongest power. see how much mr. adams lost of his influence, how much he wasted of his strength, by the violence with which he pursued persons. i am glad to acknowledge the great services he performed. he wished to have every man stand on the right side of the anti-slavery line; but i believe there were some men whom he would like to have put there with a pitch-fork. on the other hand, dr. channing never lost a moment by attacking a personal foe; and see what he gained by it! however, i must say this, that no great revolution of opinion and practice was ever brought about before with so little violence, waste of force, and denunciation. consider the greatness of the work: it is to restore three millions to liberty; a work, in comparison with which the american revolution was a little thing. yet consider the violence, the denunciation, the persecution, and the long years of war, which that revolution cost. i do not wonder that abolitionists are sometimes violent; i only deplore it. remembering the provocation, i wonder they are not more so and more often. the prize is to be run for, "not without dust and heat." working in this way, we are sure to succeed. the idea is an eternal truth. it will find its way into the public mind, for there is that sympathy between man and the truth, that he cannot live without it and be blessed. what allies we have on our side! true, the cupidity, the tyranny, the fear and the atheism of the land are against us. but all the nobleness, all the honor, all the morality, all the religion, are on our side. i was sorry to hear it said, that the religion of the land opposed us. it is not true. religion never opposed any good work. i know what my friend meant, and i wish he had said it, calling things by their right names. it is the irreligion of the land that favors slavery; it is the idolatry of gold; it is our atheism. of speculative atheism there is not much; you see how much of the practical! we are certain of success; the spirit of the age is on our side. see how the old nations shake their tyrants out of the land. see how every steamer brings us good tidings of good things; and do you believe america can keep her slaves? it is idle to think so. so all we want is time. on our side are truth, justice, and the eternal right. yes, on our side is religion, the religion of christ; on our side are the hopes of mankind, and the great power of god. footnotes: [ ] this was a sentiment offered at a public dinner given by the citizens of charleston, s. c., to hon. daniel webster. [ ] rev. cyrus pierce, teacher of the normal school at newton. [ ] hon. horace mann. [ ] messrs. garrison, phillips and quincy. ix. some thoughts on the free soil party and the election of general taylor. december, . the people of the united states have just chosen an officer, who, for the next four years, will have more power than any monarch of europe; yet three years ago he was scarcely known out of the army in florida, and even now has appeared only in the character of a successful general. his supporters at the north intend, by means of his election, to change the entire commercial policy of the country, and perhaps, also, its financial policy; they contemplate, or profess to contemplate, a great change. yet the election has been effected without tumult or noise; not a soldier has drawn his bayonet; scarcely has a constable needed his official rod to keep order withal. in europe, at the same time, the beginning of a change in the national dynasty or the national policy is only attempted by violence, by soldiers with arms ready for fight, by battle and murder. one day or another, men will be wise enough to see the cause of this difference, and insular statesmen in england, who now sneer at the new government in america, may learn that democracy has at least one quality--that of respecting law and order, and may live to see ours the oldest government in the whole caucasian race. since the election is now over, it is worth while to look a moment at the politics and political parties of the country, that we may gain wisdom for the future, and perhaps hope; at any rate, may see the actual condition of things. each political party is based on an idea, which corresponds to a truth, or an interest. it commonly happens that the idea is represented as an interest, and the interest as an idea, before either becomes the foundation of a large party. now when a new idea is introduced to any party, or applied to any institution, if it be only auxiliary to the old doctrines incarnated therein, a regular growth and new development take place; but when the new idea is hostile to the old, the development takes place under the form of a revolution, and that will be greater or less in proportion to the difference between the new idea and the old doctrine; in proportion to their relative strength and value. as aristotle said of seditions, a revolution comes on slight occasions, but not of slight causes;[ ] the occasion may be obvious and obviously trivial, but the cause obscure and great. the occasion of the french revolution of was afforded by the attempt of the king to prevent a certain public dinner: he had a legal right to prevent it. the cause of the revolution was a little different; but some men in america and england, at first, scarcely looked beyond the occasion, and, taking that for the cause, thought the frenchmen fools to make so much ado about a trifle, and that they had better eat their _soupe maigre_ at home, and let their victuals stop their mouths. the occasion of the american revolution may be found in the stamp-act, or the sugar-act, the writs of assistance, or the boston port-bill; some men, even now, see no further, and logically conclude the colonists made a mistake, because for a dozen years they were far worse off than before the "rebellion," and have never been so lightly taxed since. such men do not see the cause of the revolution, which was not an unwillingness to pay taxes, but a determination to govern themselves. at the present day it is plain that a revolution, neither slow nor silent, is taking place in the political parties of america. the occasion thereof is the nomination of a man for the presidency who has no political or civil experience, but who has three qualities that are important in the eyes of the leading men who have supported and pushed him forward: one is, that he is an eminent slaveholder, whose interests and accordingly whose ideas are identical with those of the slaveholders; the next, that he is not hostile to the doctrines of northern manufacturers respecting a protective tariff; and the third, that he is an eminent and very successful military commander. the last is an accidental quality, and it is not to be supposed that the intelligent and influential men at the north and south who have promoted his election, value him any more on that account, or think that mere military success fits him for his high office, and enables him to settle the complicated difficulties of a modern state. they must know better; but they must have known that many men of little intelligence are so taken with military glory that they will ask for no more in their hero; it was foreseen, also, that honest and intelligent men of all parties would give him their vote because he had never been mixed up with the intrigues of political life. thus "far-sighted" politicians of the north and south saw that he might be fairly elected, and then might serve the purposes of the slaveholder, or the manufacturer of the north. the military success of general taylor, an accidental merit, was only the occasion of his nomination by the whigs; his substantial merit was found in the fact, that he was supposed, or known, to be favorable to the "peculiar institution" of the south, and the protective policy of the manufacturers at the north: this was the cause of his formal nomination by the whig convention of philadelphia, and his real nomination by members of the whig party at washington. the men of property at the south wanted an extension of slavery; the men of property at the north, a high protective tariff; and it was thought general taylor could serve both purposes, and promote the interests of the north and south. such is the occasion of the revolution in political parties: the cause is the introduction of a new idea into these parties entirely hostile to some of their former doctrines. in the electioneering contest, the new idea was represented by the words "free soil." for present practice it takes a negative form: "no more slave states, no more slave territory," is the motto. but these words and this motto do not adequately represent the idea, only so much thereof as has been needful in the present crisis. before now there has been much in the political history of america to provoke the resentment of the north. england has been ruled by various dynasties; the american chair has been chiefly occupied by the southern house, the dynasty of slaveholders: now and then a member of the northern house has sat on that seat, but commonly it has been a "northern man with southern principles," never a man with mind to see the great idea of america, and will to carry it out in action. still the spirit of liberty has not died out of the north; the attempt to put an eighth slaveholder in the chair of "the model republic," gave occasion for that spirit to act again. the new idea is not hostile to the distinctive doctrine of either political party; neither to free trade, nor to protection; so it makes no revolution in respect to them: it is neutral, and leaves both as it found them. it is not hostile to the general theory of the american state, so it makes no revolution there; this idea is assumed as self-evident, in the declaration of independence. it is not inimical to the theory of the constitution of the united states, as set forth in the preamble thereto, where the design of the constitution is declared to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." there are clauses in the constitution, which are exceptions to this theory, and hostile to the design mentioned above; to such, this idea will one day prove itself utterly at variance, as it is now plainly hostile to one part of the practice of the american government, and that of both the parties. we have had several political parties since the revolution: the federalists, and anti-federalists,--the latter shading off into republicans, democrats, and loco focos; the former tapering into modern whigs, in which guise some of their fathers would scarcely recognize the family type. we have had a protective party and an anti-protective party; once there was a free-trade party, which no longer appears in politics. there has been a national bank party, which seems to have gone to the realm of things lost on earth. in the rise and fall of these parties, several dramas, tragic and comic, have been performed on the american boards, where "one man in his time plays many parts," and stout representatives of the hartford convention find themselves on the same side with worshippers of the gerrymander, and shouting the same cry. it is kindly ordered that memory should be so short, and brass so common. none of the old parties is likely to return; the living have buried the dead. "we are all federalists," said mr. jefferson, "we are all democrats," and truly, so far as old questions are concerned. it is well known that the present representatives of the old federal party, have abjured the commercial theory of their predecessors; and the men who were "jacobins" at the beginning of the century, curse the new french revolution by their gods. at the presidential election of , there were but two parties in the field--democrats and whigs. as they both survive, it is well to see what interests or what ideas they represent. they differ accidentally in the possession and the desire of power; in the fact that the former took the initiative, in annexing texas, and in making the mexican war, while the latter only pretended to oppose either, but zealously and continually coöperated in both. then, again, the democratic party sustains the sub-treasury system, insisting that the government shall not interfere with banking, shall keep its own deposits, and give and take only specie in its business with the people. the whig party, if we understand it, has not of late developed any distinctive doctrine, on the subject of money and financial operations, but only complained of the action of the sub-treasury; yet, as it sustained the late bank of the united states, and appropriately followed as chief mourner at the funeral thereof, uttering dreadful lamentations and prophecies which time has not seen fit to accomplish, it still keeps up a show of differing from the democrats on this matter. these are only accidental or historical differences, which do not practically affect the politics of the nation to any great degree. the substantial difference between the two is this: the whigs desire a tariff of duties which shall directly and intentionally protect american industry, or, as we understand it, shall directly and intentionally protect manufacturing industry, while the commercial and agricultural interests are to be protected indirectly, not as if they were valuable in themselves, but were a collateral security to the manufacturing interest: a special protection is desired for the great manufactures, which are usually conducted by large capitalists--such as the manufacture of wool, iron, and cotton. on the other hand, the democrats disclaim all direct protection of any special interest, but, by raising the national revenue from the imports of the nation, actually afford a protection to the articles of domestic origin to the extent of the national revenue, and much more. that is the substantial difference between the two parties--one which has been much insisted on at the late election, especially at the north. is this difference of any practical importance at the present moment? there are two methods of raising the revenue of a country: first, by direct taxation,--a direct tax on the person, a direct tax on the property; second, by indirect taxation. to a simple-minded man direct taxation seems the only just and equal mode of collecting the public revenue: thereby, the rich man pays in proportion to his much, the poor to his little. this is so just and obvious, that it is the only method resorted to, in towns of the north, for raising their revenue. but while it requires very little common sense and virtue to appreciate this plan in a town, it seems to require a good deal to endure it in a nation. the four direct taxes levied by the american government since have been imperfectly collected, and only with great difficulty and long delay. to avoid this difficulty, the government resorts to various indirect modes of taxation, and collects the greater part of its revenue from the imports which reach our shores. in this way a man's national tax is not directly in proportion to his wealth, but directly in proportion to his consumption of imported goods, or directly to that of domestic goods, whose price is enhanced by the duties laid on the foreign article. so it may happen that an irish laborer, with a dozen children, pays a larger national tax than a millionnaire who sees fit to live in a miserly style. besides, no one knows when he pays or what. at first it seems as if the indirect mode of taxation made the burden light, but in the end it does not always prove so. the remote effect thereof is sometimes remarkable. the tax of one per cent, levied in massachusetts on articles sold by auction, has produced some results not at all anticipated. now since neither party ventures to suggest direct taxation, the actual question between the two is not between free trade and protection, but only between a protective and a revenue tariff. so the real and practical question between them is this: shall there be a high tariff or a low one? at first sight a man not in favor of free trade might think the present tariff gave sufficient protection to those great manufactures of wool, cotton, and iron, and as much as was reasonable. but the present duty is perhaps scarcely adequate to meet the expenses of the nation, for with new territory new expenses must come; there is a large debt to be discharged, its interest to be paid; large sums will be demanded as pensions for the soldiers. since these things are so, it is but reasonable to conclude that, under the administration of the whigs or democrats, a pretty high tariff of duties will continue for some years to come. so the great and substantial difference between the two parties ceases to be of any great and substantial importance. in the mean time another party rises up, representing neither of these interests; without developing any peculiar views relative to trade or finance, it proclaims the doctrine that there must be no more slave territory, and no more slave states. this doctrine is of great practical importance, and one in which the free soil party differs substantially from both the other parties. the idea on which the party rests is not new; it does not appear that the men who framed the constitution, or the people who accepted it, ever contemplated the extension of slavery beyond the limits of the united states at that time; had such a proposition been then made, it would have been indignantly rejected by both. the principle of the wilmot proviso boasts the same origin as the declaration of independence. the state of feeling at the north occasioned by the missouri compromise is well known, but after that there was no political party opposed to slavery. no president has been hostile to it; no cabinet; no congress. in , mr. pickering, a senator from massachusetts, brought forward his bill for amending the constitution, so that slaves should not form part of the basis of representation; but it fell to the ground, not to be lifted up by his successors for years to come. the refusal of john quincy adams, while president, to recognize the independence of hayti, and his efforts to favor the slave power, excited no remark. in , for the first time the anti-slavery votes began seriously to affect the presidential election. at that time the whigs had nominated mr. clay as their candidate, a man of great powers, of popular manners, the friend of northern industry, but still more the friend of southern slavery, and more directly identified with that than any man in so high a latitude. the result of the anti-slavery votes is well known. the bitterest reproaches have been heaped on the men who voted against him as the incarnation of the slave power; the annexation of texas, though accomplished by a whig senate, and the mexican war, though only sixteen members of congress voted against it, have both been laid to their charge; and some have even affected to wonder that men conscientiously opposed to slavery could not forget their principle for the sake of their party, and put a most decided slaveholder, who had treated not only them but their cause with scorn and contempt, in the highest place of power. the whig party renewed its attempt to place a slaveholder in the president's chair, at a time when all europe was rising to end for ever the tyranny of man. general taylor was particularly obnoxious to the anti-slavery men. he is a slaveholder, holding one or two hundred men in bondage, and enlarging that number by recent purchases; he employs them in the worst kind of slave labor, the manufacture of sugar; he leaves them to the mercy of overseers, the dregs and refuse of mankind; he has just returned from a war undertaken for the extension of slavery; he is a southern man with southern interests, and opinions favorable to slavery, and is uniformly represented by his supporters at the south, as decidedly opposed to the wilmot proviso, and in favor of the extension of slavery. we know this has been denied at the north; but the testimony of the south settles the question. the convention of democrats in south carolina, when they also nominated him, said well, "his interests are our interests:... we know that on this great, paramount, and leading question of the rights of the south [to extend slavery over the new territory], he is for us and he is with us." said a newspaper in his own state, "general taylor is from birth, association, and conviction, identified with the south and her institutions, being one of the most extensive slaveholders in louisiana, and supported by the slaveholding interest; is opposed to the wilmot proviso, and in favor of procuring the privilege to the owners of slaves to remove with them to newly acquired territory." the southerners evidently thought the crisis an important one. the following is from the distinguished whig senator, mr. berrien. "i consider it the most important presidential election, especially to southern men, which has occurred since the foundation of the government. "we have great and important interests at stake. if we fail to sustain them now, we may be forced too soon to decide whether we will remain in the union, at the mercy of a band of fanatics or political jugglers, or reluctantly retire from it for the preservation of our domestic institutions, and all our rights as freemen. if we are united, we can sustain them; if we divide on the old party issues, we must be victims. "with a heart devoted to their interests on this great question, and without respect to party, i implore my fellow-citizens of georgia, whig and democratic, to forget for the time their party divisions: to know each other only as southern men: to act upon the truism uttered by mr. calhoun, that on this vital question,--the preservation of our domestic institutions,--the southern man who is furthest from us, is nearer to us than any northern man can be; that general taylor is identified with us, in feeling and interest, was born in a slaveholding state, educated in a slaveholding state, is himself a slaveholder; that his slave property constitutes the means of support to himself and family; that he cannot desert us without sacrificing his interest, his principle, the habits and feelings of his life; and that with him, therefore, our institutions are safe. i beseech them, therefore, from the love which they bear to our noble state, to rally under the banner of zachary taylor, and, with one united voice, to send him by acclamation to the executive chair." all this has been carefully kept from the sight of the people at the north. there have always been men in america, who were opposed to the extension and the very existence of slavery. in , the best and the most celebrated statesmen were publicly active on the side of freedom. some thought slavery a sin, others a mistake, but nearly all in the convention thought it an error. south carolina and georgia were the only states thoroughly devoted to slavery at that time. they threatened to withdraw from the union, if it were not sufficiently respected in the new constitution. if the other states had said, "you may go, soon as you like, for hitherto you have been only a curse to us, and done little but brag," it would have been better for us all. however, partly for the sake of keeping the peace, and still more for the purpose of making money by certain concessions of the south, the north granted the southern demands. after the adoption of the constitution, the anti-slavery spirit cooled down; other matters occupied the public mind. the long disasters of europe; the alarm of the english party, who feared their sons should be "conscripts in the armies of napoleon," and the violence of the french party, who were ready to compromise the dignity of the nation, and add new elements to the confusion in europe; the subsequent conflict with england, and then the efforts to restore the national character, and improve our material condition,--these occupied the thought of the nation, till the missouri compromise again disturbed the public mind. but that was soon forgotten; little was said about slavery. in the eighteenth century, it was discussed in the colleges and newspapers, even in the pulpits of the north; but, in the first quarter of the nineteenth, little was heard of it. manufactures got established at the north, and protected by duties; at the south, cotton was cultivated with profit, and a heavy duty protected the slave-grown sugar of louisiana. the pecuniary interests of north and south became closely connected, and both seemed dependent on the peaceable continuance of slavery. little was said against it, little thought, and nothing done. southern masters voluntarily brought their slaves to new england, and took them back, no one offering the african the conventional shelter of the law, not to speak of the natural shelter of justice. we well remember the complaint made somewhat later, when a judge decided that a slave, brought here by his master's consent, became, from that moment, free! but where sin abounded, grace doth much more abound. there rose up one man who would not compromise, nor be silent,--who would be heard.[ ] he spoke of the evil, spoke of the sin--for all true reforms are bottomed on religion, and while they seem adverse to many interests, yet represent the idea of the eternal. he found a few others, a very few, and began the anti-slavery movement. the "platform" of the new party was not an interest, but an idea--that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." every truth is also a fact; this was a fact of human consciousness, and a truth of necessity. the time has not come to write the history of the abolitionists,--other deeds must come before words; but we cannot forbear quoting the testimony of one witness, as to the state of anti-slavery feeling in new england in . it is the late hon. harrison gray otis, a former mayor of boston, who speaks in his recent letter. "the first information received by me, of a disposition to agitate this subject in our state, was from the governors of virginia and georgia, severally remonstrating against an incendiary newspaper, published in boston, and, as they alleged, thrown broadcast among their plantations, inciting to insurrection and its horrid results. it appeared, on inquiry, that no member of the city government [of boston] had ever heard of the publication. some time afterwards it was reported to me by the city officers, that they had ferreted out the paper and its editor; that his office was an obscure hole, his only visible auxiliary a negro boy, and his supporters a very few insignificant persons of all colors. this information.... i communicated to the above-named governors, with an assurance of my belief that the new fanaticism had not made, nor was likely to make, proselytes among the respectable classes of our people." such was the state of things in . anti-slavery had "an obscure hole" for its head-quarters; the one agitator, who had filled the two doughty governors of virginia and georgia with uncomfortable forebodings, had a "negro boy" "for his only visible auxiliary," and none of the respectable men of boston had heard of the hole, of the agitator, of the negro boy, or even of the agitation. one thing must be true: either the man and the boy were pretty vigorous, or else there was a great truth in that obscure hole; for, in spite of the governors and the mayors, spite of the many able men in the south and the north, spite, also, of the wealth and respectability of the whole land, it is a plain case that the abolitionists have shaken the nation, and their idea is the idea of the time; and the party which shall warmly welcome that is destined before long to override all the other parties. one thing must be said of the leaders of the anti-slavery movement. they asked for nothing but justice; not justice for themselves--they were not socratic enough to ask that,--but only justice for the slave; and to obtain that, they forsook all that human hearts most love. it is rather a cheap courage that fought at monterey and palo alto, a bravery that can be bought for eight dollars a month; the patriotism which hurras for "our side," which makes speeches at faneuil hall, nay, which carries torch-lights in a procession, is not the very loftiest kind of patriotism; even the man who stands up at the stake, and in one brief hour of agony anticipates the long torment of disease, does not endure the hardest, but only the most obvious kind of martyrdom. but when a man, for conscience' sake, leaves a calling that would insure him bread and respectability; when he abjures the opinions which give him the esteem of honorable men; when, for the sake of truth and justice, he devotes himself to liberating the most abused and despised class of men, solely because they are men and brothers; when he thus steps forth in front of the world, and encounters poverty and neglect, the scorn, the loathing, and the contempt of mankind--why, there is something not very common in that. there was once a man who had not where to lay his head, who was born in "an obscure hole," and had not even a negro boy for his "auxiliary;" who all his life lived with most obscure persons--eating and drinking with publicans and sinners; who found no favor with mayors or governors, and yet has had some influence on the history of the world. when intelligent men mock at small beginnings, it is surprising they cannot remember that the greatest institutions have had their times which tried men's souls, and that they who have done all the noblest and best work of mankind, sometimes forgot self-interest in looking at a great truth; and though they had not always even a negro boy to help them, or an obscure hole to lay their heads in, yet found the might of the universe was on the side of right, and themselves workers with god! the abolitionists did not aim to found a political party; they set forth an idea. if they had set up the interest of the whigs or the democrats, the manufacturers or the merchants, they might have formed a party and had a high place in it, with money, ease, social rank and a great name in the party--newspapers. some of them had political talents, ideas more than enough, the power of organizing men, the skill to manage them, and a genius for eloquence. with such talents, it demands not a little manliness to keep out of politics and in the truth. to found a political party there is no need of a great moral idea: the whig party has had none such this long time; the democratic party pretends to none and acts on none; each represents an interest which can be estimated in dollars; neither seems to see that behind questions of political economy there is a question of political morality, and the welfare of the nation depends on the answer we shall give! so long as the abolitionists had nothing but an idea, and but few men had that, there was no inducement for the common run of politicians to join them; they could make nothing by it, so nothing of it. the guardians of education, the trustees of the popular religion, did not like to invest in such funds. but still the idea went on, spite of the most entire, the most bitter, the most heartless and unrelenting opposition ever known in america. no men were ever hated as the abolitionists; political parties have joined to despise, and sectarian churches to curse them. yet the idea has gone on, till now all that is most pious in the sects, most patriotic in the parties, all that is most christian in modern philanthropy, is on its side. it has some representative in almost every family, save here and there one whose god is mammon alone, where the parents are antediluvian and the children born old and conservative, with no faculty but memory to bind them to mankind. it has its spokesmen in the house and the senate. the tide rises and swells, and the compact wall of the whig party, the tall ramparts of the democrats, are beginning to "cave in." as the idea has gained ground, men have begun to see that an interest is connected with it, and begun to look after that. one thing the north knows well--the art of calculation, and of ciphering. so it begins to ask questions as to the positive and comparative influence of the slave power on the country. who fought the revolution? why the north, furnishing the money and the men, massachusetts alone sending fourteen thousand soldiers more than all the present slave states. who pays the national taxes? the north, for the slaves pay but a trifle. who owns the greater part of the property, the mills, the shops, the ships? the north. who writes the books--the histories, poems, philosophies, works of science, even the sermons and commentaries on the bible? still the north. who sends their children to school and college? the north. who builds the churches, who founds the bible societies, education societies, missionary societies, the thousand-and-one institutions for making men better and better off? why the north. in a word, who is it that in seventy years has made the nation great, rich, and famous for her ideas and their success all over the world? the answer is, still the north, the north. well, says the calculator, but who has the offices of the nation? the south. who has filled the presidential chair forty-eight years out of sixty? nobody but slaveholders. who has held the chief posts of honor? the south. who occupy the chief offices in the army and navy? the south. who increases the cost of the post-office and pays so little of its expense?[ ] the south. who is most blustering and disposed to quarrel? the south. who made the mexican war? the south. who sets at nought the constitution? the south. who would bring the greatest peril in case of war with a strong enemy? why the south, the south. but what is the south most noted for abroad? for her three million slaves; and the north? for her wealth, freedom, education, religion! then the calculator begins to remember past times--opens the account-books and turns back to old charges: five slaves count the same as three freemen, and the three million slaves, which at home are nothing but property, entitle their owners to as many representatives in congress as are now sent by all the one million eight hundred thousand freemen who make the entire population of maine, new hampshire, vermont, rhode island, and massachusetts, and have created a vast amount of property worth more than all the slave states put together! then the north must deliver up the fugitive slaves, and ohio must play the traitor, the kidnapper, the bloodhound, for kentucky! the south wanted to make two slave states out of florida, and will out of texas; she makes slavery perpetual in both; she is always bragging as if she made the revolution, while she only laid the embargo, and began the late war with england,--but that is going further back than is needful. the south imprisons our colored sailors in her ports, contrary to justice, and even contrary to the constitution. she drove our commissioners out of south carolina and louisiana, when they were sent to look into the matter and legally seek for redress. she affronts the world with a most odious despotism, and tried to make the english return her runaway slaves, making the nation a reproach before the world; she insists on kidnapping men even in boston; she declares that we shall not abolish slavery in the capital of the union; that she will extend it in spite of us from sea to sea. she annexed texas for a slave-pasture, and then made the mexican war to enlarge that pasture, but the north must pay for it; she treads the constitution under her feet, the north under her feet, justice and the unalienable rights of man under her feet. the north has charged all these items and many more; now they are brought up for settlement, and, if not cancelled, will not be forgot till the muse of history gives up the ghost; some northern men have the american sentiment, and the american idea, put the man before the dollar, counting man the substance, property the accident. the sentiment and idea of liberty are bottomed on christianity, as that on human nature; they are quite sure to prevail; the spirit of the nation is on their side--the spirit of the age and the everlasting right. it is instructive to see how the political parties have hitherto kept clear of anti-slavery. it is "no part of the whig doctrine;" the democrats abhor it. mr. webster, it is true, once claimed the wilmot proviso as his thunder, but he cannot wield it, and so it slips out of his hands, and runs round to the chair of his brother senator from new hampshire.[ ] no leading politician in america has ever been a leader against slavery. even mr. adams only went as he was pushed. true, among the whigs there are giddings, palfrey, tuck, mann, root, and julian; among the democrats there is hale--and a few others; but what are they among so many? the members of the family of truth are unpopular, they make excellent servants but hard masters, while the members of the family of interest are all respectable, and are the best company in the world; their livery is attractive; their motto, "the almighty dollar," is a passport everywhere. now it happens that some of the more advanced members of the family of truth fight their way into "good society," and make matrimonial alliances with some of the poor relations of the family of interest. straightway they become respectable; the church publishes the banns; the marriage is solemnized in the most christian form; the attorney declares it legal. so the gospel and law are satisfied, truth and interest made one, and many persons after this alliance may be seen in the company of truth who before knew not of her existence. the free soil party has grown out of the anti-slavery movement. it will have no more slave territory, but does not touch slavery in the states, or between them, and says nothing against the compromises of the constitution; the time has not come for that. the party has been organized in haste, and is composed, as are all parties, of most discordant materials, some of its members seeming hardly familiar with the idea; some are not yet emancipated from old prejudices, old methods of action, and old interests; but the greater part seem hostile to slavery in all its forms. the immediate triumph of this new party is not to be looked for; not desirable. in massachusetts they have gained large numbers in a very short period, and under every disadvantage. what their future history is to be, we will not now attempt to conjecture; but this is plain, that they cannot remain long in their present position; either they will go back, and, after due penance, receive political absolution from the church of the whigs, or the democrats,--and this seems impossible,--or else they must go forward where the idea of justice impels them. one day the motto "no more slave territory" will give place to this, "no slavery in america." the revolution in ideas is not over till that is done, nor the corresponding revolution in deeds while a single slave remains in america. a man who studies the great movements of mankind feels sure that that day is not far off; that no combination of northern and southern interest, no declamation, no violence, no love of money, no party zeal, no fraud and no lies, no compromise, can long put off the time. bad passions will ere long league with the holiest love of right, and that wickedness may be put down with the strong hand which might easily be ended at little cost and without any violence, even of speech. one day the democratic party of the north will remember the grievances which they have suffered from the south, and, if they embrace the idea of freedom, no constitutional scruple will long hold them from destroying the "peculiar institution." what slavery is in the middle of the nineteenth century is quite plain; what it will be at the beginning of the twentieth it is not difficult to foresee. the slave power has gained a great victory: one more such will cost its life. south carolina did not forget her usual craft in voting for a northern man that was devoted to slavery. * * * * * let us now speak briefly of the conduct of the election. it has been attended, at least in new england, with more intellectual action than any election that i remember, and with less violence, denunciation, and vulgar appeals to low passions and sordid interest. massachusetts has shown herself worthy of her best days; the free soil vote may be looked on with pride, by men who conscientiously cast their ballot the other way. men of ability and integrity have been active on both sides, and able speeches have been made, while the vulgarity that marked the "harrison campaign" has not been repeated. in this contest the democratic party made a good confession, and "owned up" to the full extent of their conduct. they stated the question at issue, fairly, clearly, and entirely; the point could not be mistaken. the baltimore convention dealt honestly in declaring the political opinions of the party; the opinions of their candidate on the great party questions, and the subject of slavery, were made known with exemplary clearness and fidelity. the party did not fight in the dark; they had no dislike to holding slaves, and they pretended none. in all parts of the land they went before the people with the same doctrines and the same arguments; everywhere they "repudiated" the wilmot proviso. this gave them an advantage over a party with a different policy. they had a platform of doctrines; they knew what it was; the party stood on the platform; the candidate stood on it. the whig party have conducted differently; they did not publish their confession of faith. we know what was the whig platform in and in . but what is it in ? particular men may publish their opinions, but the doctrines of the party are "not communicated to the public." for once in the history of america there was a whig convention which passed no "resolutions;" it was the convention at philadelphia. but on one point, of the greatest importance too, it expressed the opinions of the whigs: it rejected the wilmot proviso, and mr. webster's thunder, which had fallen harmless and without lightning from his hands, was "kicked out of the meeting!" as the party had no platform, so their candidate had no political opinions. "what!" says one, "choose a president who does not declare his opinions,--then it must be because they are perfectly well known!" not at all: general taylor is raw in politics, and has not taken his first "drill!" "then he must be a man of such great political and moral ability, that his will may take the place of reason!" not at all: he is known only as a successful soldier, and his reputation is scarcely three years old. mr. webster declared his nomination "not fit to be made," and nobody has any authentic statement of his political opinions; perhaps not even general taylor himself. in the electioneering campaign there has been a certain duplicity in the supporters of general taylor: at the north it was maintained that he was not opposed to the wilmot proviso, while at the south quite uniformly the opposite was maintained. this duplicity had the appearance of dishonesty. in new england the whigs did not meet the facts and arguments of the free soil party; in the beginning of the campaign the attempt was made, but was afterwards comparatively abandoned; the matter of slavery was left out of the case, and the old question of the sub-treasury and the tariff was brought up again, and a stranger would have thought, from some whig newspapers, that that was the only question of any importance. few men were prepared to see a man of the ability and experience of mr. webster in his electioneering speeches pass wholly over the subject of slavery. the nation is presently to decide whether slavery is to extend over the new territory or not; even in a commercial and financial point of view, this is far more important than the question of banks and tariffs; but when its importance is estimated by its relation to freedom, right, human welfare in general,--we beg the pardon of american politicians for speaking of such things,--one is amazed to find the whig party of the opinion that it is more important to restore the tariff of than to prohibit slavery in a country as large as the thirteen states which fought the revolution! it might have been expected of little, ephemeral men--minute politicians, who are the pest of the state,--but when at such a crisis a great man rises,[ ] amid a sea of upturned faces, to instruct the lesser men, and forgets right, forgets freedom, forgets man, and forgets god, talking only of the tariff and of banks, why a stranger is amazed, till he remembers the peculiar relation of the great man to the moneyed men,--that he is their attorney, retained, paid, and pensioned to do the work of men whose interest it is to keep the question of slavery out of sight. if general cavaignac had received a pension from the manufacturers of lyons and of lisle, to the amount of half a million of francs, should we be surprised if he forgot the needy millions of the land? nay, only if he did not forget them! it was a little hardy to ask the anti-slavery men to vote for general taylor; it was like asking the members of a temperance society to choose an eminent distiller for president of their association. still, we know that honest anti-slavery men did honestly vote for him. we know nothing to impeach the political integrity of general taylor; the simple fact that he is a slaveholder, seems reason enough why he should not be president of a nation who believe that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." men will be astonished in the next century to learn that the "model republic," had such an affection for slaveholders. here is a remarkable document, which we think should be preserved: deed of sale. "john hagard, sr. to zachariah taylor. "_received for record, th feb., ._ "_this indenture_, made this twenty-first day of april, eighteen hundred and forty-two, between john hagard, sr., of the city of new orleans, state of louisiana, of one part, and zachariah taylor, of the other part, _witnesseth_, that the said john hagard, sr., for and in consideration of the sum of _ninety-five thousand dollars_ to him in hand paid, and secured to be paid, as hereafter stated by the said zachariah taylor, at and before the sealing and delivering of these presents, has this day bargained, sold, and delivered, conveyed, and confirmed, and by these presents does bargain, sell, deliver, and confirm unto the said zachariah taylor, his heirs and assigns, forever, all that plantation and tract of land:... "also, all the following slaves--nelson, milley, peldea, mason, willis, rachel, caroline, lucinda, ramdall, wirman, carson, little ann, winna, jane, tom, sally, gracia, big jane, louisa, maria, charles, barnard, mira, sally, carson, paul, sansford, mansfield, harry oden, harry horley, carter, henrietta, ben, charlotte, wood, dick, harrietta, clarissa, ben, anthony, jacob, hamby, jim, gabriel, emeline, armstead, george, wilson, cherry, peggy, walker, jane, wallace, bartlett, martha, letitia, barbara, matilda, lucy, john, sarah, bigg ann, allen, tom, george, john, dick, fielding, nelson, or isom, winna, shellod, lidney, little cherry, puck, sam, hannah or anna, mary, ellen, henrietta, and two small children:--also, all the horses, mules, cattle, hogs, farming utensils, and tools, now on said plantation--together with all and singular, the hereditaments, appurtenances, privileges, and advantages unto the said land and slaves belonging or appertaining. _to have and to hold_ the said plantation and tract of land and slaves, and other property above described, unto the said zachariah taylor, his heirs and assigns, for ever, and to his and to their only proper use, benefits, and behoof, for ever. and the said john hagard, sr., for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, does covenant, promise, and agree to and with said zachariah taylor, his heirs and assigns, that the aforesaid plantation and tract of land and slaves, and other property, with the appurtenances, unto the said zachariah taylor, his heirs, and assigns against the claim or claims of all persons whomsoever claiming or to claim the same, or any part or parcel thereof, shall and will warrant, and by these presents for ever defend. "_in testimony whereof_, the said john hagard, sr., has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and year first above written." if this document had been discovered among some egyptian papyri, with the date before christ, it would have been remarkable as a sign of the times. in a republic, nearly four thousand years later, it has a meaning which some future historian will appreciate. the free soil party have been plain and explicit as the democrats; they published their creed in the celebrated buffalo platform. the questions of sub-treasury and tariff are set aside; "no more slave territory" is the watchword. in part they represent an interest, for slavery is an injury to the north in many ways, and to a certain extent puts the north into the hands of the south; but chiefly an idea. nobody thought they would elect their candidate, whosoever he might be; they could only arrest public attention and call men to the great questions at issue, and so, perhaps, prevent the evil which the south was bent on accomplishing. this they have done, and done well. the result has been highly gratifying. it was pleasant and encouraging to see men ready to sacrifice their old party attachments and their private interests, oftentimes, for the sake of a moral principle. i do not mean to say that there was no moral principle in the other parties--i know better. but it seems to me that the free soilers committed a great error in selecting mr. van buren as their candidate. true, he is a man of ability, who has held the highest offices and acquitted himself honorably in all; but he had been the "northern man, with southern principles;" had shown a degree of subserviency to the south, which was remarkable, if not singular or strange: his promise, made and repeated in the most solemn manner, to veto any act of congress, abolishing slavery in the capital, was an insult to the country, and a disgrace to himself. he had a general reputation for instability, and want of political firmness. it is true, he had opposed the annexation of texas, and lost his nomination in by that act; but it is also true that he advised his party to vote for mr. polk, who was notoriously in favor of annexation. his nomination, i must confess, was unfortunate; the buffalo convention seems to have looked at his availability more than his fitness, and, in their contest for a principle, began by making a compromise of that very principle itself. it was thought he could "carry" the state of new york; and so a man who was not a fair representative of the idea, was set up. it was a bad beginning. it is better to be defeated a thousand times, rather than seem to succeed by a compromise of the principle contended for. still, enough has been done, to show the nation that the dollar is not almighty; that the south is not always to insult the north, and rule the land, annexing, plundering, and making slaves when she will; that the north has men who will not abandon the great sentiment of freedom, which is the boast of the nation and the age. general taylor is elected by a large popular vote; some voted for him on account of his splendid military success; some because he is a slaveholder, and true to the interests of the slave power; some because he is a "good whig," and wants a high tariff of duties. but we think there are men who gave him their support, because he has never been concerned in the intrigues of a party, is indebted to none for past favors, is pledged to none, bribed by none, and intimidated by none; because he seems to be an honest man, with a certain rustic intelligence; a plain blunt man, that loves his country and mankind. we hope this was a large class. if he is such a man, he will enter upon his office under favorable auspices, and with the best wishes of all good men. but what shall the free soil party do next? they cannot go back,--conscience waves behind them her glittering wings and bids them on; they cannot stand still, for as yet their measures and their watchword do not fully represent their idea. they must go forward, as the early abolitionists went, with this for their motto: "no slavery in america." "he that would lead men, must walk but one step before them;" says somebody. well, but he must think many steps before them, or they will presently tread him under their feet. the present success of the idea is doubtful; the interests of the south will demand the extension of slavery;[ ] the interests of the party now coming into power, will demand their peculiar boon. so another compromise is to be feared, and the extension of slavery yet further west. but the ultimate triumph of the genius of freedom is certain. in europe, it shakes the earth with mighty tread; thrones fall before its conquering feet. while in the eastern continent, kings, armies, emperors, are impotent before that power, shall a hundred thousand slaveholders stay it here with a bit of parchment? footnotes: [ ] [greek: greek: gignontai men oun hai staseis ou peri mikrôn all' ek mikrôn, stasiazousi de peri megalôn.]--aristotle's _polit._, lib. v. chap. , § . [ ] william lloyd garrison. [ ] the following table shows the facts of the case:-- cost of post-office in slave states for the year ending july st, , $ , , receipts from post-office, , cost of post-office in free states for the year ending july st, , $ , , receipts from post-office, , , so the southern post-office cost the nation $ , , and the northern post-office paid the nation $ , , making a difference of $ , , against the south. [ ] mr. john p. hale. [ ] hon. daniel webster. [ ] the following extract, from the _charleston mercury_, shows the feeling of the south. "pursuant to a call, a meeting of the citizens of orangeburg district was held to-day, th november, in the court-house, which was well filled on the occasion.... gen. d. f. jamison then rose, and moved the appointment of a committee of twenty-five, to take into consideration the continued agitation by congress of the question of slavery;... the committee, through their chairman, gen. jamison, made the following report:-- "the time has arrived when the slaveholding states of the confederacy must take decided action upon the continued attacks of the north against their domestic institutions, or submit in silence to that humiliating position in the opinions of mankind, that longer acquiescence must inevitably reduce them to.... the agitation of the subject of slavery commenced in the fanatical murmurings of a few scattered abolitionists, to whom it was a long time confined; but now it has swelled into a torrent of popular opinion at the north; it has invaded the fireside and the church, the press and the halls of legislation; it has seized upon the deliberations of congress, and at this moment is sapping the foundations, and about to overthrow the fairest political structure that the ingenuity of man has ever devised. "the overt efforts of abolitionism were confined for a long period to annoying applications to congress, under color of the pretended right of petition; it has since directed the whole weight of its malign influence against the annexation of texas, and had wellnigh cost to the country the loss of that important province; but emboldened by success and the inaction of the south, in an unjust and selfish spirit of national agrarianism it would now appropriate the whole public domain. it might well have been supposed that the undisturbed possession of the whole of oregon territory would have satisfied the non-slaveholding states. this they now hold, by the incorporation of the ordinance of into the bill of the last session for establishing a territorial government for oregon. that provision, however, was not sustained by them from any apprehension that the territory could ever be settled from the states of the south, but it was intended as a gratuitous insult to the southern people, and a malignant and unjustifiable attack upon the institution of slavery. "we are called upon to give up the whole public domain to the fanatical cravings of abolitionism, and the unholy lust of political power. a territory, acquired by the whole country for the use of all, where treasure has been squandered like chaff, and southern blood poured out like water, is sought to be appropriated by one section, because the other chooses to adhere to an institution held not only under the guaranties that brought this confederacy into existence, but under the highest sanction of heaven. should we quietly fold our hands under this assumption on the part of the non-slaveholding states, the fate of the south is sealed, the institution of slavery is gone, and its existence is but a question of time.... your committee are unwilling to anticipate what will be the result of the combined wisdom and joint action of the southern portion of the confederacy on this question; but as an initiatory step to a concert of action on the part of the people of south carolina, they respectfully recommend, for the adoption of this meeting, the following resolutions:-- "_resolved_, that the continued agitation of the question of slavery, by the people of the non-slaveholding states, by their legislatures, and by their representatives in congress, exhibits not only a want of national courtesy, which should always exist between kindred states, but is a palpable violation of good faith towards the slaveholding states, who adopted the present constitution 'in order to form a more perfect union.' "_resolved_, that while we acquiesce in adopting the boundary between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding states, known as the missouri compromise line, we will not submit to any further restriction upon the rights of any southern man to carry his property and his institutions into territory acquired by southern treasure and by southern blood. "_resolved_, that should the wilmot proviso, or any other restriction, be applied by congress to the territories of the united states, south of deg. min. north latitude, we recommend to our representative in congress, as the decided opinion of this portion of his district, to leave his seat in that body, and return home. "_resolved_, that we respectfully suggest to both houses of the legislature of south carolina, to adopt a similar recommendation as to our senators in congress from this state. "_resolved_, that upon the return home of our senators and representatives in congress, the legislature of south carolina should be forthwith assembled to adopt such measures as the exigency may demand. "the resolutions were then submitted, _seriatim_, and, together with the report, were unanimously adopted." the essential faith of the universal church; deduced from the sacred records. by harriet martineau. 'nulli præclusa religio est; omnibus patet, omnes admittit, omnes invitat; non elegit domum nec censum; nudo homine contenta est.' boston, leonard c. bowles. . _minot pratt,----printer._ advertisement. in march the committee of the british and foreign unitarian association offered 'a premium for three tracts, to be approved by them, the object of which should be the introduction and promotion of christian unitarianism among the roman catholics, the jews, and the mahommedans respectively.' each of the essays was to be sent to the committee with the name of the writer in a sealed note, which would be opened only after the decision in favor of the successful candidate. miss martineau obtained the three prizes. the celebrity which she has acquired in this country by those of her works which have been reprinted here has induced the belief that these essays would be read with interest, although if they had come from an unknown author the nature of the subjects might prevent their general circulation. the ability, the tact, and the fine spirit which they display must increase the admiration of miss martineau's talents which already prevails among us. for grasp and vigor of thought, for a rich and felicitous style of expression, and for general power of argument, without the slightest mixture of asperity or unfairness, they will bear comparison with almost any writings of the same class. the author has judiciously adopted a different method of treating each subject, and may therefore expect that opinions will be various about the comparative merits of the three essays, according to the intellectual habits or tastes of readers. but no one can fail to pronounce them all remarkable productions. the essay addressed to the catholics was first published. it is therefore now first reprinted, and will be followed immediately by those written for the jews and the mahommedans. e. s. g. boston, may st, . preliminary address. as christians addressing christians, we, whose faith is called unitarianism, invite you, our roman catholic brethren, to join with us in investigating the origin and true nature of that gospel which we agree in believing worthy of the deepest study, the most unremitting interest, and the highest regard. we agree in believing every christian to be bound to promote the welfare of his race to the utmost of his ability; and that that welfare is best promoted by the extensive spread and firm establishment of divine truth. we agree in believing that all other gifts which the father of men has showered on human kind are insignificant in comparison with the dispensation of grace: or rather, that their value is unrecognised till interpreted by it. we alike feel that the material frame of the universe, fair as it is, is but as a silent picture till a living beauty is breathed into it, and a divine harmony evolved from it by its being made the exponent of god's purposes of grace. we alike feel that the round of life is dull and tame, and its vicissitudes wearisome and irritating, till it becomes clear that they are preparative to a higher state. we alike feel that worldly pursuits, and even intellectual employments, are objectless and uninteresting, till they can be referred to purposes whose complete fulfilment must take place beyond the grave. we alike feel how pervading, how perpetual is the influence of gospel principles in ennobling every incident, in hallowing every vicissitude of life; in equalizing human emotions; in animating the sympathies, in vivifying the enjoyments, and blunting the sorrows, of all who adopt those principles in full conviction of the understanding, and in perfect sincerity of heart. we agree in feeling how the whole aspect of existence changes, as the power and beauty of the gospel become more influential;--as we learn where to deposit our cares, where to fix our hope, what to prize as a real possession, and what to regard as but loss in comparison of our inestimable gain. we feel in common how endurance may become a privilege, and earthly humiliation our highest honor, when sustained in the spirit, and incurred for the sake, of the gospel. feeling thus alike respecting the value of a common possession, desiring in common that all our race should be partakers of it, making it the most earnest of our prayers that we may receive it in its purity and employ it righteously, why should we not help one another to apprehend it and hold it firmly? we know, from the records of history, how the adherents of your faith have so prized it as to sacrifice all things for it; how catholic confessors have borne long and painful testimony, and how catholic martyrs have triumphantly sustained the last proof of the strength of their convictions. we can refer you to similar examples among those who believed as we believe; and neither you nor we can doubt, that should occasions of self-sacrifice again arise, every true christian in your body and in ours would show once more what the gospel can do in divesting the world of its allurements and death of its terrors. why then should we not congratulate each other on our common hope? having laid hold on the same anchor of the soul, why should we not rejoice in each other's strength? and, differing as we do in the mode of holding a common privilege, why should we not reason together to ascertain where the difference lies, whence it arose, and by what means it may be obviated? though you and we may not regard variations in christian faith with an equal degree of regret and dread, we yield not to you or to any on earth in our appreciation of the value of truth, and in our desire that it may become the common possession of our race. therefore it is that we now propose to you an investigation into its principles; and therefore it is that we seek the removal of all impediments to our joining in hand as we already do in heart, in bringing those who are astray to the fold of the true shepherd. the same means of ascertaining divine truth are in your hands and in ours, if, as your best writers declare and as we believe, you have free access to the scriptures of the old and new testaments. our versions of those scriptures are, it is true, not exactly alike. it appears to us that yours are, in various minor, and in some considerable points, less correct than our own: but fair investigation will settle this difference as well as others; and if not, such variations constitute no insurmountable hindrance. the essential truth of the gospel is not involved in any or all of those modes of expression in which our respective versions of the scriptures differ. the difficulties which are thus originated are of very inferior moment to those by which our separation is perpetuated, and which depend on our application of the spirit rather than our interpretation of the letter of the sacred records. when we can as perfectly agree in our opinions concerning the person of christ, as we do in our veneration and gratitude for his holiness and love; when we shall mutually rejoice in the universality as well as in the blessedness of the salvation he brought, we shall not dispute respecting the letter of some of his instructions, or long lament the difficulty of reconciling some apparent discrepancies. if, as you declare, the scriptures are in common use among you, they must be allowed to be the rule of your faith as well as of your practice; they must be intended for your instruction as well as your confirmation; they must supply subjects of thought as well as of feeling. do us the justice then, thus to use them as often as you hear us appeal to them. compare our interpretation of the gospel with the records themselves. compare our deductions from facts with the original statement of those facts, and with all which throws light on them from the history, the discourses, the epistles which follow. to whatever common ground there is between us, let us repair; and since that common ground is the very spot where the living waters first sprang up, there can be no doubt but that a patient search will bring vital refreshment to us all. we know, brethren, that our mode of belief appears to you under the greatest possible disadvantage, as being, even more than protestant religion generally, divested of the claims and graces of antiquity. you regard our sect as newly formed from the dispersed elements of other sects which have melted away. you find no mention of our heresy in the records of the middle ages, or only such hints of the doctrines now held by unitarians as might serve as suggestions of our present opinions: and you therefore naturally conclude that the parts of our faith to which you object are but of yesterday, and consequently the impious inventions of men. if it were so, our present address would indeed be indefensible; our challenge to investigation would be an insult; our appeal to the scriptures would be blasphemy. but to shake your conviction of this assumed fact, to convince you if possible that the reverse is the fact, is the object of the exposition of our opinions which we now present to you, and of every effort to explain and defend our faith. it is because we believe our religion to be primitive christianity that we are attached to it as other christians are to theirs. it is because we feel that we can carry back our opinions to a remoter antiquity than other churches, that we prefer them; and though they were completely hidden under the unauthorized institutions of the middle ages, we find no difficulty in establishing their identity with those which were diffused by the messengers and under the sanction of god. he who sees a stream gushing forth from the cave, and can trace it back no further than the darkness whence it issues, may reasonably conclude that he stands near its source; but there may be a wayfarer who by observation and experience knows and can attest that this is no subsidiary spring, but the reappearance of a hidden stream, whose source is hallowed and whose current is inexhaustible. we only ask you to listen to our evidence of this, and to admit it or not, as you shall be afterwards disposed. we agree with you in your reverence for antiquity in respect of the faith; and desire nothing more than that by their comparative claims to antiquity our respective religions should be judged. we feel that grace as well as authority is conferred by every evidence of long duration. we can enter into your reverence for your doctrines, because they were held by saints in cloisters which have crumbled to dust, by heroes and anchorites whose arms were the relics of centuries gone by, or whose rocky abodes have retained their sanctity for a thousand years. we can understand your emotions on receiving sacraments or witnessing ceremonies which fostered the devotion of the saintly and the heroic of the olden time, and which filled the christian temples abroad with music and fragrance, while in our land the smoke of druidical sacrifices was ascending offensively to heaven. but we thus sympathise because we too refer our worship to ancient days. our hearts also thrill under the impulses which are propagated from afar. we also delight in spiritual exercises, because they are sanctified by long-tried efficacy; and enjoy our devotion more, because the same hopes exhilarated, the same trust supported our spiritual kindred of the remotest christian antiquity. in our churches we believe we feel the spirit of brotherhood which first gave to the believers one heart and one soul. in the silence of our chambers, or amidst the solitudes of nature, we are open to the same incentives to prayer and praise which visited peter on the house-top, and paul amidst the perils of the sea. when intent upon the words of life, we, like the apostle, are impelled to exclaim, 'o! the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of god!' and were the times of persecution to recur, we doubt not but that, at the very stake, the consciousness of fellowship with the holy stephen would add vigor to our courage and splendor to our hopes. we refuse to perpetuate the imposing ritual of the early ages because it is not antique enough: but whenever we behold two or three gathered together to worship with the heart and voice alone; when we see men assembling on the first day of the week to break bread in remembrance of christ, in the simplicity of the primitive ordinance; when we see teachers, in all external things like their brethren, gathering wisdom from the fowls of the air and the lilies of the field,--we could almost forget the lapse of ages in sympathy with those from whom they separate us. such a sympathy, if originated here, will be perfected hereafter; for it is too purely spiritual to be dissolved by death. it will then be also extended to all in whom the spirit of the gospel is a vivifying principle; as it would be here, if we could throw off our prejudices and see each other as we are. if it is to be, why should it not already be? with the gospel before us, with some portion of its light beaming on each of us, some measure of its kindly warmth glowing within us, why should we turn away coldly and silently from communion respecting our best treasure? if either body believe their brethren in error, is it right to leave them so without an effort to reclaim them? if both believe the truth destined to prevail, is it not incumbent on them to assist that prevalence? we believe it is; and therefore we address you; mingling with our entreaties for your co-operation in the development of divine truth earnest prayers that the father will abundantly administer to all the resources of that intellectual power and christian love which constitute a sound mind. the essential faith of the universal church. the primitive christian church, gathered together in jerusalem by the command of christ, and sanctified by the descent of the holy spirit, consisted exclusively of jews. the three thousand who were baptized on that memorable occasion, the numbers which were daily added to the church, the multitude who were converted to christianity during the next fifteen years, were all jews. in some cases, the process of conversion was probably gradual; but in many, we know it was sudden, being caused by the immediate and irresistible evidence of miracles. the change of conviction which it was necessary to work in converting a jew, was of a nature which could be effected speedily and completely by the display of one miraculous testimony. it was not a change in all, or any of his views of deity and providence. he was not required to relinquish a single article of religious belief which he had previously held under a divine sanction. the fundamental doctrine of the jewish religion,--the strict unity of jehovah,--he was authorized to retain. he was confirmed in his dependence on all that the prophets had spoken, in his conceptions of the divine attributes, and in his trust in divine providence. the only question on which depended his adhering to the old, or embracing the new dispensation, was, whether jesus of nazareth was or was not the promised messiah. as the jews were bound by the requisitions of their own law (deut. xviii. ) to receive implicitly whatever should be taught in god's name by a divinely authorized prophet, their reception of the doctrines of christianity was a sure consequence of their acknowledgement of the messiah; and that their acknowledgement of jesus in that character was the only thing essential to make them christians we have consistent and abundant evidence in the whole scripture history. in the preaching of the apostles to the people of their own nation, we find no intimations of any needful change in their conceptions of god, and of his mode of government. on the contrary, it was because the jews were already prepared for their reception of christianity by their belief in the unity of god and the consistency of his moral government, that they were the most immediately and the most easily incorporated with the christian church. for proof of this, we refer to the whole of the discourse delivered by the apostle peter on the day of pentecost, and to every other discourse addressed by the apostles to jewish hearers. the first gentiles who were converted to christianity were not worshipers of a plurality of gods; but men who from intercourse with jews, or from other opportunities of spiritual advancement, had attained to the belief of one god, indivisible in his nature and unrivalled in his supremacy. the same mode of teaching which sufficed for the jews, sufficed for them also, as far as the essential truth of christianity was concerned; and the same method was therefore adopted, as may be seen in the discourse of peter in the house of cornelius. the next converts were from the disciples of the pagan theology of greece and rome; with them a different method of instruction was needed. till they knew something of the divine nature, it was useless to open to them the divine dispensations. the discourse of paul at athens did not therefore begin with announcing the saviour: if it had, his inquisitive hearers would perhaps have inquired whether this messenger was sent by jupiter himself, or whether he was a deputy of some of the inferior gods. the apostle named not the name of christ till he had taught the fundamental doctrine--that jehovah is not only supreme, but sole; that all infinite attributes are centered in him; that all dispensations proceed from him; not only those of nature, by which the human race is created and preserved; but--the way being now prepared for the annunciation--that of grace, by which the world is to be redeemed through him whom god had ordained to be a prince and a saviour. the heathen converts of the latter class had much more to learn, before they could become confirmed christians, than their more enlightened brethren who had been prepared by intercourse with jews. they were equally ready in admitting the evidence of miracles, but not equally clear as to the object for which those miracles were wrought. when paul and barnabas restored the cripple at lystra, the priests and people could scarcely be restrained from offering sacrifice to them as gods, even after the apostles had explained to them the true nature of deity. yet the true religion, being patiently and faithfully taught, was, at length, fully understood and received; and the three classes of converts, jews, proselytes, and pagans, were made one in christ; holding, in undisturbed harmony of conviction, the essential doctrines of the strict unity of jehovah, the divine authority of jesus christ, and consequently, the divine origin of the gospel he brought. this unity of the faith seems to have been first broken in upon by the introduction of a fourth class of converts, who, by incorporating their former philosophical doctrines with the new theology they had embraced, originated the first heresy. there had been disputes, it is true, in the church; but not concerning matters of faith. in these disputes the apostles themselves had been not only involved, but actually opposed to each other. these questions related to the fancied necessity of the adoption by the gentiles of the forms of the jewish law: questions of great importance to the jews, as affecting their views of the ultimate design of christianity; to the gentiles, as involving their spiritual liberties; and to us and the christian world at large, as throwing light on the transactions of the primitive times, and as having originated some of the epistles of paul. but they bore no relation to the essential doctrines, which were held free from corruption, controversy, or even doubt, till some converts from the philosophical sect of the gnostics introduced, within twenty years after the death of christ, the first taint of that corruption from which the true faith has never since been freed. the fundamental doctrine of the gnostic philosophy was, that all mind is ultimately derived from the supreme mind; that the souls of all men have therefore pre-existed; that there is a higher order of spirits, more immediately emanating from the supreme; that these superior intelligences descend occasionally to inhabit the bodies of men, or to assume their apparent form. this doctrine, to which they were much attached, the gnostic converts easily contrived to connect with their new theology, believing jesus to be one of these superior intelligences in a visible form, or that the man jesus was animated by such a spirit, who was in reality the christ. against this corruption of the simplicity of the faith the apostle john protested in his first and second epistles, in which he followed the example of peter, paul, and jude. that the gnostics were the persons he had in view, is evident from the fact that no other schismatics at that period troubled the peace of the church, and also from his own application of his censure to such as 'confess not that jesus christ is come in the flesh.' ( john .) the 'fables and endless genealogies' which paul reprobates ( tim. i. .) had the same origin; and the practices to which they led, of 'forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats,' are condemned by him as the work of 'seducing spirits.' of the same class were the 'false teachers,' accused by peter of bringing in fatal heresies, 'by reason of whom the ways of truth shall be evil spoken of.' all the opinions and practices denounced by jude, were either publicly maintained by the gnostics, or generally ascribed to them. in order to disprove the truth of this representation, it will be necessary to show who besides the gnostics denied that the man jesus was the true christ; who besides the gnostics propounded fables, originated schisms, and were addicted to superstitious practices, at the times in which the apostles wrote. this, we conceive, cannot be done. that the doctrine of the pre-existence of christ must have been new and strange to the faithful teachers of the church we know, not only from their own intimation that it was so, but from the positive proof which the scriptures afford of the absence of all preparation for it. the preaching of john the baptist, and the conduct and discourses of jesus were such as to give his disciples the idea of his being truly and entirely man; divine indeed in his derived power and spiritual perfection, but human in his nature. his disciples accordingly testified in their words and actions that they had no thought of his being any thing else. they received him as their messiah; but in all besides they remained jews, ascribing to god alone all divine attributes, worshiping him alone, and paying honor to jesus only as his most exalted messenger. if they had been required to regard him as god, the history of their conversion would have been widely different from what it is. a doctrine to them so new and wonderful, would have engrossed their minds, would have banished familiarity from their intercourse with the saviour, would have pervaded their preachings and writings; and, instead of being wholly omitted in their addresses to their converts, would have been made, as in modern creeds, a primary and essential article of belief. not till the introduction of oriental superstitions into the church, however, do we find unquestionable evidence that such a doctrine had been conceived by any individual mind; and then the information is conveyed in the form of decided censure of the doctrine on the part of the promulgators and guardians of the new faith. even after this heresy was introduced, we find no traces of it in the works of the apostolical fathers, till nearly a century and a half from the birth of christ,--except in a very few writings, so uncertain in their date, so wild and allegorical in their composition, and so evidently and extensively interpolated, as to be of little or no authority. we refer to the works commonly ascribed to barnabus, hermas, and ignatius. the only genuine epistle of clemens romanus which has come down to us, neither advocates, countenances, nor alludes to any such doctrine. even the philosophizing christians of the first century, against whom the apostles wrote, went no further than to suppose the christ to be a superior intelligence, inhabiting a mortal form, or assuming the appearance of one: cerinthus maintaining that jesus was a man born of joseph and mary, and that at his baptism the christ descended upon him; while marcion held that the son of god took the exterior form of a man, and appeared as a man; and without being born, or gradually growing up to the full stature of a man, he showed himself at once in galilee as a man grown. it was not till justin martyr, himself a philosopher, wrote an apology for christianity to a philosophical roman emperor (a. d. ), that any distinct mention appears to have been made of the doctrine of the divinity of christ. it is not surprising that--feeling how great a reproach the death of the cross must be in the eyes of the potentate whom he wished to conciliate, and finding his mode of exposition prepared by the gnostic christians, and by the application made by the learned philo of the platonic doctrine of the logos,--justin martyr should have been tempted to recommend his new theology by introducing an admixture of that philosophy which has proved, according to the warnings of the apostle, a 'vain deceit.' such we have no hesitation in calling it. a doctrine of this nature cannot be in part true, but liable to mistake: it must be absolutely true or absolutely false. we hold it to be the latter; because it was not made a subject of distinct revelation by christ, a primary article of belief by the apostles, or even a matter of distinct mention for a century and a half from the birth of christ. all that, from the study of the records of revelation, we hold to be the primary and essential doctrines of christianity, stand forth conspicuously in the teachings, are confirmed by the deeds, and illustrated in the lives of the saviour and his followers. we propose to bring them forward, with their evidence, in the following order. i. the strict unity of god. ii. the unlimited nature of the redemption by christ. iii. the existence of a future state. from these, various subordinate principles may be derived, some of the most important of which we shall afterwards specify; and then proceed to treat of the temporary sanctions and institutions of christianity, in distinction from its permanent principles. it cannot be necessary for christians, when addressing christians, to enter upon the evidence for the divine authority under which the saviour offered his gospel, or for the consequent divine origin of that gospel. the name adopted by both parties is a sufficient testimony to the unity of their faith thus far. concerning the nature of christ, we have already declared that, in accordance with what we believe to have been the faith of the primitive ages, we regard the saviour as human in his nature, but superhuman in his powers, and divinely appointed and sanctioned in his office. the title 'son of god' is peculiarly and indefeasibly his own; for to no other being, as far as our knowledge extends, has so immeasurable a portion of authority, of power, of grace and truth, been vouchsafed; in no other has dwelt 'all the fulness of the godhead bodily.' the homage of reverence cannot be too fully and freely rendered to him who was with god in his manifest presence; who was one with him in his purposes of eternal salvation to the human race; who was the exponent of those purposes, and the means of that salvation. the homage of love cannot be too fully and freely rendered to him who suffered for our transgressions, and died for our justification; who loved us with more than earthly love; who suffered in his compassion for the sins and sorrows of men, as well as in the inflictions he sustained for their sakes; and who, though wounded in spirit and tortured in body, made use of the rule, authority, and power with which he was invested, not for his own relief, but for our deliverance. to him who brought us salvation, it is little to offer deep gratitude and unbounded love. the homage of obedience cannot be too fully and freely rendered to him who was wise with the wisdom of god, pure in heart, sinless in his life, and sanctified by grace from the beginning. even if we did not know that obedience to christ is the way to life eternal, that obedience would be due to his divine claims: but knowing this, it should be steadfast as our faith, cheerful as our hope, and boundless as our love. such was the obedience, such were the reverence and love of the holy apostles; and we desire to participate in them as fully as we join, with heart and mind, in all that they have said concerning him. they bow before his celestial authority,--so do we. they venerate his perfect holiness,--so do we. they bless his love, testified in his sufferings, sealed by his death, and glorified by his resurrection,--so do we. they strove to be obedient in all things,--and we acknowledge the obligation incumbent on us to be so likewise; and that we may be so, we diligently inquire what were the doctrines which he confirmed and revealed. the great fundamental doctrine of the strict unity of jehovah was abundantly confirmed by the gospel. it had been long held in its purity by the jews, and was apprehended by a few, a very few, enlightened heathens. it is called an essential doctrine of christianity,--not because it was originated by christianity, but because it was thus first introduced to the world at large, and because no other doctrine could stand without it. it has accordingly been acknowledged in words by all who have taken on themselves the name of christ, while in its substance it has been held pure by very few, we apprehend, since the apostolic age. by the unity of god we understand not a unity of substance connected with a variety of persons, or a unity of persons accompanied with a division of attributes; but a concentration of the attributes of deity in one eternal, indivisible substance. this, our fundamental religious belief, is derived both from reason and from scripture, and is confirmed equally by both. if we examine our own minds, we find that our first notions of a god are low and earthly. we conceive of him as of an earthly parent, watching over our sleep with bodily eyes, furnishing our food with a bodily hand, and following us from place to place with a material presence. as infancy passes away, our conceptions become less gross. we think of him as omnipresent and invisible; but, deriving our notions from our experience, we conceive of him as subject to emotions and passions. we believe in the real existence--if not of his smiles and frowns--of his joy, sorrow and anger, pleasure and pain. we can then imagine his knowing and remembering all that has ever taken place, but can scarcely conceive of his unlimited presence. our childish obedience is then yielded as to our parents,--partly through fear, partly through a desire of approbation, and partly with the hope of of giving pleasure. all the qualities or attributes which we ascribe to god have their origin and counterparts in our parents, or those who supply their place to us: and in no other way can the conception of deity be originated. no mind can arrive at the recognition of a general principle, but through an observation of its particular applications; nor can a conception be formed, otherwise than by the gradual reception of its elements; or enlarged, but by adding to their number. from the watchfulness of its parent in satisfying its wants and defending it from injury, the child forms its first notion of providence; and from the visitings of parental approbation and displeasure, of a moral governor. when the presence of deity is thus recognised, some more abstract qualities are by degrees attributed to him. instances of the strength, foresight, and knowledge of the parent are daily witnessed; and these, somewhat magnified, are transferred to deity;--and the moral attributes have the same origin. steadiness in awarding recompence, tenderness in inflicting punishment, or readiness in remitting it on repentance, gradually communicate the abstract ideas of justice, compassion, and mercy. our first low notions of holiness are formed by putting together all the best qualities we have observed in the persons around us, and supposing them to be unimpaired by the faults we are conscious of in ourselves. all these attributes are ascribed to one being; and the conception, already more exalted than any we have formed of any other individual being, is further improved by the richer elements of a more extended experience. the imagination becoming stronger as the materials supplied to its activity become more abundant, the conception of deity perpetually grows in grandeur and beauty, till it absorbs the intellect of a newton and engrosses the affections of a fenelon. still, this notion of a being whom we know and feel to be infinite, is formed from the results of our finite experience; and the conception, however improved in degree, is unchanged in kind. let it be magnified to the utmost extent, it is still only magnified, not metamorphosed. as there is a strict analogy between the moral attributes of god and of men, there is also a strict analogy between their natural modes of being. justice in god is the same quality as justice in men, however perfected and enlarged; and unity in god is the same as individuality in men, though ascribed to an almighty and omnipresent being. a perpetual and perfect concentration of attributes is essential to our notion of one god. we can conceive of his manifesting one attribute in an especial manner on one occasion, and another on another; we can imagine him conferring power analogous to his own on an inferior being; but we cannot conceive of his laying aside, of his depriving himself of any of the attributes of his nature, or of delegating his power,--if by such delegation be implied any diminution or inactivity of it in himself. it is conceivable that he might employ some superior intelligence in creating the material world (though we have no authority to suppose that he did so;) but it is not conceivable that the work was not, at the same time, wholly his own. it is conceivable that he might send--it is certain that he did send--a being divinely furnished for the work, to institute a dispensation of grace, and to offer pardon and peace to sinful men. but it is not conceivable that the divine attribute of mercy could previously, or subsequently, or ever, be laid aside, or transferred, or suspended; that his unalterable purposes could be changed, his compassion roused, his sympathies moved by any act of any being, human or angelic. to suppose so, is supposing his purposes mutable, and his compassion dormant; that is, divesting him of deity. we can, in accordance with our conception of deity, understand how the dispensation of grace may be committed, as it was committed, to a finite being. but to suppose it the indefeasible prerogative of any eternal being but god, is clearly to suppose two gods: and if the office of sanctification be appropriated in a similar manner, we must suppose three gods. however long and deeply we may reflect and strive to reconcile contradictions, we shall find at length that it is essential to our belief in one god, that we ascribe creation, redemption and sanctification, ultimately wholly to him 'of whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things.' this unalterable decision of the reason is confirmed in every possible way by revelation. it is needless to adduce proof from the scriptures of the old testament, as it is universally known that the jews held, as the fundamental doctrine of their religion, the strict unity of jehovah, in nature, person, and attributes. there is not the slightest intimation, in the records of the new dispensation, that any change took place in the opinions of the apostles, or of any other jewish converts, respecting the nature or person of god. they speak and write of him as one, ordaining the salvation of the world through christ, and himself sanctifying those who were appointed to assist in the work. jesus ever spoke of himself as the servant of the most high, deriving his purposes and his powers from on high, and ascribing his achievements to the grace manifested thence: 'i do nothing of myself; but as my father hath taught me i speak these things. and he that sent me is with me: the father hath not left me alone; for i do always those things that please him.' (john viii. , .) 'my doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine (whether it be of god, or whether i speak of myself.' john vii. , .) again, in intimating the share which should be apportioned to his disciples in publishing the new dispensation, he says, 'ye are they who have continued with me in my trials. and i appoint unto you a kingdom, as my father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of israel.' (luke xxii. , , .) it is not conceivable that, anxious as he ever was to attract the attention of men to the nature of his mission, and to magnify the importance of the new covenant, he should have concealed the most wonderful and important circumstance belonging to it, and have not only left men in ignorance of his highest claims to their homage and obedience, but have led them into it. that even his immediate followers and the primitive church had no suspicion of the christ being more than the most exalted of god's messengers, we have already declared our conviction; a conviction which is confirmed by every page of their writings. paul was careful to declare 'the whole counsel of god.' yet in the passage of his writings in which, above all others he exalts the saviour, he tells how, for the meekness with which he bore the honors which constituted in him a resemblance to god, for the humility with which he took on him the office of a servant, and the compassion which caused his submission to the death of the cross,--he was yet more exalted by god, and favored with that name which is above every name, through which every man is privileged to worship, and every tongue permitted to offer praise, confessing 'that jesus christ is lord to the glory of god the father.' (phil. ii. -- .) peter, in the discourse by which three thousand persons were converted to christianity, spoke of jesus of nazareth as 'a man approved of god by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which god did by him;' and as being made lord and christ, raised from death and exalted to heaven by god. john repeats, in every form of expression, that the love of god was especially manifested by his sending his son to be the saviour of the world; and that as the lord manifested his love for us by laying down his life, we also should be ready to lay down our lives for one another. jude addresses his epistle to the christians as to men 'sanctified by god the father;' and in almost every apostolic benediction and salutation we find the work of sanctification as well as of grace ascribed to the father. but it is more satisfactory as well as easy to appeal to the whole body of the sacred writings (which we confidently do,) than to separate passages for proof that god the father is the sole originator of every work of nature and of grace; that as winds are his messengers, and flaming fires his ministers in the world of matter,--righteous men, prophets, apostles, and above all, christ, the holy one, are his agents in the administration of the spiritual world, and the establishment of the dispensation of grace. jehovah being thus sole in the possession of the attributes of deity, is the sole object of religious worship; for to god alone may such adoration be innocently paid. this assertion rests not alone on the commands delivered from above to the israelites; though we hold the authority of the second commandment of the decalogue, as it stands in protestant bibles, and is included in the jewish version of the commandments, to be equal to that of any part of the mosaic law. 'thou shalt worship jehovah thy god, and him only shalt thou serve,' is a summary of the entire purposes and details of the first dispensation; and the fundamental principle on which the second is based. the prohibitions to the jews to pray to any but jehovah are too numerous to be adduced, and too clear to need any further notice than a passing reference. that the israelites are not forbidden to seek the intercession of departed spirits is accounted for by their ignorance at first of a life beyond the grave, and their uncertainty respecting its value afterwards: but that there was a total absence of all desire to seek the intercession of a mediator in spiritual communion, is evident. when elisha stood by jordan to witness the ascent of elijah, no prayers were wafted to heaven in the chariot of fire; no grace was sought through the medium of the glorified prophet. when dangers compassed round the prophet and his servant in dothan, and a vision of heavenly hosts was opened to them, no supplication was offered through the radiant messengers; but elisha offered his prayer immediately to jehovah. he, with all his nation, would have felt the liberty of direct communion with god too great a privilege to be forgone, even if the notion had occurred to them. no just fears which they could entertain could be obviated by the employment of an intercessor; no desired blessing could be so easily obtained as by a direct appeal to the compassion of the father of mercies. it would have been well if the partakers of a fuller measure of grace had, in this respect, been like-minded with their ancient brethren; had felt like them, that the highest spiritual privilege is a free access to the divine presence, the fairest spiritual promise that which declares 'if thou wilt call, jehovah shall answer thee. come nigh unto me, and i will hear thee.'--this privilege it was which jesus himself used most abundantly; and this promise he sanctioned by word and example, and taught his followers to appropriate. he exhorted them to pray as he himself prayed, in full assurance of faith, freely and immediately. on no subject were his teachings more explicit, or his own practice and that of his apostles more fully ascertained. he taught them in what spirit, in what manner, and for what objects to pray; viz. believing that what they asked should be given, that what they sought should be found;--retiring into recesses where none could intermeddle with the communion of the heart; seeking whatever is needful for the body and the soul; supplies of the means of life, pardon, grace and peace. after this manner his followers prayed and taught others to pray. paul mingled prayers for forgiveness of his early misguided zeal with thanksgivings for the grace vouchsafed to him, and ascriptions of praise to the supreme ordainer of salvation. peter prayed for strength to sustain persecution, and for guidance in his mission. james directed his hearers to ask of god, if they sought wisdom. in all their exhortations to prayer, however, there is no intimation of a possibility that it may be offered otherwise than immediately to him to whom the saviour prayed. believing, as we are convinced they did, that christ was the son and servant of him who heareth prayer, and not authorised to usurp that holy prerogative, no purpose could be answered by addressing supplications to him, but that of alienating the heart of the suppliant from the prime giver of good, and no motive could be assigned for the act but a criminal distrust of the divine love, or a groundless hope of evading his justice; motives little likely to actuate apostolic minds. to prevent, however, the supposition that such motives could have occurred, that the practice of praying to christ could have subsisted, we are in possession of a declaration from jesus himself which obviates all doubt. when about to bid farewell to his apostles, and to resign himself to death, he promised them comfort from above; and from the fountain of prophetic light within, casts gleams upon the stormy future for the guidance of the trembling pilgrims whom he left behind. he told them that joy should visit the world through their sorrow; and that his name, exalted by the results of his mission and sanctified by death, should be the seal of the rectitude of their prayers, and the pledge of their success; while he distinctly disclaimed any part in the reception of their prayers, any assumption of the offices of mediation or intercession. 'ye now have sorrow; but i will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you. and in that day ye shall ask me nothing. verily i say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the father in my name, he will give it you. hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. these things have i spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh when i shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but i shall show you plainly of the father. at that day ye shall ask in my name; and i say not unto you, that i will pray the father for you: for the father himself loveth you, because ye love me, and believe that i came forth from god.' (john xvi. - .) according to these sayings, the apostles made their requests for the more abundant effusions of grace in the name of christ; but, believing that the father himself loved them, they felt no need of other supplication than their own, for benefits which he was more ready to grant than they could be eager to receive. if we may judge of their opinions by the records which remain, we should be convinced that they regarded the holy spirit as a divine power only, and not a divine person. as a power, as influence exerted by god himself, is the spirit spoken of in all the writings of the apostles; as when paul expresses the relation which the spirit bears to god to be the same as the spirit of a man bears to man; 'what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so, the things of god knoweth no man, but the spirit of god.' ( cor. ii. .) the mode in which the operations of the spirit are described by them is perfectly inconsistent with the notion of its being a separate person. converts were said to be _baptized_ with the spirit and _filled_ with the spirit, and they were exhorted not to _quench_ the spirit. by the direction given to 'baptize in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit,' nothing more was understood by the primitive christians, as we learn from themselves, than the duty of spreading that religion which was given by god through jesus christ, and comfirmed by miraculous power, though, in comparatively modern times, it began to be used as a form prescribed by christ. as a form it does not appear to have been adopted by his followers, who seem to have baptized in the name of jesus only. like christians of the present day, they believed the holy spirit to have been the same by which the ancient prophets spoke; but, unlike the modern belief, their conviction evidently was, that this spirit was the same which moved on the face of the waters when the universe was called up from chaos; the same which was manifested at sinai; the same which filled the temple of solomon and abode in the holy of holies; the same which wrought the works which christ declared were not of himself; the same which was and ever shall be, 'above all, through all, and in all.' they believed the spirit to be god himself, working in his creatures 'to will and to do of his good pleasure.' the peculiar endowments which were conferred on the disciples in the apostolic age were called the gifts of the spirit; and the thanksgivings which were presented for them were always offered immediately to god, from whom every good and perfect gift was known to come. when this spirit was spoken of as an impersonal existence, as an influence, a power, it could not, of course, be made the object of worship any more than the gifts it brought. when regarded as a personal existence, _i. e._ as god, it was, of course, the object of direct worship. but, as possessing any power of intercession, we may confidently declare it never was appealed to, till the christian theology had been mixed up with the principles of the heathen philosophy. among all the figurative illustrations of the offices and powers of the spirit, among all the highly wrought personifications and bold metaphors which characterize the hebrew style of the apostolic writings, we find no intimation that homage may be offered, or intercession made, through it or any existence whatever, personal or impersonal. even the highly figurative passage which we meet with romans viii. - , and which is, we believe, the chief basis on which rests the practice of false worship in the christian world, admits of no such interpretation as is commonly given to it. it needs only a careful reading of the whole chapter to perceive that 'the spirit' there spoken of is not the holy spirit; not the immediate divine influence of which we hear so much; but the new life supposed to be introduced by the gospel, in opposition to 'the flesh' or evil principle by which men were liable to condemnation under the old dispensation. after declaring that the fulness of salvation must be waited for with christian hope, the apostle continues, 'likewise this spirit, also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groans which cannot be expressed. but he who searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, that it intercedeth for the saints according to the will of god. and we know that all things work together for good to them that love god, who are called according to his purpose.' in the weakness of our nature, we know not what most to desire and pray for, but the spirit of the gospel informs and aids us; obtaining for us benefits which we could not otherwise have enjoyed. and the benefits thus obtained are such as the divine will designed for us; all things thus tending to our good; the divine purposes, the aids of the gospel, and the circumstances amidst which that aid supports us. all this has a very clear reference, not to any mediation of the holy spirit, to which there is no allusion whatever; but to the agency of the new dispensation in delivering men 'from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of god.'--if the intercession of christ be needless because the father himself loveth us, much more needless must be the mediation of the spirit, even were there such a separate personal existence; and yet more needless must be the good offices of saints, supposing them capable of rendering such a service to their mortal brethren. those who, like ourselves, derive their religious belief from the bible alone, can scarcely meet on the ground of argument those who profess 'most firmly to admit and embrace apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions,' if the subject of discussion be other than the authority of such traditions. on this discussion we shall enter hereafter. it only belongs to the present division of our subject to observe, that, not admitting the authority of ecclesiastical traditions in matters of faith, and finding in the scriptures no intimation of homage being due to the mother of christ, or the holy men who glorified the gospel in their lives and deaths, we offer no such homage, and that the worship and invocation of such are a direct infringement of the command, 'thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shall thou serve.' it is not difficult to trace the origin and progress of a custom which, though founded on a natural veneration for holiness sealed by death, is in our opinion more fatal to the purity, and inimical to the dignity of the gospel that any other which its professors have adopted.--it was a custom in the early times of christianity, to meet for worship at the tombs of the martyrs; not for the sake of paying homage to the departed, but because the survivors found their devotional feelings more sensibly excited there. their imaginations were at the same time possessed by the poetical fictions of the pagan philosophy, which represented the souls of the departed as hovering round the place of interment, and conscious of what was passing near. from this superstition arose the practice of making offerings annually in the name of the deceased, as an acknowledgement that they were still considered members of their respective churches. this practice appears to have been first adopted at the death of polycarp, and to have speedily grown into a rite scarcely distinguishable from the superstitions of heathenism. tertullian observes, 'we make oblations for the dead and for their martyrdom, yearly, on certain days.' at this time it was the general belief that the usual abode of the dead was in subterraneous places, or at least 'below,' somewhere near the earth, and as long as this belief subsisted, prayers were offered _for_ the dead,--for their present repose and joyful future resurrection. the virgin mary was thus prayed for. as the martyrs were more highly thought of, however, than other deceased christians, it began to be imagined, about the middle of the fourth century, that they were, by peculiar favor, admitted earlier to the immediate presence of god, and permitted to exert influence even over his purposes. then began the solicitations addressed to men doomed to death, that they would be mindful of the survivors; and the agreements of companions, that whichever should first depart should petition at the foot of the heavenly throne for his mortal friend. in a few more years arose the custom of invoking the spirits supposed to hover near the tombs; some hesitation being implied in the expression 'if they were indeed present, and had any influence in things below.' it was yet a long time before prayer was offered to saints in general, and in the public services of the church. that the practice, if it had been originated, was not approved by the fathers of the church in the third century, we know on the direct testimony of origen, who says that men are not to pray to any derived being (not even to christ himself), but to god the father of all. austin disapproved of praying _for_ the saints, though he believed that the church might be helped by their intercession; at the same time acknowledging, 'it is true the saints do not themselves hear what passes below, but they hear of it by others who die and go to them.' the time when the custom of invoking the saints was first countenanced by the church may be fixed about the end of the fourth century. in the fifth, all opposition to it had ceased, and the images of martyrs began to be regarded with peculiar honor; it being imagined by many that the homage paid to the image drew down into it the propitious presence of the celestial being whom it represented; in the same manner as the statues of jupiter and other pagan gods were believed by heathen worshipers to become instinct with divine life. the temples of the martyrs were now, as theodoret informs us, ornamented with little figures, of gold and silver, representing eyes, feet, hands, &c., deposited for the acceptance of the lords of the temples, as memorials of cures wrought by them on these several members: these memorials proclaiming the power of the dead; whose power, again, demonstrates their god to be the true god. how changed was this christianity from that given by him who forbade his followers to ask anything even of him, because the father himself loved them! concerning mary, the mother of jesus, those who have not vowed to admit ecclesiastical traditions as matters of faith, pretend to little knowledge from the time of the death of christ. her name is mentioned but once in the book of acts, when she is enumerated among the disciples who were collected after the ascension of jesus; and how and where she lived and died, we have no means of ascertaining. the first act of respect to her memory which is on record is censured by epiphanius, as 'a heresy of the women.' it consisted of an offering of cakes, prepared and offered by women only, and generally disapproved of, (though oblations on tombs were then very common,) because it was not known where she was interred. it may be inferred, however, from the account given by epiphanius, that prayers were by some persons offered to the virgin, though he rebukes the new superstition. the first person of authority who is known to have introduced and countenanced the worship of mary, is peter gnapheus, bishop of antioch, who in the fifth century appointed her name to be invoked in the prayers of the church. if such homage were her due, how came the apostles and the apostolic fathers to withhold it from her? why was her claim disallowed so long? we can fully enter into, and are far from disapproving of, the natural curiosity which prompts an inquiry into the fate of one whom all generations unite in calling blessed. when we ponder, as we cannot but do, her privileges above all womanhood besides; when we imagine the intentness of soul with which she must have watched the course of her holy son; perceiving perhaps before all others the manifestations of divine grace in him; becoming more and more elated in her hopes, as the presence of god in him became more evident; trembling at the malignity of the rulers and the madness of the people; and finally sinking in desolation of heart when every vital hope appeared extinguished; we cannot but search for an authentic record of what befell her after the day when the beloved disciple took her to his own home. but being convinced, as we are, that no such record exists, we dare not fill up the history with conjectures of our own; much less admit the claims founded on fable and supported by superstition, which are advanced in her favor by writers who possessed no more knowledge of her state than ourselves, and who were much less impressed by experience with the importance of keeping religion pure, simple, and undefiled. we regard mary as one of the most interesting persons presented by history, but as in no respect connected with the gospel we receive. christianity was not revealed till christ became a man; and as mary had no act or part in its diffusion, she bears no other relation to us than as a being whose lot engages our sympathies, and whose tender nature and pious character should excite our affection and emulation. for the same reasons, however largely we may share the universal curiosity respecting the state of the dead, however rationally our philosophy may conceive, or however vividly our imaginations may represent them as living, as observing the course of events, as participating in our emotions, as enjoying the manifest presence of god, we dare not found any religious belief or practice on such speculations. if our religious observances had been in any way connected with the dead, we should have known something of their state and offices; but as no such knowledge is imparted, as there was no pretension to it in the earliest ages, and especially as christianity clearly points to god as the sole object of religious worship, we invoke the departed for no other purpose than to satisfy our speculative doubts, we attribute to them no other office than that of endearing the past and hallowing the future, and offer no other oblations than those of the memory and the affections. even if we believed them permitted to intercede for us with our father, we should be slow to seek their aid; for if there be one privilege more precious than another, it is that of direct, intimate communion with him who knoweth our weakness and our strength; if there be one provision more sacred than another in the charter of our 'glorious liberty,' it is that by which they who are far off and they who are near have equal access unto the father; not through the ministrations of inferior spirits, but face to face in the sanctuary of his presence. he is not only our sure, but our near refuge; not only our unfailing, but our very present help; not only our hope, but our perpetual joy. the deepest of our joys and griefs, those which it is most necessary to confide to him who caused them, are absolutely incommunicable to all besides; and what is emphatically true of our self-communings, that 'the heart knoweth its own bitterness,' is yet more true of spirit worship, 'no stranger intermeddling with its joy.' having thus stated the grounds of our dissent from that clause of the symbol of pius iv. which declares that 'the saints reigning together with christ are to be honored and invocated, and that they offer prayers to god for us,' it is needless to notice what follows; viz. that their relics are to be venerated; 'that the images of christ and the mother of god, ever virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and retained; and that due honor and veneration are to be given to them.' such practices we hold to be utterly inconsistent with the principle that god is the sole object of religious worship; which principle is derived from what we have laid down as the first essential doctrine of revelation,--the unity of jehovah. the next essential doctrine is, ii. the unlimited extent of the redemption by christ. a large proportion of the differences which have arisen in the christian world respecting the doctrine of redemption, proceed from the variety of meanings which is attached to the term _salvation_. while one party understands by it an admission to the privileges of the gospel, and a consequent emancipation from the penalties of the old dispensation; another, the state of virtue and peace which will prevail when christianity has compassed the globe; and a third, a future state of perfect bliss in contrast to one of eternal torment; there is little hope of a mutual understanding respecting the doctrine of justification. our part now is to state our own views, and not to enter on any discussion of those of others. we believe that by _salvation_ the scripture writers commonly signified the state of privilege into which christian believers were brought by their adoption of the principles of holiness and peace which the gospel affords. thus, according to its original meaning, the term was appropriated to a state of comparative blessedness in this world; but as the principles of the gospel exert the most powerful influence over our spiritual state, over our capacity for happiness in a future world, the term salvation has naturally and not improperly been accommodated to signify a state of future safety and bliss. that it did not always mean this, however, is evident to all attentive readers of the scriptures; as there is not one of paul's epistles or discourses which would be intelligible, if he were supposed to declare his converts saved from the pains of hell, instead of from the dominion of the evils of heathenism, or the condemnation of the jewish law. by _redemption_, we understand a release from the same evils and penalties effected by a sacrifice on the part of a benevolent mediator. by _remission of sins_, we understand the forgiveness and consequent remission of punishment which are promised in the gospel on condition of repentance and newness of life. by _justification_, we believe the sacred writers sometimes to signify the process by which believers are released from all obligations incurred towards the old law, and brought into a state of spiritual freedom; and sometimes that free state itself. we conceive that this interpretation of terms--not new and arbitrary, but only divested of the false associations which have been long gathering round them--will clear up most of the mysteries which obscure a very important christian doctrine, and enable us, in comparing scripture with scripture, to discern a consistency of views and a depth of truth which afford an irresistible evidence of their divine authority. the whole scheme of revelation we conceive to be the method designed by the divine wisdom, and adopted by the divine benevolence, for bringing the human race into a state of purity and peace more rapidly than could be effected by the religion of nature. the welfare of the whole race was no less the object of the jewish than of the christian dispensation, though its apparent privileges were confined to the peculiar people. these privileges, immediately and positively advantageous to the chosen people, were remotely and relatively so to others, by establishing before their eyes evidences of a divine moral government; and as a moral government implies consistency of authority, it affords a strong presumption of the unity of the governor. the jews were led on from the fundamental principle of the divine unity to the apprehension of a divine moral government; while observant heathens, perceiving the moral results of the national vicissitudes of the hebrew people, deduced thence the truth of the unity of the deity. meanwhile, both were advancing to a state of fitness for a fuller revelation; the jews more rapidly than the heathens, as being specially placed under the schoolmaster who was to bring them unto christ; but still, dispensing spiritual benefits towards the heathen, for whose sake as well as for their own they were placed in a state of privilege. the old dispensation, though a condition of light and privilege compared with that of nature, was a state of darkness and bondage when contrasted with christianity. though the hebrews had more elevated conceptions of god and clearer notions of duty than the gentiles, they yet could not appreciate the riches of divine grace, or the extent of divine and human relations, or the full beauty of holiness. they were burdened by a heavy yoke of ritual observances; an escape from the penalties of the law was impossible; and especially, they had no certain knowledge of a future life. the blessings therefore which christianity offered,--the _redemption_ from the bondage of the law, the _remission_ of the penalties of sin on repentance, the _justification_ by which they were placed in a condition of spiritual power and freedom,--were worthy of all the exultation experienced and all the thanksgivings expressed by those who were thus redeemed, forgiven, and justified. these blessings were yet more valuable to the gentiles, in proportion to the more rigorous bondage and deeper moral darkness to which they had been subjected. instead of the strict but salutary discipline of the law, they had sustained the tyranny of lawless appetites and passions, had lived without other restraints than those of nature; and had no hope in death, but the glimmering and uncertain presages which their own faculties or long-corrupted traditions supplied. the mode of preparation for the introduction of the gospel affords a strong presumption that its benefits were intended for the whole race. the jews had been led on to the point when their spiritual development absolutely required a more expansive revelation; and the gentiles were prepared, by their observation of the hebrew people, and by their own wants, sins, and sorrows, to receive with joy happier tidings than their fondest hopes could anticipate, and richer benefits than their desires could previously have comprehended. the benefits of the gospel, after being offered to the jews and partially accepted by them, were freely held out to the whole human race, and received by all who were conscious of the need of them: so that the gospel was truly what the aged simeon declared it, 'the salvation which god had prepared before all people; a light to lighten the gentiles, and the glory of his people israel.' yet there were many among the people of israel who were blind to this glory, and many of the gentiles who rejected this guiding light. this rejection was not caused by any restrictive quality in the revelation, any provision in the gospel itself for the limitation of its privileges: nor was it caused by any previous arbitrary decree of the ordainer of salvation, that on account of some very ancient event, totally unconnected with the present dispensation, a large majority of the human race should be rendered absolutely incapable of participating in the blessings of redemption. it was occasioned by the prejudices of narrow minds, by the ignorance of darkened minds, by the spiritual pride of presumptuous minds, by the petty hopes and fears of selfish minds,--prejudices, ignorance and selfishness naturally arising in the then state of the world, and not to be immediately or speedily got rid of but by miracle: a mode of agency which the divine being has frequently made use of to sanction his revelations, but never to prepare the human mind for their reception. thus spiritual ignorance and moral blindness are, we apprehend, the only obstacles to universal redemption; and we firmly believe that these obstacles are only temporary. the gospel itself bears such an indisputable character of permanence and universality (as we shall hereafter show), and so evident a provision is made for the gradual dissipation of darkness and error, that we may confidently anticipate the time when the hope of the gospel shall be the rich possession of every individual of every nation. that it will be so we conclude, not from the persuasion of our own hopes, or at the bidding of our reason in opposition to the declarations of scripture; but because every principle derived from the gospel sanctions the commands of our reason and affords a warrant of our hope. there is in no gospel, history, or epistle, a hint of any restriction or limitation of the blessings of redemption. christ is ever spoken of as having died for all; there are thanksgivings in the name of all, invitations embracing all, and anticipations of the ultimate bliss of all. those who are mourned over, reproached, entreated, compassionated, because they will not accept freedom and peace, are spoken of as excluded by their own unfitness for grace, arising from natural causes, and not by any sin of any ancestor, or by any arbitrary decree of god, or by any repellant and exclusive character in the dispensation of grace itself. its most distinguishing character, on the contrary, was its boundlessness. its first work was to throw down the wall of partition which had separated the favored people from others, to abolish arbitrary distinctions, to exchange the multifarious conditions of the old law for the few, simple and universal requisites of salvation declared in the new. if other distinctions have since been instituted, other conditions imposed, other requisites insisted on, they are no part of christianity, and shall no more impede its ultimate prevalence than the cloud which shrouds the lightning can prevent its shining from one part of the heaven unto the other. it may be objected, and with justice, that this method of considering the scheme of justification makes out the gift of grace to be only ultimately and not strictly universal; unlimited in its tendencies, but hitherto very limited in the diffusion of its blessings: and hence may arise an inquiry concerning the fate of those who have died without the hope of the gospel. as to the limited spread of the gospel thus far, it is our business not to assign the final cause of the fact, but to admit and reason on the fact itself. the fact occasions no horror in our minds, and less regret than is felt perhaps by any denomination of christians besides ourselves; and for this reason, that we do not hold perdition to be the only alternative to salvation by christ. we find no sanction for so fearful a collocation of terms in the record of the covenant; no mode of reconciling the doctrine thus originated with the attributes of deity, or with our conceptions of justice, much less of benignity. moreover we can clearly discern through what misconception the monstrous belief in the everlasting destruction of unbelievers, whether by natural or moral necessity, has sprung to birth. we believe it to have arisen from the before-mentioned misapprehension of the terms salvation, remission of sins, and justification. to the enjoyment of the blessings of the gospel no alternative could be opposed but their non-possession; to the remission of sins, but their retention; to justification, but condemnation under the law. but it does not follow that when these terms are shifted from their original use, and accommodated to a subject to which they do not naturally belong, they should be still opposed to each other, no others being allowed to intervene. if it be generally agreed to understand by _salvation_ a state of perfect bliss after death, it is well: but if any man then choose to transfer the term _perdition_ from meaning the loss of the privileges of christianity to the loss of the happiness of heaven and a consequent subjection to the pains of hell, he goes further than the customary use of language allows, further than reason can sanction, and much further astray from a true theology than he can at present estimate, or can hereafter sufficiently deplore. it is mournful enough that myriads have died in ignorance and error, that thousands have rejected offered light; but no words can express the horror of the popular doctrine of the eternal condemnation of all who have not died in the faith of christ, or our reprobation of the corruption through which such a doctrine has been originated, received, and retained. while we believe that grace and truth came by jesus christ, and that 'all things are but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of christ jesus our lord,' we cannot believe that wrath from above and misery from below, sin from within and darkness around, destined to be dissipated only by the flames of hell, are the portion of all but those who are equally happy with ourselves. our belief appears to us more consistent with our apprehensions of the perfections of our father, with our interpretations of his providence, and with the spirit of his revealed law. we believe that though christianity is the focus in which all the lights of reason and religion are concentrated, every ray is not there absorbed. we believe that though shadows brood more or less darkly over every heathen land, there is in the most remote a glimmering of the dawn; a ray which may direct the eye towards the fountain of glory, and engage the attention to watch the rising of that sun which shall set no more. we believe that the rewards of righteousness are promised to all; and that the practice of righteousness is not limited to any kindred, tongue, or people, or essentially connected with any religious belief. we hold that retribution is the universal sanction of the universal moral law; and if the nature of the sanction be more fully understood by christians, and therefore practically admitted with greater readiness, let them be as grateful as they will for the great privilege, but beware of supposing that the sanction is abolished to all besides. under the various obscurations of this sanction, savage virtue may be inferior to civilized,--hottentot to roman virtue, as both are to christian holiness; but there is every reason to believe that the savage who surrendered his hard-earned meal to the hungry stranger, and the pagan senators and warriors who toiled and bled for their country, were as sure of an appropriate reward as the most benevolent and heroic of christians. the unlimited nature of salvation in this sense, leads us on to another great doctrine of the gospel; viz. iii. a future state. this truth, the most important to human improvement, the most interesting to human affections, was so fully brought to light by the gospel, that christians have differed respecting it no further than as to the time and mode in which future retribution will take place. that jesus died on the cross, was inclosed in the sepulchre, and was led forth thence by the manifest power of god, are facts too well authenticated to be questioned to any purpose by the most hardy sceptic; and on them securely rests the sublime belief which, from the midst of obscurity, had already cheered the bereaved, animated the martyr, and exalted the hopes and fears of the great body of the hebrew nation. they had been led, like many of the gentiles, by the mournful questionings of their affections, to inquire concerning a future state, and at length to believe in it; but their indistinct belief was widely different in nature and far inferior in power to the firm and clear faith with which the resurrection of christ authorized them to look forward. their former belief was strong enough to reconcile them to death; and perhaps they had sufficiently clear convictions that the future life would be a scene of retribution, to govern their own conduct by some regard to it; but the evidence was not such as to authorize their pressing on the minds of others the motives which the doctrine now affords. without the evidence of the facts of christ's resurrection, paul could not have made felix tremble at the prospect of judgement to come; or have enforced the duties of masters to their servants by considerations of their accountability to a master in heaven; or have felt how far better it was to depart and be with christ than to pursue his earthly labors. without this evidence, stephen could not have met his fate as if he had been welcoming the hour of rest from which the beams of a new day should awaken him. without this evidence, no one of the apostles could have passed through his labors and sufferings with zeal, patience, and cheerfulness; for we have their own testimony, that if in this life only they had had hope in christ, they would have been of all men the most miserable. without this evidence, not only would the hopes of millions who have since lived have vacillated, the peace of millions have been at the mercy of sickness and death, and their spiritual strength in perpetual peril from temptation, but the state of morals through the whole civilized world, imperfect as it yet is, would have been far inferior to what we see it, and could never attain the purity which we confidently anticipate in some future age. without this evidence, christianity would be almost nothing; for the doctrine of future retribution is not only its most important revelation, but it is so intimately connected with every other, as a sanction, that the church might as well be supposed complete without its chief corner-stone, as christianity to be efficacious if deprived of this last grand truth. this evidence we have, however; and possessing it, it is of comparatively little importance how widely men differ in their speculations as to the time and mode in which the future life shall succeed to the present, and as to the nature of the rewards and punishments which shall follow their probation. the belief in a certain and righteous retribution is all that is enforced upon us by christianity, all that is a necessary consequence of our faith in the resurrection of christ. yet, as a tendency to unauthorized speculation, and also a misapprehension of some scriptural expressions, appear to us to have caused a very extensive forgetfulness that retribution is not only certain, but will be righteous, we must enter on some explanation of our views respecting the extent of punishment of which the life to come is to be the scene. we say respecting the _extent_ only, because the _nature_ of the punishment is a subject of far inferior importance, and one on which we possess so little light that it may fairly be left to the imagination of each individual to conceive for himself. some persons, perhaps the great majority of every denomination of christians, believe that the pains of actual burning will be inflicted on a corporeal frame, susceptible of suffering in the same way as the body which we at present inhabit, but rendered indestructible. others conceive that the scripture language which describes the wicked as tormented by fire is metaphorical, and that it clearly refers, by way of allusion, to the valley of hinnom, where corrupt substances were devoured by worms, and where human sacrifices were offered by fire to moloch. such imagine that the future sufferings of the wicked will be purely mental, but not therefore the less severe and awful. if it had been necessary to form clear conceptions on this subject, a fuller light would have been cast upon it; and as that fuller light is not granted, we may fairly suppose that we cannot at present understand the exact nature of the evil of which we are emphatically called on to beware. but of the duration of the evil, we believe ourselves so far qualified to judge, as to anticipate that it will not be eternal. our reasons for thus determining are various. it is, in the first place, utterly inconceivable that god should appoint to any individual of his creatures a lot in which misery predominates over happiness. our belief in the divine prescience requires that we suppose the fate of every man to be ordained from the beginning. our faith in the divine mercy requires that we should expect an overbalance of good in the existence of every being thus ordained; and that in no case can the punishment be disproportionate to the offence. our faith in the divine benevolence inspires a conviction that all evil is to be made subsidiary to good, and that therefore all punishment must be corrective, all suffering remedial. thus far the light of nature teaches us to anticipate the final restitution of sinners. it is confirmed by revelation,--by every passage of the sacred records which represents god as a tender father to all the human race, as just and good, as incapable of being 'angry for ever,' or of taking pleasure in the punishment of the wicked, and as chastising in mercy, for corrective purposes. it is confirmed by every passage which describes the good brought into the world by christ as overbalancing the evil produced by the introduction of sin and death. it is confirmed by every passage which prophetically announces the triumph of the gospel over all adverse powers,--death, sin, and sorrow. above all, it is confirmed by the whole tenor of the preachings and writings of the saviour and his followers,--by the spirit of boundless benevolence, of joyful faith, of exulting hope, which is every where blended with their emphatic warnings of the perils of sin, and their mournful regret for the infatuation of sinners. it appears to us that against all this array of evidence on the one side, little or none can be adduced on the other. that which is brought forward most frequently and with the most show of reason is the expressions commonly translated _everlasting_, and which are applied both to the future happiness of the righteous and misery of the wicked. these terms (which are much less frequently applied to a future state than is commonly supposed) do not invariably signify 'everlasting' and 'eternal,' as is evident from their being applied to various institutions and states which have already come to an end and passed away: as to the covenant with abraham, which is declared to have been long since annulled; to the priesthood of aaron, of which no vestiges remain; and to the flames of gehenna, which have been quenched for ages. the strictly correct rendering of the terms in these cases is _permanent_, _continual_, _lasting_, and not absolutely eternal. in order to reconcile the terms as usually rendered with the attribute of divine justice, some christians have imagined that the limited punishment of the wicked will be followed by immediate destruction; but this supposition leaves the difficulty where it was before, and is besides destitute of all support from reason or scripture; as it is incompatible with the character of the divine dispensations that punishment should be appointed for any but corrective purposes, or that sin and sorrow should triumph in the annihilation of any individual of god's creatures. if we are asked why then we firmly believe in the immortality of the righteous? we reply, that we found our faith on much better evidence than the use of the terms we have now been considering. we believe it, because the happiness of the creature is the fulfilment of the ends of creation and providence; because happiness is an eternal principle, while misery is only a temporary influence; and because it would argue imperfection in the deity, if he were either unable or unwilling to prolong a holy and blissful existence. this doctrine,--of the limited and corrective nature of future punishment,--is often likened by those who disbelieve and disapprove it, to the catholic doctrine of purgatory; a likeness which catholics and unitarians are perhaps equally unwilling to admit, though the latter have little doubt that the belief in purgatory is a corruption of the genuine doctrine as they hold it now. it was the opinion of many of the fathers in very early times, that the world would be destroyed by fire; that the good would be purified by the process, and the wicked consumed. it is clear that they derived a part of this belief from some other source than the scriptures; but it is equally clear that they had no notion of an eternity of torment. origen, clemens alexandrinus, his master, with gregory nazianzen, and others of the fathers, held that the wicked would survive this punishment, and come out purified and fit for a blissful state. the catholic doctrine of purgatory probably arose out of some of these opinions, though it embraces much which does not appear to have entered into the imaginations of the fathers. its substance, as declared in the councils of florence and trent, is that every man is liable both to temporal and eternal punishment for his sins; that the eternal punishment may be escaped by faith in the atonement of christ; but that the temporal must be borne by the individual in this world or at his entrance on the next; that the sufferings of those who undergo purgation may be relieved by the prayers and suffrages of their earthly brethren, though in what manner this relief is wrought, whether by a process of satisfaction, or of intercession, or of any other method, it is not essential to true faith to be certified. neither is it necessary to know where the place of purgation is; of what nature its pains are, and how long sufferers may be detained there. the belief in purgatory was, for some ages, held by all christians, except the ancient waldenses, who left the church of rome before the doctrine was established there, and who never admitted it. soon after the reformation, it was abandoned by all who left the church of rome; so that it has since been peculiar to that church. our reasons for rejecting it are, that we find no trace of it in scripture, and that, as we declared before, we do not admit ecclesiastical traditions as matters of faith. we also reject the notion that any part of the punishment of sin can be escaped through the sacrifices, or mediation, or intercession of any being whomsoever. we have been frequently accused of impairing a divinely appointed sanction by asserting the limited extent of future punishment; but we think that the sanction is, in reality, abolished by the admission that the divine decrees may be set aside by human acts, and that the relations of good and evil, virtue and vice, which are declared to be immutable, may be changed at the pleasure of mortal agents. we believe the punishment of sin to be of limited duration; but as certain as the existence of the moral agent, and as little capable of remission through the will of any created being as the law which regulates the rise and fall of the tides, the changes of the moon, and the revolutions of the planets. we hold it to be awful, not only from its certainty, but from its concealed nature. it will doubtless transcend all that the experience of earth can suggest to the imagination. can it be said that we impair this sanction when we hold that the suffering consequent on guilt is absolutely certain, lasting in its duration, and inconceivably dreadful in its nature? what apprehensions could be fitted to excite greater dread? for the purpose of explaining why we believe that no part of the consequences of guilt can be evaded through the sacrifices, mediation, or intercession of any being whatsoever, it is necessary to pass on to the next division of our subject. having stated the three leading doctrines of christianity, the unity of god, the unlimited scope of the plan of redemption, and a future state, we now proceed briefly to examine the principles of morals proposed by the gospel. the fundamental truths of morals are eternal as he to whom they primarily relate, and immutable as the purposes which they subserve. but it is necessary that they should be communicated to men under different forms and according to various methods, as minds are prepared to receive them: and their application must also be regulated according to the circumstances in which men are placed. the same principle was proposed to adam in paradise, to abraham in beersheba, and to paul when he set his face steadfastly to go to jerusalem, knowing that bonds and afflictions awaited him there. obedience to god was the motive proposed for abstaining from the forbidden fruit, for sacrificing an only son, and for facing suffering and death. but an intimation which was all powerful with abraham was insufficient to secure a much less painful obedience from adam; and the self-devotion of paul was ennobled in all its manifold instances, by its springing, not from so many express directions, but from a principle, undeviating and perpetual in its operation. in the infancy of the race, it would have been utterly useless to reveal the grand principles of morals in any other way than that which was adopted, viz. by exhibiting their application in various instances. the divine will was therefore made known in express directions, probably very few in number at first, and gradually increasing in number and importance, so as to enable observers, from remarking the similar tendency of several, to infer a general principle from them. all the records which we possess of the history of the race to the calling of the israelites out of egypt, prove this to have been the method adopted. the commands of god, and the promises and threats by which they were sanctioned, bore an analogy, in their gradual elevation, to those by which we influence an opening mind in its progress from the first manifestation of intelligence to the age when the power of conscience is recognizable. in the mosaic system, a considerable advance was made, a direct appeal to conscience being instituted, and the gradual revelation of a moral government being provided for. men were then taught, not what we now know, that the relation between virtue and happiness, vice and misery, is immutable (which they could not have understood,) but that in their particular case, obedience to certain laws would secure prosperity, and disobedience adversity. such obedience, the most virtuous were incited to render, from a fear and love of god; but they could not have rendered it in any but specified cases, because, not yet being made acquainted with the principle as a principle, they could not direct its application for themselves. the case was the same with the other great principle, benevolence, as with piety; and, accordingly, the body of laws which was prepared for the israelites was voluminous, and their sanctions were expressed in a copious variety of promises and threatenings, and embodied in a burthensome ritual, consisting chiefly of penal acts. when the nation had thus been exercised long enough to prepare it for entering on a new course of moral agency (as we prepare a child for the spontaneous exercise of filial duty and fraternal love by a discipline of express commands and particular acts,) christianity was dispensed, and men were at length furnished with the principles themselves, with whose application they were henceforth to be entrusted. christianity was designed to be permanent and universal; and, therefore, though it was first communicated in the form best adapted to those who were first to receive it, it contains within itself that which shall fit it to be a revelation to the mind of man in every stage. it contains eternal principles of doctrine and morals, embodied in facts, which are the only immutable and universal language. the character of christ affords a never-failing suggestion, and a perfect illustration of the principles of morals; a suggestion which only the most careless minds can fail to receive, and an illustration by which only the most hardened can fail to be impressed. from him it was learned what part of the moral law of moses was to be retained and what forgone; how much was vital and permanent and how much external and temporary. from him it was learned, and shall be learned to the end of time, how the sympathy which caused tears at the grave of lazarus, the compassion which relieved the widowed mother of nain, the tenderness which yearned towards the repentant apostle, the diffusive love which embraced in its prayer all of every age and nation who needed the gospel of grace, combined to enforce and adorn the principle of benevolence. his parables are eloquent in their praise of benevolence; his entreaties to mutual love are urgent, and his commands decisive; but the eloquence of his example is by far more urgent and irresistible. from him it was, and ever shall be, learned that the rule of life is to be found in the will of god. from his devotion to the work which god had given him to do, from his perpetual reference of all things to the divine will, from his unhesitating submission to suffering and death, from his supreme delight in devotional communion, we learn how piety is the pre-eminent principle of feeling and action which men are required to adopt. the parables which inculcate ready filial obedience and sorrow for disobedience, the declarations that it was his meat and drink to do the will of god, and that he was not alone because the father was with him, are powerful enforcements of the principle; but not so powerful as the acts of obedience and resignation in which its power shone forth. the whole scheme of morals is comprehended in the precepts, 'thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself;' but the concentration of truth and beauty is less resplendant, less engaging, less universally clear and interesting, than in the character of him who deduced these two principles from all the law and the prophets. with these two principles, and all the subordinate ones which are derived from them, are connected sanctions from above, which attest their origin and secure their adoption. by an irreversible decree of him who founded nature and vouchsafed a revelation, certain states of enjoyment and suffering are connected with the practical adoption or rejection of the principles of duty, not by way of arbitrary appointment, but of natural consequence. the relations of holiness and happiness, of guilt and misery, are unalterable; shown to be so by the teachings of nature and experience, by the explicit declarations of scripture, and by every species of evidence which the mind of man is capable of receiving. though the chief object of the christian revelation was to make this relation more evident than it had ever been before, many who received the gospel imagine that it discovers to them a means by which the relation may be suspended or destroyed. this misapprehension we hold to be more fatal in its moral consequences than any other which human prejudice has originated. by what appears to us a strange perversion of scripture language, and by the gradual increase of some subordinate errors, it began to be imagined, some centuries ago, that, though misery is necessarily connected with guilt, yet that the guilt may be perpetrated by one person, and the consequent misery endured by another; and this belief has subsisted in almost every christian church till this day. it is well that it has been confined to the churches, and that its application has been limited, by all but catholics, to one very peculiar case; for if it had become the common doctrine of our schools, and colleges, and homes, if it had been enforced by parents and moral philosophers and professors as a general truth, as it is by divines with reference to a particular case, the very foundations of virtue would have been overthrown, and the force of its sanctions not only wasted but fatally perverted. happily the accents of reason and religion have been too distinct and harmonious to be overpowered by the dictates of error, or very extensively neglected. notwithstanding all that religious teachers have erroneously inculcated of the possible and actual separation of guilt and its punishment on the principle of vicarious suffering, education has still proceeded, and moral discipline been enforced as if no such false principle had ever been advocated. children are swayed by hope and fear of the consequences of their actions to themselves; and self-government is enforced at a riper age by the same motives, though enlarged and elevated. in religion alone has an error, as absurd in its nature as injurious in its tendencies, been retained thus long by the force of prejudice; and that it has not spread further we hold to be owing to its manifest folly and to its evidently noxious influence when applied to any case but that to which it is appropriated. there can be no surer proof that the principle itself is false. it is difficult to know where to begin in disproving a doctrine which is repugnant to every other doctrine, inconsistent with every received truth, and incompatible with every admitted divine and human relation, with every known attribute of mind, divine or human. it will be sufficient to state one reason for utterly rejecting as we do the doctrine of vicarious suffering; that reason being suggested and confirmed both by our own understandings and by scripture. it is clear that no man can sin for another. he may sin at the instigation of another, or for the supposed benefit of another; but in the first case, the sin remains with both, and in the last, with the perpetrator only. moral disease thus bears an exact analogy to natural disease. natural disease may be communicated, or even incurred for the benefit of another, but it cannot be so transferred as to be annihilated with respect to the person who was first subject to it. the case is precisely the same with the pain which is the inseparable consequence of sin. if endured by any but the sinner, it is actually and completely disconnected with the sin. it is no longer a punishment, but a gratuitous infliction. this is so evident that, if proposed in any court of justice but that from which our purest conceptions of justice are derived, the reason and conscience of every man would exclaim against the monstrous notion of a substitution of punishment. if a man had transgressed the laws of his country by theft, would he not be the most unjust judge upon earth who would sentence his elder brother, known to be innocent and virtuous, to imprisonment or death for the offence? would the case be altered, except in the way of aggravation, if the sentence were inflicted at the desire of the innocent man? would any purpose of justice be answered by such a process? would not every principle of equity--to say nothing of benevolence--be violated? would not the sufferer be as foolish and blind in his submission as the judge arbitrary in the infliction? is it not utterly impossible that a transaction, perfectly analogous in principle, though infinitely more momentous in its influences, should take place between the just judge, the tender father of men, a creature made fallible by him, and his holy and beloved son? but we are told it is not for us to argue thus on the right and wrong of a transaction which has taken place, and is continually taking place, by divine appointment. it is enough that god has appointed this method of salvation. the lawfulness of examining the divine decrees with intent to understand them, will be discussed hereafter. our business now is to declare why we do not believe this to be the appointed method of salvation, set forth in the sacred records. repentance (including not merely shame and sorrow for sin, but newness of life) appears to us to stand forth on the face of the sacred records as the grand, the sole, condition of forgiveness of sins. the faith in christ, which is so strenuously insisted on as a requisite, is valuable as inducing sorrow for sin and purity of life. our obligations to christ, which are so vividly described, are due to him for the benefits he has bestowed on us through his gospel, and not for any subsequent arbitrary gift, which we feel it impossible for him to have offered, for us to avail ourselves of, and for god to accept. our obligations to him are boundless and eternal;--for having devoted and sacrificed his life to furnish us with the conditions of salvation,--to teach us repentance, and incite us to holiness. he was truly a sacrifice for men; he suffered and died because they were sinners, and in order to bring them salvation. this the scripture teaches, and this we readily admit; finding, however, no intimation that any sin has ever been forgiven on any other condition than that of repentance; that repentance has ever failed to procure forgiveness; that any being whatever has at any time exercised or possessed the power of separating sin and suffering by taking either upon himself, or of transferring both from the consciousness of another to his own; that if the endurance of suffering by substitution were possible, it could not be righteous; or that if it were not unrighteous, it could be available to any beneficent purpose. finding none of these suppositions, but all their opposites in the spirit and detail of the sacred records, we absolutely reject the popular doctrine of the atonement by christ, while we regard his sacrifices for us with reverential gratitude, and our obligations to him with awe and rejoicing. the more attentively we ponder his instructions and the more amply we estimate the benefits he brought us, the more conscious do we become of the impiety of withholding from the supreme author of our salvation the gratitude and praise which are due to his free, unpurchased grace. it is given through christ, but it originates in god. it comes through a mediator; but that mediator was appointed, informed, guided by god. to him christ ascribed, not only the acceptance of his sacrifice and mediation; but the design in which it originated, the means by which it was wrought, and the end which it should ultimately accomplish; and the more we contemplate the design, become acquainted with the means, and joyfully anticipate the end, the more eagerly do we join with christ in ascribing to jehovah the glory and the praise. we will now explain our meaning in saying that the catholics alone, of all christians who have admitted the doctrine of satisfaction for sin, have not restricted its application to one very peculiar case. they have been perfectly consistent in not so restricting it; and they would have been more extensively consistent if they had gone as much beyond the point they have reached, as they have beyond the church of england and the disciples of calvin. if the principle be sound, it will bear a boundless application; if it be unsound, it can be no part of revelation, and should be instantly relinquished. if atonement for sin by a transferrence of punishment be possible in any case, it cannot be pronounced impossible in any similar case. if spiritual guilt can be atoned for by ritual sacrifices, in any instance, no one knows that it may not in any other instance. therefore if the church of england holds that the jewish sacrifices were in strict analogy with that of christ, they cannot reasonably condemn the offering of the mass, and pious gifts offered by the innocent on behalf of the sinner. neither can the calvinists, who regard the mosaic offerings as atonements for spiritual sin, consistently object to the practice of penance, or the principle of granting indulgences. it appears to us that there is no tenable ground between the ultimate extension of the principle and its absolute rejection,--between dissolving to each individual the connection between guilt and punishment, and asserting that connection to be absolutely indissoluble: thereby maintaining the genuine scripture doctrine that repentance alone can obtain remission of sins. the lawfulness of the practice of penance and the enjoyment of indulgences is, we perceive, defended by catholics as being established on the same ground as the jewish sacrifices. they expressly state that the _eternal_ pain due to guilt cannot be removed by indulgences, or averted by penance, but only the temporal pain over which the death of christ has no power of remission. this bears a strong analogy to the case of the mosaic sacrifices, which were ceremonial atonements for breaches of the ceremonial law, and were not of themselves, as is universally allowed, intended to avert the penalties of spiritual guilt. but this analogy yields no countenance to the catholic practices we are considering, unless it can be proved that two distinct species of punishment were divinely ordained, and two distinct methods of atonement prescribed. and even if this were proved, the case would not be complete: for though we should suppose two kinds of punishment, and two methods of reconciliation appointed, it is further necessary that the offender should be liable to two distinct species of offence; a position in which none but an ancient jew was ever placed. the divine sanctions were altogether so different under the jewish from what they are declared to be under the christian dispensation, that no analogy which can be instituted between them will hold with any completeness. a future state of retribution formed no part of the revelation made to the jews. to them, the ultimate punishment which they could anticipate was national adversity, which was the infallible consequence of moral guilt (unless averted by repentance), as ritual penalties were the necessary atonement for breaches of the external law. of christians, a higher obedience is required,--a more spiritual devotion to the will of god; and this higher obedience is enforced by more elevated sanctions. christians are free from the divine imposition of external observances, and therefore from all divinely appointed external penalties. they are to worship in spirit and in truth; to yield the obedience of the heart; and all their outward manifestations of devotion are of human appointment;--salutary, no doubt, and even necessary to the maintenance of piety, but still optional, possessing only a derived value, and in their very nature incapable of being made atonement for sin. spiritual atonement, _i. e._ repentance, is the only atonement which the gospel prescribes or supposes possible for spiritual guilt. reparation indeed is to be made by the guilty to the injured person, when the case admits of it; but this reparation does not constitute the atonement, nor does it partake of the nature of penance. it is only an external atonement for an external injury, and is an evidence that the spiritual atonement,--repentance, has been already made. it bears a relation to that class of offences only which immediately respects our fellow-men, and is impracticable in cases where the offence is against god and ourselves. in such cases, external penance bears no other relation to the offence than such as the weak will of man has originated;--a relation arbitrary, unsanctioned by god, and therefore perilous to man. this relation, being thus arbitrary, fails of the object for which it was established. their belief in the efficacy of penance is thus stated by catholics. (we copy from the universally accredited work, entitled 'roman catholic principles in reference to god and the king,' first published in , and ever since acknowledged as a faithful exposition.) 'though no creature whatsoever can make condign satisfaction, either for the guilt of sin, or the pain eternal due to it, this satisfaction being proper to christ our saviour only, yet penitent sinners, redeemed by christ, may, as members of christ, in some measure satisfy by prayer, fasting, alms-deeds, and other works of piety, for the temporal pain which, in the order of divine justice sometimes remains due, after the guilt of sin and pains eternal have been remitted. such penitential works are, notwithstanding, no otherwise satisfactory than as joined and applied to that satisfaction which jesus made upon the cross, in virtue of which alone all our good works find a grateful acceptance in the sight of god.' as we have already stated our opinion respecting the nature of the sacrifice of christ, we have only to inquire, in our examination of this passage, into the meaning of the words _temporal pain_. if they be intended to signify the natural evil consequences of sin in this world, it is clear that no penance of human institution can avert them; since the very efficacy of this penance would prove these consequences not to be natural but arbitrary. a man who has defrauded his neighbor cannot preserve or recover his character for honesty, or secure the confidence of those around him 'by prayer, fasting, alms-deeds, or other works of piety.' the means are not adapted to the end. the method he must pursue, and the only one which can be used with effect, is to restore that which he had unjustly obtained, and to persevere in a course of integrity till the rectitude of his motives becomes unquestionable. if in the meanwhile he employs prayer, fasting, and alms-deeds as means of rousing his highest affections and confirming his virtuous resolutions, he may find them so far efficacious; but the removal of the _temporal pain_, the stain upon his reputation, is not ascribable to them, but is the consequence of his well attested repentance. but it appears doubtful whether we have rightly interpreted the words _temporal pain_; since the being obnoxious to this pain is one of the qualifications for the discipline of purgatory. we wish that an exact account could be obtained of its real nature: though, be it what it may, it is clear to us that no natural penalty can be averted by so arbitrary an institution as that of penance. the clause on indulgences is as follows. we quote the doctrinal part of it, that we may avoid the danger, of which it warns us, of charging on the church such abuses or mistakes as have been sometimes committed in point of granting and gaining indulgences, through the remissness or ignorance of individuals. 'the guilt of sin, or pain eternal due to it, is never remitted by what catholics call indulgences; but only such temporal punishments as remain due after the guilt is remitted: these indulgences being nothing else than a mitigation or relaxation, upon just causes, of canonical penances, enjoined by the pastors of the church on penitent sinners, according to their several degrees of demerit.' our conviction of the absolute inefficacy of canonical penances to obtain the end for which they are practised having been stated, we proceed to consider the legitimacy of the power by which such acts are imposed, and a remission from them granted. we shall ground our arguments on some of the subordinate principles, which are clearly deducible from the primary principles of doctrine and morals which we have already stated and arranged. one of these principles, whose claim to admission is seldom unequivocally denied in theory, though too often practically disallowed, is christian liberty,--the indefeasible right of every man to freedom from all human control in spiritual concerns. this comprehends the right of entire privacy of conscience, of exemption from all inquiry and interference in spiritual matters, of examining, interpreting, comparing and understanding the sacred records under a responsibility to none but god; and of forming, changing, and announcing opinions without hinderance or molestation. we are aware that this principle is seldom carried out to its utmost length, even in speculation; and as seldom is it absolutely rejected. but, as we have said with respect to another principle, and as we would say of all, let it be put to the test of reason and experience; and if sound, let it be fully admitted with all its consequences; if unsound, let it be discarded. the process of attestation which we have instituted obliges us to receive it unhesitatingly, and to act on it unreservedly. the primary spiritual relation of men is to god; their highest subordinate relation is to each other. their conduct in the subordinate relation is to be regulated by a regard to the primary; but the primary relation is not to be invaded by any influences from below. the relations between man and man are established by god and guided by him to the fulfilment of purposes known only to him, except in so far as it has pleased him to reveal them. the relation of the mind of man to its maker is, on the contrary, so intimate as to admit of no intervention; and of a nature which cannot be affected by any influence whatever. this relation may be unperceived; (though there is perhaps no instance on record of its being so) it may be heedlessly forgotten; it may be, as alas! it too often is, obscured by the shades of vice or the influences of spiritual tyranny; but it can never be usurped or changed; and the time must come when this indissoluble relation shall be recognized and claimed as comprehending all the manifold privileges of existence. the course of nature seems designed to lead men to its perception, and the grand object of revelation is to blazon it forth; while every intimation of its nature describes it as sacred from all invasion. every manifestation of the divine will must, therefore, be made to each individual mind as exclusively as if no other mind existed. the religion of nature, though adopted in various countries, and amidst its different aspects among different nations, embraced by myriads under every form, is yet a bond between god and every individual man as complete as if that man alone had been created. in like manner the gospel is a covenant between god and the human race only as it is a covenant between god and every individual of that race who shall embrace it: and there can be two parties only to the transaction,--he who offers the conditions, and he who accepts or rejects them. to no one has the author of this covenant deputed the power of imposing the conditions, or of judging how far they have been fulfilled, or of passing; sentence accordingly. to none could he depute this power without making him, in fact, the only person with whom the inferior party has to do, _i. e._ the god of the inferior party. it may be objected that we argue upon a metaphor; but, let the gospel be regarded under every possible aspect, the same truth will still be demonstrable,--that between the creator and the created no created power can, without the divine concurrence, interfere; and that in the spiritual creation, the powers requisite for interference being above those of humanity, such concurrence never can have been, and never can be granted. if the nature of christian obedience had been different,--if it had been ritual instead of spiritual, it may be conceived possible that god might have committed to man the power of judging and sentencing; but the things of the heart, the desires, the struggles with temptation, the silent conflicts, the unapparent defeats and victories of conscience, are known and can be known by none but god. through the medium of confession alone can one man gain any insight into the spiritual state of another; and no medium can be more deceptive. it is perhaps impossible for the most conscientious mind to communicate to the most congenial fellow-mind a faithful detail of the thoughts, wishes, hopes, and fears of any single hour; and if it were possible, the fellow-mind would still be incapable of forming an estimate of the spiritual state, or of directing the necessary discipline; because the apparent results of operations which he does not understand are all the materials that he has to judge from; whereas the object of discipline is to rectify the operations themselves. if a man confesses to his bosom friend that his devotional feelings have been for some time past sensibly weakening; that he looks on the beautiful world of nature with apathy, and thinks on the perpetual presence of god without awe or delight; that his spirit is dead in the public offices of devotion, and roving when it ought to be fixed in prayer; his friend may mourn with him over so painful an experience, and suggest, more or less wisely, methods of arousing the sleeping faculties, and kindling anew the failing fires of devotion. but he does this as an adviser, and not as a judge; for the power of judging is not given to him. he knows not whether the origin of the distemper be bodily or mental: he knows nothing of the thousand influences, from within and from without, which have of late modified the delicate processes of the intellect and the soul. he cannot therefore know what restorative influences are most needed; whether mute converse with nature or busy intercourse with men; whether the terrifying or the alluring appeals of the gospel; whether the awful claims of the divine holiness, or the mild persuasions of the divine compassion; whether any or all of these, or of the manifold influences besides which are perpetually dispensed by him who knoweth our frame, but have never been confided to the empirical disposal of man. if, as is evidently the case, all human judgment of sin and holiness is comparative instead of positive, and therefore ever changing as the means of comparison become more ample and the faculty stronger, it is manifestly impossible for any one mind to form an exact estimate of the qualities of another by any but its own imperfect and varying measure: and since to god alone are the principles of morals present in their complete development, to him alone can their infallible application belong. the agency of men on each other is appointed accordingly. they may confess their sins one to another for their mutual relief and guidance; but such confession must be strictly voluntary, and carefully disconnected with all inclination towards spiritual usurpation on the one hand and subservience on the other. there is no subject on which the sacred writers are more explicit than this, and none on which their practice exhibited a more eloquent commentary. hear what the apostle of the gentiles asserts in defence of the spiritual liberty of the least enlightened members of the church, who were, as he believed, in error respecting some modes of practice which were very important at that time. 'him that is weak in the faith, receive ye; but not for doubtful disputings. one believeth that he may eat all things; but another who is weak eateth herbs only. let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth; for god hath received him. who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own master he standeth or falleth. but he shall be established, for god is able to establish him. it is written, 'as i live, saith the lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to god.' so then every one of us shall give account of himself to god. let us not therefore judge one another any more.' (romans xiv.) this was the rule which the apostle observed in all his transactions with the infant churches which referred their spiritual concerns to him, as their father and guardian in the faith. he denounced guilt, expounded the faith, guarded against error, and used every method of argument, persuasion, and entreaty, with which his head and heart could furnish him to establish them in righteousness; he set before them every motive of hope and fear, and faithfully declared the whole counsel of god, as bound by his office, and privileged by his unequalled qualifications; but he throughout abstained from intermeddling with any man's conscience, not only by direct interference, but by indirect influence. let us see how scrupulous was his regard to liberty of conscience. 'i know and am persuaded by the lord jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. all things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything by which thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. hast thou faith? have it to thyself before god.' (romans xiv.) a yet more eminent example is on record, whose conduct bears a reference to a case of still more awful responsibility than that instanced by the apostle. 'if any man hear my words and believe not, i judge him not: for i came not to judge the world, but to save the world. he that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that i have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. for i have not spoken of myself; but the father who sent me, he gave me a commandment what i should say and what i should speak. (john xii. - .) how, in the face of these declarations, can men impeach the faith and pronounce sentence on the practice of their brethren, assuming their own judgments as the standard of truth, and their own conceptions as the measure of holiness? how, in the face of these declarations, can ministers of the gospel have ever grasped, as a right, the power which christ himself disclaimed; not leaving judgment till the last day, but delivering over to reproach and death those who were 'weak in the faith,' or perplexed with 'doubtful disputations'? how, in the face of these declarations, can priests of any church have denied that to his own master every man stands or falls, and have made close inquisition into the secrets of the soul, pretending to understand its errors, and presumptuously undertaking to cleanse its secret faults by methods which no voice from above has sanctioned as lawful, and no sign from on high has shown to be efficacious? could such inquisitors and such priests (and they are to be found in every church) have mingled with the followers of jesus, they would have cried out for fire from heaven on the samaritans, notwithstanding every prohibition; they would have questioned the sinful mary, not satisfied with her loving much, till they had ascertained how much; they would have pronounced the young lawyer very far from the kingdom of god unless he could have made a fuller profession of faith; and, meeting the adulteress in the outer courts of the temple as she left the mild presence of jesus, would have prescribed her penance with a rigor well pleasing to the accusers, who were themselves too modest to cast the first stone. since jesus, who knew what was in the hearts of those around him, forbore to condemn, much more ought they to forbear who have no such knowledge. if he awarded no punishment to those who rejected the gospel he understood so well, much less should they who are themselves but learners inflict pain of body or mind on their fellow-disciples who understand differently, or the unbelievers who cannot understand at all. if he who spake as his father commanded him left it to the father to enforce these commands, it ill becomes those on whom the spirit has not descended to assume an authority which inspiration itself could not sanction. it becomes them to learn what they themselves are, before they judge how little their brethren are what they ought to be. it becomes them to ascertain their own superiority over the apostles, before they claim an authority with which no apostle ever believed himself to be invested; and which, if he had so imagined, he would have prayed for permission to resign. far less perilous, far less burdensome would be a commission from on high to guide the seasons, to dispense showers and sunshine, and regulate the produce of the fields, than to control the spiritual movements, and administer the fertilizing influences under which the fruits of holiness are to spring up unto everlasting life. that any such commission was ever given, is as true in the one case as in the other; and the belief of any individual that to himself it was ever confided, is a proof of unsoundness in heart or brain. to any man it is honor enough, as it was to paul and apollos, to plant and to water. to god alone it belongs to give and to measure the increase. we therefore disapprove of the practice of confession as adopted by catholics, for one reason among many, that it infringes liberty of conscience, by making man practically accountable to man, and countenancing an assumption of that power to judge and punish which belongs to god alone. the punishments of canonical penances are, it is true, of human institution; but they are awarded to spiritual guilt, of which no one has a right to take cognizance but god. we therefore deny the right of any man to impose penances, or, in consequence, to issue indulgences; and we hold that wherever such a right is claimed, the prerogative of god is invaded and the cause of his gospel injured. christian liberty secures to every man the right, not only of reading the sacred records for himself, but of interpreting them for himself; of ascertaining by his own unbiased judgment what they teach, and of holding the opinions thus formed without being accountable to any man or to any body of men. in advocating the free perusal of the scriptures and the formation of individual opinions from them, we shall be careful to avoid any bias from the popular and false impression, that the faithful pastors of the catholic church would prohibit their flocks from reading the bible: and we shall enter on no discussion respecting the comparative fidelity of catholic and protestant english translations of the scriptures. on the latter point, much must be said, if anything; so much, that no room would be left us for matters of greater importance. important as it is that the sacred books should be faithfully rendered, that it should be shown how long-prevalent errors, supposed to be countenanced by them, are not so countenanced; important as it is, for instance, to decide whether the sacred teacher said 'repent,' or 'do penance,' it is yet more important to develop the principles to which all modes of expression are subservient: to attend to the spirit rather than the letter, to establish truths and explode errors to the perception of which every intellect is adequate, than to debate matters to which, though of inferior moment, peculiar qualifications are requisite. we willingly accept the following testimony of fenelon to the fact of the unrestricted use of the sacred writings in the early times of christianity; though we dissent from the concluding remark. the passage is translated from a letter from fenelon to the bishop of arras. (_oeuvres spirituels de fenelon_, vo. tom. , p. .) 'i think that much trouble has been taken in our times very unnecessarily, to prove what is incontestable, than in the first ages of the church the laity read the holy scriptures. it is clear as daylight, that all people read the bible and service in their native languages; that as a part of good education, children were made to read them; that in their sermons, the ministers of the church regularly explained to their flocks whole books of the sacred volume; that the sacred text of the scriptures was very familiar to the people; that the clergy exhorted the people to read them; that the clergy blamed the people for not reading them, and considered the neglect of the perusal of them as a source of heresy and immorality. but in all this the church used a wise economy; adapting the general practice to the circumstances and wants of individuals. it did not, however, think that a person could not be a christian, or not be well instructed in his religion, without perusing the sacred writings. whole countries of barbarians, innumerable multitudes of the faithful were rich (to use the words of st. paul) in words and science, though they had not read the sacred writings. to listen to the pastors of the church who explain the scriptures to the faithful and distribute among them such parts as are suited to their wants, is to read the scriptures.' this last proposition is in perfect accordance with the creed which declares that 'to the holy mother church it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures,' but inconsistent with the principle held by us, that no man has the power of judging for another or the right to prescribe the opinions of another. 'what then is to be done,' it is asked, 'with those who cannot read for themselves?' they must take what they can obtain from their pastors, or from any other medium of communication. if the medium be as faithful as human fallibility allows, much truth may be learned and the means of holiness may be abundantly afforded: but yet the learner is precluded by his ignorance from the full enjoyment of his christian liberty; and to hang on the lips of his instructor is far, very far from being the same thing as reading the scriptures for himself. such a 'wise economy' as fenelon speaks of seems to us but a fleshly wisdom, a narrow policy originated by men, discountenanced by god, and available to perpetuate, not the gospel itself, but the corruptions which were early mixed with it, and which will not stand the test of examination. who was to decide what 'parts were suited to their wants?' who knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man which is in him? who gave the power of prohibition to read the scriptures over such as 'were not disposed to read them to their advantage?' who was to judge of the disposition; who could discern the tendency of inquiry; who could estimate the advantage and disadvantage of the results? how dared the church to 'withhold from the laity the perusal of the bible without permission of their pastors,' from the assumption that it was 'unsafe to allow the people at large to read the sacred text?' how unsafe? for the gospel itself? the divine care would have provided a preventive or a remedy, if the danger had been real. for the honor of god? he would have made provision for its vindication. for the spiritual welfare of the people? it could not have been injured by the free use of the means ordained to perfect it: nor was it ever the province of pastors to promote that welfare by other means than the gospel authorizes. and where is the patent for the monopoly of the scriptures to be found? but it is alleged that there are many passages in the sacred volume which, being hard to be understood, are wrested by the unstable and the ignorant to the destruction of the purity of their faith. true. but the case was the same in the days of the apostles; and did peter ever desire that paul's writings should therefore be kept back from the unlearned and unstable? or did he enjoin an explanation of them from the wise, to which the foolish should be required to assent? no; he recommended caution in giving heed to other men's errors, and growth in the knowledge of christ jesus; both which must be better promoted by independent thought and judgment than by subservience to any mind, however pure and enlightened. christ himself, though he knew what was in man, never required this subservience from any one of his followers. he gave his instructions in as many different forms as we have them in now: in discourses, in parables, in familiar dialogue, and by actions; and invariably he left to the hearers the application of the principles thus conveyed, except when pressed by his immediate followers for an interpretation. he took no pains to preserve his gospel from 'the rash criticisms of the vulgar,' as the piety of fenelon erroneously advises. he did not act upon the belief that previous instruction was necessary to the comprehension of the word of life, or that 'the people should be full of the spirit of the gospel before they are entrusted with the letter.' the letter of the gospel now is the same as the letter of the gospel then; the spirit now, as then, is only to be got at through the letter; and the letter now, as then, is only valuable as it communicates the spirit. christ did not think that 'it should only be permitted to the simple, the docile, and the humble; to those who wish to nourish themselves with its divine truths in silence; and withheld from those who merely seek to satisfy their curiosity, to dispute, to dogmatize, to criticize.' this doctrine of fenelon is, we are told, and ever has been, the doctrine of the roman catholic church. were the disciples to whom christ spoke of the bread of life and who therefore forsook him, 'docile and humble?' yet what saying was more 'hard to be understood?' when he declared the nature of his gospel, and the authority under which he proposed it, were the pharisees in the temple 'simple and docile?' was there no disposition 'to dispute, to dogmatize, to criticize' among the elders, the scribes, the sadducees whom he referred to his works, assured of the temporary nature of the jewish covenant, and besought to listen to the truth which should make them free? the glad tidings of salvation were then preached, as they ought to be now, to the poor and ignorant without fear that what is truly the gospel can be dangerously misapprehended, and without intimation that the faith needs the interpretation of fallible understandings, or the guardianship of human wisdom. if we believed (which we do not) that error in matters of faith could of itself endanger salvation,--_i. e._ exclude from the happiness of a future state,--we should be convinced that those were much more liable to error who adopted the faith after it had passed through a fallible mind, than those who received it from christ himself, speaking directly, as in fact he does, in the faithful records which the bible presents. and the more feeble and ignorant the recipient mind, the more liable will it be to admit the errors of others, as well as to originate some of its own. while, if referred to the sacred volume itself for his faith, a man is in danger of entertaining no errors but his own. however imperfect his mental vision may be, he is thus more likely to behold the object in its true form and colors, than by the interposition of a faulty medium. if it be objected that the medium, so far from being faulty, corrects the imperfections of the natural faculty, we ask for the test of its possessing this quality, and for the proof that it was ever conferred. but, being convinced, for reasons given before, that the possession of the true faith is not an indispensable requisite for future happiness, and that the non-possession of it is not to be followed by eternal misery, or by any arbitrary infliction whatever, we cannot admit the plea of care for the souls of men as any reason or excuse for trenching on the natural liberty of the mind, or prescribing opinions which christ himself only administered the means of forming, and which his apostles presumed not to impose. purity of faith is the most exalted attainment of the most exalted mind,--the richest of the myriads of rich blessings which the father of our spirits has placed within our reach. it should be sought as the most precious of all treasures; it should be guarded as the most sacred of all trusts: but though it may be won by any, it can be communicated by none. it is the especial reward of individual search, and loses its very nature by being transferred: for that which is truth to a man who has discovered it for himself, can be truth to another man only so far as his faculties are exercised upon it, apprehend, and adopt it. this, which may be justly said of all truth, may be especially declared of religious truth, which is of no value unless made a vivifying principle, and can never become a vivifying principle unless perceived by the understanding and recognized by the heart. the true office of the pastors of the church (and likewise of all believers) is to lead others to that knowledge of the truth which can never be imposed. their concern for the spiritual welfare of their brethren can never be too earnest; their diligence in guidance and guardianship, too eager; their value for purity of faith, too high; or their apprehension of spiritual danger, too ready or too ardent. but all this concern and apprehension should be justly directed, and this guidance and guardianship exercised with a regard to the rights with which god has invested every man. the first object to be desired is spiritual advancement, to which intellectual rectitude is subsidiary. the first object of dread is moral corruption, and not mental error. the guidance to be exercised is that of an experienced over an inexperienced person. the one points out to the other the snares and dangers into which he is liable to fall, the labyrinth in which he may lose himself, and the various tendencies of different paths; but he has no lawful power to insist upon a particular path being pursued, or to condemn his companion to destruction for interpreting differently the invitation on which they both proceed. the guardianship is faithful as long as it consists in warning off the attacks of temptation, declaring the threats and promises of the gospel, and educating for independent action; but it becomes tyranny when restraints are imposed on the exercise of the faculties, and any impediments are thrown in the way of a free range through the spiritual world of which god has made every man an inhabitant. it is the office of christian pastors to study the sacred records with all diligence, striving to ascertain by the help of learning and philosophy, and every other help, what the true faith is, and how other minds may be best disposed for its apprehension; to place before those minds whatever may best tend to enlighten, convince, and establish them; to excite them to activity and stimulate them to further action when aroused. but further than this they must not go. the mind must work out the results for itself; and for those results none but itself can be answerable. its safety or peril rests with god, who hath given into no man's hand the souls of his brethren. it is justly observed by catholics, that many of the very persons who complain of the discouragement by them thrown in the way of the general perusal of the scriptures, circulate the book of common prayer of the church of england 'as a safeguard against the misinterpretation of the bible,' and by their doubt and dread of the consequences of making the bible common, seem to admit the probability and danger of such misinterpretation. it is very true that such inconsistencies obtain among protestants, and such inconsistencies will exist as long as there is any dread of carrying out a good principle to its full extent. if all protestants adhered to the grand principle of the reformation, that the bible alone is the religion of protestants, there would not only be no damnatory clauses in their creeds, but no creeds,--no embodying in an unchanging form of words principles which were given in no such form, which cannot be received under the same aspect by minds differently prepared, and which are too expansive in their nature to be long confined within arbitrary limits of human imposition. the church of england forsakes its fundamental principle of dissent from the roman catholic church when it would secure uniformity of faith by framing articles of faith, by keeping back the bible from the feeblest intellect, or appointing 'a safeguard,' or interfering in any way between the bible and the minds which are to derive their religion from it. if uniformity of faith cannot be thus obtained, it is a necessary consequence of the protestant principle that uniformity of faith is not necessary to salvation. this consequence, which we fully admit, the church of england, in the letter and spirit of her articles and creeds, inconsistently denies. it is manifestly absurd to exhort a man to derive his faith from the bible, if it is declared to him beforehand what he is bound at his eternal peril to believe. yet this is in fact done, when the book of common prayer is circulated as a safeguard to the bible, and also when a catholic is made to declare on his admission to the church, 'i also admit the sacred scriptures according to the sense which the holy mother church has held and does hold,' &c. for purposes of faith, all use in reading the bible is over when this declaration is made. the disciple can only, while striving to learn his duty from the sacred pages, wonder at what he finds there;--at the appeals to individual judgment; at the addresses to the intimate consciousness of every man; at the freedom allowed and encouraged among the first christians; at the absence of all pretension to authority in matters of opinion, of all wish to prescribe, of all tendency to domineer. if he be intelligent, it will occur to him as surprising that no creed, if creeds be good things, was given by our saviour to his apostles before he left them, weak and divided in the faith as they at that time were. and again, when they were strong and united, but when doubt and disagreement were creeping into their churches, it must seem strange that christ, who manifestly watched over the interests of his church, should not have authorized and communicated a profession of faith more ample and particular than that which had hitherto accompanied baptism; viz. that jesus was the christ, and that remission of sins came by repentance. finding no trace of the apostles' creed among all the sacred books, he will inquire into its origin, and discover that it was not composed by the apostles,[a] and that when, in an evil hour, it was proposed for general adoption, its main purpose was to exclude the gnostics, who would have mixed up their false philosophy and vain deceits with the simple faith in christ which then, as now, constituted a man a christian. having gone thus far, the disciple begins to doubt whether he has hitherto possessed and exercised the spiritual liberty which is his birthright. if he pursue the inquiry he will, undoubtedly cast off the restraints which man's wisdom has imposed on his faculties, and interpret, judge, and believe for himself. if he look back to his promise to admit the sense of scripture only as the church declares it, and renews that promise, he must lay aside every hope of purifying and strengthening his faith by his scriptural studies. henceforth it will indeed be, as fenelon declares, the same thing to him to read the words of christ, and to hear an explanation of them from his pastor. not for this were the beræans cited as an example by paul; not by these means was timothy prepared for his extensive labors; not thus did apollos learn how to apply his vigorous talents to the service of the infant churches. all these men searched the scriptures, knew the scriptures from their youth up, were learned in the scriptures, from which they ascertained for themselves the promise of christ's coming, and themselves applied the tests which proved that jesus of nazareth was this christ. [footnote a: see lord king's 'critical history of the apostles' creed.'] every man has a natural right, not only to form his opinions for himself, but to change them as frequently as he shall believe himself led to do so. this natural right is not only sanctioned, but its exercise is approved, by the gospel. as long as the opinions of men are not absolutely right, as long as they fall short of the truth as it will be perceived in heaven, there is room and occasion for a change; and such a change, wherever recorded in the new testament, is recorded with approbation. where was there ever a more extensive change of opinion than in apollos on his conversion? yet in his youth, apollos was as orthodox, as undoubtedly correct in his religious opinions before the introduction of christianity, as any christian who now subscribes all the creeds of the catholic church. but what would have been the consequence if he had engaged never to 'take and interpret the scriptures otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the' rabbis; or if he had promised, vowed, and sworn most constantly to profess his present faith whole and entire, with god's assistance, to the end of his life? it is true that no revelation is likely to supersede the faith of christians; but it is, at the same time, as little probable that no developement of the principles of christianity should cause gradual changes of opinion in the course of a lifetime, as it then was that judaism should not be expanded into the fuller revelation of the gospel. if, like apollos, we believe rightly now, it is impossible to answer for no change of opinion being necessary to enable us to believe rightly twenty years hence. the view which we have already taken of the expansive tendency of the eternal principles of christianity authorizes our declaring that a gradual enlargement of views, _i. e._ change of opinions, is a necessary consequence of the correct apprehension of religious truth. creeds are intended to be permanent and universal professions of faith; and are the instrument by which a uniformity of faith is to be secured, if such a thing be yet possible. but creeds never have fulfilled, and never can fulfil, any one of these purposes. no uniformity of faith has existed since the first creed was framed; no one formulary has been universally received among christians; and experience already indicates, what the lapse of time will prove,--that no creed will be permanent. if the most ancient of creeds, commonly called the apostles', be named in answer to the last remark, let it be remembered that the first version of this formulary given by irenæus, and the subsequent ones by tertullian, cyril of alexandria, and others, were as widely different from those now in use as from each other. widely different versions of this creed are used in the catholic church and the church of england; and those who subscribe to the same form of words understand those words variously. the permanence of this most ancient of creeds is in name only; and the name itself is a false assumption. creeds cannot be permanent and universal, unless the language of which they consist is also permanent and universal; which no language has ever been. there is no test by which it can be proved that any two minds affix precisely the same meaning to the commonest terms; while we have abundant evidence that very abstract terms (such as abound in creeds) convey very different notions to different minds. thus, if the terms of a language were absolutely immutable, and if one language prevailed over the whole earth, there would still be room for a variety of interpretations of anything expressed in that language. but the mutations which time occasions in every tongue, and the necessity of translation and re-translation, increase a thousandfold the chances of such a variety, and indeed render it absolutely unavoidable. it is well, therefore, that the truths of religious doctrine cannot be made one with the language in which any age or nation chooses to clothe them, as that language is necessarily mutable. and it would be well if believers were henceforth and for ever to desist from the attempt to connect what is mutable with what is immutable, that which is perishable with that which is immortal, by requiring the present age to adopt the language of the past, and providing for a similar adoption by the future. if they wish the spiritual _conceptions_ of former ages to be perpetuated, this may best be done by changing the _terms_ as their meanings become modified, and not by retaining them the more pertinaciously, the more varied are the conceptions they originate. if the gospel itself had been inseparably connected with any form of language, or embodied in anything but facts, it would ere now have passed away, or have been so far transformed as to be a different religion. it would have been untranslateable; it would have been untransferrable to any country beyond that in which it originated; it would have been unintelligible to succeeding generations of even native inhabitants of that country. it is only in so far as christianity is disencumbered of formularies of faith, and emancipated from the guardianship of councils, that it becomes the religion of mankind. the metaphysical clauses of the apostles' creed, and the canons of the council of trent, may contain the belief of a few, a very few, speculative minds. the declaration that god sent christ jesus into the world to save sinners, contains the substantial belief of christendom, which will be the faith of the whole world,--because it is christianity. it is as impossible for a man to prescribe to himself the faith of his future years, as for one age to prescribe the faith of a succeeding age: and for the same reasons. he may in his youth state an opinion in unambiguous terms, and with perfect sincerity, which, if he still hold, he cannot state in the same terms ten years after. the opinion may be substantially the same, and yet have such a bearing upon some other opinion, or may be so modified by some other opinion that the same form of words may not express it fully, or perhaps correctly. it is yet more probable that the conceptions which are now attached to the terms are enlarged by his improved experience; so that, if he would declare the same truth, he must change his terms; or if he can conscientiously retain the terms, he must have modified his opinion. what enlightened, reflecting christian understands exactly the same by any one parable, any one axiom, any one fact of scripture that he did when he first admitted its truth? he believed it then; he believes it now; but how differently since science has brought new evidence to light, since philosophy has developed its origin and tendencies, since experience has tested its truth, and faith invested it with a hallowed interest and an indestructible beauty! how, therefore, is it possible for any one faithfully to engage that his views even of eternal truth shall never be modified! witnessing, as every reflecting man does, the gradual evolution of truth from the vicissitudes of human experience, and from the successive dispensations and the progressive course of providence, he may with safety declare that gospel truth is immutable and divine; but he will avoid the presumption of supposing that all her riches are already shed into his bosom, that her brightest light is poured upon his feeble eye. he will rather hope that his apprehension will continually become clearer, his powers invigorated, and his capacities enlarged, till his views of religious truth become as unlike what they were when first admitted, as the fair face of nature appears to the new-born infant and to the mighty poet. he will reject, as an infringement of his inalienable rights, every attempt to bind him down to engagements which it may not be in his power to fulfil. he will refuse to promise that his intellect shall remain stationary; and to permit that any individual, any council, or any church, shall usurp that spiritual influence which he trusts shall be immediately dispensed from the fountain of grace and truth. desiring wisdom, he asks of god; not profaning and annulling his prayer by engaging to receive it only in certain measure; and if any church on earth interfere to prescribe the measure, he rejects the interference as unauthorized by the letter of the gospel and condemned by its spirit. christian liberty comprehends an entire freedom from restraint in the publication of opinions. to his own master every man standeth or falleth, not only in the formation of his opinions, but in the use he makes of them when formed. according to his conscientiousness in seeking for truth, and not according to the accuracy of his judgment, will he be judged by god in forming his opinions; and when formed, he will be responsible, not for the rectitude of his influence, but for the rectitude of his intentions in exerting it. what a man believes to be the truth, it is his duty to declare in the method and degree which benevolence and prudence may point out to be the best. for what but this do we venerate the heroic stephen, and every other martyr who bore witness to the truth in the early days of christianity? yet for what but this have christians been led to the stake by christians, age after age, under the pretended sanction of a religion of liberty and brotherly love? for what but this have catholics and protestants vied with each other in torturing in body and mind men whose conscience was omnipotent over the love of liberty and life, and who thus showed that, whether their intellects were or were not unfaithful, their souls were true to god? for what but this are the lovers of truth even yet too often punished, directly or indirectly, for inviting others to participate in the benefits which they believe they have gained. stephen was stoned because he was a heretic; paul worshiped the god of his fathers according to a way which was then called heresy, and for which he was persecuted through life and unto death. peter and john were brought before the high priest and rulers for publishing their heresy, and punished for refusing to cease to publish it. yet has this their heresy prevailed; and thus shall every new truth prevail, and its promulgators be honored, in despite of the wrath of man; while the more freely errors are canvassed, the sooner will they be exposed. what was once said with truth in relation to the gospel of truth,--'if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of god, ye cannot overthrow it,'--may be said with equal wisdom of every other kind of truth and the test of investigation is a much surer one than that which is furnished by the prejudices and the passions of men. there is no natural, no divine law which sanctions the infliction of pain for the exercise of the intellect, or for communicating the results of that exercise; and that any human law or custom should have existed by which injury of mind, body, or estate is made the consequence of the formation and publication of opinions, is a proof that the natural rights of man have not been understood, and that the spirit of christian liberty has not pervaded christian society. as long as reproach is attached to the act of promulgating opinions (independent of the manner,) as long as the holder of opinions is treated with the same reprobation as the opinions themselves, as long as he is prospectively consigned over to perdition as they are to detestation, as long as ideas of merit and demerit are associated with the convictions of the understanding, or blame is attached to the act of making those convictions known, not only will the subordinate principles of the gospel remain in part unrecognized, but its essential principles will be violated; for it is clearly a duty of piety to reveal all that is believed to have been discovered of the works and ways of god;--and of benevolence to communicate what, being conceived to be truth, is conceived to be intended for the universal benefit of the race. it may excite surprise that we have not here examined the claim of the holy catholic church to spiritual supremacy: but it will better accord with our plan to take that claim into consideration while treating of the temporary institutions of christianity. from the essential principles of the gospel we derive our belief that christianity, is not designed for any union, permanent or temporary, with worldly power and grandeur; that it is incapable of such a connexion; being injured instead of confirmed by the support of temporal authority, and impaired instead of adorned by the adjuncts of worldly pomp. this principle is asserted in words by every christian church in existence; but violated, in fact, by almost as many. christianity is acknowledged to be a religion of poverty of spirit, of self-denial, of looseness from the world and its possessions. if this principle were carried out into each individual case, it is plain that the pomp and ambition which have despoiled the gospel of its purity could no longer exist. it is remarkable that this poverty and self-denial are most insisted on in those churches where the temporal power and luxury are the most excessive. we hear of them above all from catholics, whose popes, cardinals, and bishops have, in every age, exceeded all temporal princes in the enjoyment of splendor and luxury. we hear of them from the church of england, whose superior officers revel in unbounded wealth, and especially prize the connexion with the state which their office occasions. while we unitarians, who hold that christianity is of a purely spiritual nature, and therefore dishonored by the pretended support of powers inferior to its own, insist much less earnestly than the catholic church on the duty of self-mortification and voluntary poverty. our church, were it as extensive as the catholic, would contain no ecclesiastical princes, and no friars; no potentates clothed in purple and fine linen and faring sumptuously every day from the revenues of the church, and no believers whose piety is testified by a vow of poverty. we believe that our religion ought to be exerted in controling the passions, exalting the desires, and equalizing the affections, not so much by regulating the external manifestations of those passions and desires, as by influencing the heart. self-denial is taught much better by inspiring the love of our neighbor, than by the prohibition of innocent comforts and pleasures. spirituality is much better taught by making spiritual things the objects of supreme desire, than by commanding an ostentatious avoidance of the enjoyments of life. but while the gospel thus leaves men free to follow the bent of innocent desires,--to decide, each for himself, what is lawful and expedient,--it lays a powerful restraint on all the passions, and curbs all propensities which are inconsistent with its purity and spirituality. all worldly ambition, all selfish luxury are utterly incompatible with the faith of the gospel, which disallows every claim founded on itself to distinctions of rank, to abundance of wealth, to power over the possessions of other men, to the indulgence of earthly desires. the gospel affords no sanction to the accumulation of wealth, or to the assumption of authority. it affords examples, on the contrary, of submission to temporal authority, of the endurance of voluntary poverty in hardship, not because poverty and hardship are in themselves spiritually desirable, but because they were necessary to the attainment of some benevolent end. from the gospel we learn that jesus utterly disclaimed all pretensions to authority, except in those matters where his authority was supreme. 'who made me a judge or a divider over you?' was his remonstrance with those who referred the disposal of an inheritance to him: and his reply respecting the lawfulness of paying tribute was such as ought to have obviated all doubt whether temporal and spiritual power could ever be properly united; 'render unto cæsar the things that are cæsar's, and unto god the things that are god's.' what could be meant by the declaration 'my kingdom is not of this world,' but that his authority was of a spiritual nature only? why did he strenuously oppose every attempt to make him a king? why did he send forth the seventy disciples without gold and silver and changes of raiment? why did he recommend to the rich man to sell his possessions, if wealth and power can be made the means of serving the interests of the gospel? why was his indignation so perpetually roused by the spiritual assumptions of the pharisees, but because religion was in them disgraced by its connexion with worldly greatness? yet not a few christians have loved the chief seats in public assemblies, and homage in the streets; not a few have made proclamation when they dispensed their alms, and prayed in the high ways; not a few have taken on themselves to appoint places in the messiah's kingdom which the messiah himself refused to promise, because such power belonged to god alone. while he declined all interference in matters of temporal concern, and rejected all support to his gospel from magisterial authority, and all benefit from the resources of wealth, it is clear that such support must ever be needless and such resources unhallowed. how does it happen, it is perpetually asked, that while the right to temporal power is abjured in words by every church, the state religion of every country affords an instance of its assumption? it happens, as many other strange and inconsistent things happen, through the misuse of terms. what we call temporal power, the advocates of a state religion call spiritual power; and thus have all ecclesiastical abuses been justified from the day that ecclesiastical domination was established. by spiritual authority have kings been enthroned and deposed; by spiritual authority have tributes been raised, wars been originated and conducted, properties been confiscated, and lives forfeited! by spiritual authority were the crusades begun and carried on; by spiritual authority have popes divided and distributed kingdoms, have cardinals negotiated and priests intrigued! by spiritual authority did wolsey amass his treasures, and rule his sovereign at home, and the agents of his sovereign abroad! by spiritual authority does the church of england demand tithes, and under the same sanction do her bishops legislate. what then is temporal power? what are worldly pomp and wealth? the abuses which have deformed every state religion in turn are evident to all,--even to those who still help to support them; but the origin of those abuses is not generally ascertained. we ascribe them to the error of mixing up the permanent principles of christianity with its temporary institutions. spiritual principles can only be recognized by means of external manifestations; but the principles and the manifestation are not the same thing; nor can they have a lasting connexion, as every thing external is mutable, while the principles of truth are immutable. as long as mind is connected with body, as long as the intellect can only be reached through the senses, and the heart through the intellect, truth must be invested with a form, and realities be accompanied by shadows. but that form is changeable, and those shadows are fleeting: the proximate cause of which is the constitution of all material things; and the final cause, the ultimate universal recognition of the principles of truth. we have already described how these principles were communicated to the israelites by means of ordinances which the mind of man has long since outgrown. the principles of christianity were, in like manner, embodied in institutions, some of which are obsolete, while others remain; but, since christianity is destined not to be superseded by any other scheme, it appears to follow necessarily from the principles on which we have been reasoning, that none of its institutions were, like the jewish, positive, but avowedly adopted from motives of expediency. it is therefore the belief of a portion of the unitarian body, that christ himself appointed no ordinance for permanent adoption, and that those which were appointed by the apostles, and sanctioned by their practice, were established on the ground of expediency alone. they were not therefore the less obligatory upon their disciples in those times, nor upon us, as far as the original ground of the ordinances remains; but as some apostolic practices have, through the revolutions of human affairs, become obsolete, it is desirable to to search into the foundation of all. baptism cannot be called a christian institution, since the rite was practised long before the mission of the baptist; but some of our body adopt it as a christian ordinance, because it was countenanced by jesus and administered by his followers: while other unitarians, deeming the practice of baptism inexpedient in their circumstances of age and country, decline the rite themselves, but recommend its use in cases analogous to those in which it was first adopted, i. e. in cases of conversion from paganism. there are others who wish to abolish it altogether, from a fear of encouraging superstition by an ungrounded attachment to external observances. the ordinance of the lord's supper is considered a positive institution of christianity by almost the whole of the christian world, the great majority of unitarians included. the society of friends, and the free-thinking christians, are perhaps the only sects who positively decline, from principle, the practice of the rite; while some unitarians deem it inconsistent with their principles to believe that christ designed the ordinance for permanent and universal adoption. it is practised by many as a means, a very important means, of increasing love and exciting to obedience, while they yet cannot plead a divine sanction in its favor, or much less suppose that any peculiar quality resides in what is eaten and drank, or any peculiar virtue in the act of eating and drinking by which any peculiar privilege can be attained. in these last suppositions all our body are agreed, since no intimation can be found in the scriptures that the sacramental bread and wine were at any time used otherwise than as merely emblematical of the sacrifice of christ. it was the practice of the early christians to assemble for the supper, each carrying his portion of the feast, which was eaten like any other feast, and frequently with excess on the part of the rich, while his poorer neighbor hungered. 'when ye come together,' says the apostle ( cor. xi. - ,), it is not to eat the lord's supper; for in eating, every one taketh before another his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken. what? have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the church of god, and shame them that have not?' (v. .) 'wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. and if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.'--it is not conceivable that these christians had any notion that what they ate and drank was in itself sacred, or that the apostle was aware of any other purpose of the rite but that of 'showing forth the lord's death till he came.' this rite was usually practised on the first day of the week, when the disciples met to commemorate the resurrection of their lord, and to worship together. the custom of meeting on a stated day for worship has been continued ever since; and the day has been wisely set apart for purposes of rest and refreshment to body and mind. an institution so simple for purposes so salutary will probably, however abused, be of very long standing, even after it is more generally allowed than at present, not to be a divine appointment. the jewish sabbath was a divine ordinance for the use of the jews; and by them alone has the last day of the week been regarded as sacred. the lord's day, or, as it sometimes called, the christian sabbath, is a totally different institution, and one which is professedly arbitrary, though subservient to very important objects. if the jews were encouraged by their messiah to look to the final purposes of their sabbatical institution, much more ought we, the subjects of a more enlarged dispensation, to bear in mind that all external observances are but means to ends; ordinances of which it is certain that they were made for man, and not man for them. whatever may be the diversity of opinion among unitarians respecting the ground of the three ordinances just referred to, there is none with regard to those institutions whose period appears to have been determined at the moment of their origin. the institution of apostolic ordination, which the roman catholic church holds to be of a permanent nature, we believe not to have been designed to outlive the apostles. we perceive no intimation in the various instructions given them which can lead us to imagine that their office was intended to be or could be bequeathed. they were chosen to be witnesses of the circumstances of the life and death of christ, and the depositaries of miraculous powers after his ascension; but as the assistance of the holy spirit, that is the power conferred from on high, was only a temporary sanction, the peculiar office with which it was connected could also be only temporary. the evidence which we possess on this very important subject consists of the words of christ himself, addressed to his apostles respecting their mission, their own incidental observations, and the facts which ecclesiastical history presents. from all these sources of evidence we derive our belief that the office of _witnessing_, which is absolutely untransferrable, was the peculiar office of the twelve apostles; that they were especially qualified by it for the task of preaching and establishing the new gospel, and that to enable them to do so with sufficient effect, among the many and great difficulties which the state of the world then presented, the miraculous gifts of the spirit were granted to them, with power to impart them to whomsoever they would, and that this miraculous power was coexistent with the apostolic age,--with what is variously called 'the age,' 'the kingdom of god,' 'the kingdom of christ,' 'the kingdom of heaven;' that is, from the descent of the holy spirit to the abolition of judaism on the overthrow of jerusalem. we find no evidence of miracles after that time which is at all to be compared with that on which we rely respecting the apostolic gifts; none which allows us to hesitate in our opinion, that with the apostles expired the power of communicating miraculous privileges; and that on them alone were such privileges immediately conferred. these gifts of the spirit served as a divine sanction to their testimony, and were therefore coexistent with that testimony; and the same evidence which recorded their testimony after their death, recorded the divine sanction likewise; and upon this broad and immutable foundation is built the christian faith, against which, according to the saviour's promise, no opposition has prevailed or can prevail. when some who could not deny the peculiarity of his mission, but would not admit his pre-eminent claims, supposed him to be john the baptist, others elijah, and others jeremiah or another of the prophets, simon peter, who was not blinded by prejudice, and who believed for the works' sake in opposition to the opinions of men, boldly declared him to be 'the christ, the son of the living god.' jesus pronounced him blessed, because he believed what the power of god made manifest, and not what men declared; and promised that on such testimony as his should the gospel be established, so that no opposition should prevail against it; and further declared that it should be in the power of peter to admit men into the privileges of the gospel, and to have extensive influence over their spiritual state. 'blessed art thou, simon; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father who is in heaven. and i also say unto thee that thou art peter (a rock,) and on this rock i will build my church, and the gates of death shall not prevail against it. and i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' this promise was fulfilled. peter bore testimony far and wide, with all the zeal and energy by which he was characterized, to the life, teachings and death of his divine master; and from this testimony, in conjunction with that of his brethren, is derived the evidence on which christianity is received to this day. peter had also pre-eminent power in the infant church, converting three thousand persons on the day of pentecost, and afterwards preaching, baptizing, and adding multitudes to those who were pressing into the kingdom of god. no record exists of any attempt on his part to delegate any portion of his power; none of which could be transferred but such authority in the church as he possessed under the mode of church government which then subsisted. that which constituted the chief glory of the prince of the apostles belonged to him as the follower of jesus and as an eminent recipient of the gifts of the spirit. it appears exceedingly improbable that peter ever was bishop of rome, though he suffered imprisonment and perhaps martyrdom there. the authority of the apostles was general, and seems to have been exercised generally, instead of being fixed in any one congregation. at all events it is clear that the bishops of rome did not lay claim to any preeminence over the patriarchs of constantinople, alexandria, antioch and jerusalem, (further than as they all claimed precedence of one another on account of the dignity of their several cities, and the superior wealth of their sees,) till the arian controversy afforded them various opportunities of extending their power. when remonstrances were offered by the sixth council of carthage, in a. d. , and by many other assemblies, against the encroachments of the bishops of rome, the pleas which are now brought forward in support of their claim to supremacy had never been heard of; and they were in fact never adduced till many centuries after the death of peter. it was not till the beginning of the seventh century that the title of pope was appropriated by the bishops of rome; it being applied to all bishops at first, and afterwards to those who held the larger sees, as when cornelius, bishop of rome, called cyprian the pope of carthage. the assumption of the title of universal bishop by john of constantinople, towards the end of the sixth century, was condemned by gregory the great, then bishop of rome, as presumption and even blasphemy; and he further showed his sense of the presumption by investing himself with the humbler title of servus servorum dei. yet so soon after as a. d. , boniface iii. obtained of the emperor phocas that the bishops of rome alone should henceforth call themselves universal bishops: the claim being founded on the dignity of the city and the wealth of the see, and not on the transmission of the apostolic office from peter, of which not the slightest hint appears to have been given till leo complained that the council of chalcedon had granted his claim to preeminence on no better ground than the importance of the city where he presided. even he, however, had no thought of advancing pretensions to infallibility, as the successor of an infallible apostle; this additional claim being reserved for agatho, who, in , brought forward the novel doctrine 'that the chair of rome--never erred, nor can err in any point;' and that 'all the constitutions of the roman church are to be received as if they had been delivered by the divine voice of st peter.' so that there is an utter absence of proof that 'the catholic or universal church has been visibly continued through all ages in one uniform faith, being guided and preserved from error in matters of faith by the assistance of the holy spirit.' on the contrary, there is every kind of evidence to prove that the supernatural influences of the spirit ceased with the close of the apostolic age; that divisions of various kinds and degrees existed in the christian church, over which the bishops of rome for five or six centuries exerted no pre-eminent control, and which the decrees of councils were of no avail to soothe and unite. we therefore hold apostolic ordination to have been a temporary institution, and at the time more universally understood to be so than perhaps any other provision for the spread of the gospel. of any such institution as a church, permanent or temporary, established by christ, and distinct from the simple exhibition of his gospel, we find not the most remote hint in any records but those of the vain imaginations of men. _a church_ means literally an assemblage; and the church of christ signifies, everywhere in the sacred writings, those who believe in christ. where the term is limited, it signifies assemblages of christians in different places, as the church at corinth, the church at ephesus, &c. by the universal church it is impossible to understand any thing but the total number of christian believers: nor can we conceive of any means by which it can be shown that the primitive christians understood otherwise, or that the term can admit of any other interpretation. we hold, therefore, that the propositions we are about to quote from the document to which we have before referred ('roman catholic principles,' &c.) are founded on an unauthorized and erroneous conception of the nature of the christian church. 'the way or means by which man may arrive at the knowledge of the mysteries of the gospel' are declared to be 'not by the reading of scripture, interpreted according to the private judgment of each disjunctive person or nation in particular; but by an attention and submission to the voice of the catholic or universal church, established by christ for the instruction of all; spread for that end through all nations, and visibly continued in the succession of pastors and people through all ages. from this church, guided in truth, and secured from error in matters of faith by the promised assistance of the holy ghost, every one may learn the right sense of the scriptures, and such christian mysteries and duties as are necessary to salvation. this church, thus established, thus spread, thus continued, thus guided, in one uniform faith and subordination of government, is that which is called the roman catholic church: the qualities just mentioned, unity, indeficiency, visibility, succession, and universality, being evidently applicable to her. from the testimony and authority of this church it is that we receive the scriptures, and believe them to be the word of god; and as she can assuredly tell us what particular book is the word of god, so she can, with the like assurance, tell us also the true sense and meaning of it in controverted points of faith; the same spirit that wrote the scriptures, directing her to understand both them and all matters necessary to salvation.' as we believe ourselves included in the universal church, _i. e._ in the number of christian believers, we acknowledge no authority but that which thus included us,--the authority of christ himself: to no other voice but his, as delivered in scripture, do we listen with submission; and to none do we commit the office of interpretation; believing that god has given to every man the inalienable right and sufficient power to ascertain for himself what doctrines and duties are necessary to salvation. what the romish church may be which, so far from being 'universal' expressly assumes the power of guiding and informing christian believers, we profess not to understand, having received no evidence of its origin and no attestation of its claims; but we know that in the _christian church_ there has never been, since the apostolic age, 'one uniform faith and subordination of government;' nor do we believe that such subordination is designed by providence, or that such uniformity is compatible with the present nature of man, or essential to his safety and peace. believing that the scriptures contain the word of god, and that the natural faculties of man are its appropriate interpreters, we dare not commit to others the task of receiving a message which we know to be addressed immediately to ourselves; especially as we are convinced that, since the apostolic age, no peculiar gifts of wisdom or of tongues have been conferred on any man. the same spirit which dictated the gospel we believe to pervade the whole spiritual universe, giving wisdom liberally to all who seek it, and enlightening those who do the will of god respecting the doctrine which is of god. since the roman catholic church cannot find a basis for its claims in the scriptures, those claims must be founded on the 'apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions' which she requires her members 'most firmly to admit and embrace.' the question between the catholic and protestant churches on this subject is,--what traditions are to be received and what rejected; for the one church would be as unwilling to receive all that have been current, as the other to reject all that have been substantiated. it is evident, as the protestant church admits, that the christians who were not converted by the apostles themselves, and who lived before the publication of the canonical scriptures, could have had no other foundation for their faith than tradition; and on the same ground we establish our belief in the genuineness of the scriptures; _i. e._, we declare them canonical. when we reject traditions therefore, it is not as traditions, but in proportion to their evidence. if they appear inconsistent with the sacred writings, incompatible with the convictions of reason, or disagreeing with the circumstances of the age, we feel that the balance of evidence is against them. if they be merely vague and inconsequential, and not contradictory to each other or to any known truth, we hold them loosely, without firm conviction and without positive disbelief. if they be, not only consistent with, but corroborative of ascertained truth, clear in the origin, and early and extensively held, our faith in them is willing and steadfast. of the first class are those traditions which were pleaded before the second council of nice, a. d. , on behalf of the worship of images, which we reject on all the grounds mentioned above; viz. because they are inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the sacred books; because they are incompatible with the convictions of our reason, and because they are perfectly irreconcileable with the practice of the apostles and the discipline of the primitive church. of the second class are those which relate the various fate of the first followers of christ, and which we admit in the absence of all other evidence, though on such slight grounds as to have no firm conviction of their truth. of the third class are those by which we receive the sacred books as genuine, and which command belief from their universal prevalence, their strong inherent probability, and perfect consonance with the contents of the books themselves. it will be easily anticipated from what we have said, that we reject those traditions which corroborate the claims of the roman catholic church to a special divine commission; since such traditions are in opposition to what we recognize as the spirit of the gospel, and unsanctioned by the conduct of the apostles, especially of peter. rejecting these traditions, we hold the opinion suggested by the record of the acts of the apostles, that their special commission expired with themselves; that apostolical ordination was a temporary institution; and that the special influence of the holy spirit was designed to be a temporary sanction. the church of england appears to us to merit the censure and even the ridicule cast upon her by the roman catholic church for the inconsistency of her institutions with the principle on which she professes to act,--the principle of the reformation,--that the bible alone is the religion of protestants. catholics and protestants dissenter join in challenging her to produce from the bible the grounds of the practice, among others, of episcopal ordination; including, as it does, the declaration of the regular transmission of the office, with its peculiar gifts of the spirit, from the times of st peter till the present day. rejecting, as she does, the ecclesiastical traditions on which the catholics depend, and unable as she is to adduce authority from the scriptures to which dissenters appeal, she has no alternative but to own the practice ungrounded, or to adduce some third authority, hitherto unheard of. some of the most objectionable forms of ordination for christian pastorship were, notwithstanding, retained by various denominations of dissenters long after their separation from the church of england, and are still partially held; but unitarians have altogether relinquished the conception that the teachers of the gospel are peculiarly qualified for their office otherwise than by their voluntary devotion to it, and by those natural means of study, reflection and prayer which their duty requires them strenuously to employ. we conceive that the church of england has been led into the inconsistency mentioned above by conceiving in common with the catholics, and as we think erroneously, that the institutions of church government established in the apostolic age are a part of christianity, and therefore destined to be permanent. her church government is, it is true, not the same, because it cannot, by possibility, be so, the lapse of ages having wrought unavoidable changes; but this mutability, which ought to prove to her the temporary nature of the institution, only makes her cling the more eagerly to the points of resemblance which she conceives to have been preserved between her own constitution and that of the primitive church; forgetting that such supposed resemblance is immediately derived from that very catholic church whose superstitions inspired her with so much horror at the reformation. whatever resemblance the two churches bear to the primitive church in its external offices, they bear in common. this resemblance, however, is but slight. in the primitive christian church, regulated by elders chosen from the people, and in no way distinguished from them in rank or learning, and served by deacons, whose office was to distribute the funds held by all in common, we can scarcely recognize the original of the pompous establishments in which religion is now believed to be preserved in its purity, till, on examining the history, we trace the degrees by which spiritual domination was secured. the most distinguished of the elders served the office of moderator in the assemblies which met for the transaction of business. in time, the office became permanent, and the 'constant president' was allowed to appropriate the title of 'bishop,' which had before been common to all the elders. when numbers increased so that smaller congregations were separated from one larger, each colony had an elder at its head, and the chief of the parent church became a diocesan bishop. large country congregations were, however, empowered to choose a complete set of officers for themselves, consisting of bishops, elders, and deacons, and were independent of the city churches, till the council held at antioch a. d. forbade country bishops to ordain priests or deacons, and allowed them the power of choosing only the inferior officers of the church. the next step was to abolish the order of country bishops; _country deans_ and _arch priests_ being substituted. at length, synods were held, at which the bishops met as deputies of the people, to communicate concerning affairs of common interest, forgetting from time to time the character in which they appeared, and venturing to make decrees by their own authority, and even to claim a power of prescribing in matters of faith and discipline. the principal bishop in a large district was employed by his brethren to convoke these assemblies; and as the choice usually fell on the chief officer of the metropolitan church, the title of metropolitan bishop or arch-bishop was applied to him; which term became common in the church after the year . the patriarchs were of a higher rank still; and there were only five of them, belonging to the sees of rome, constantinople, alexandria, antioch, and jerusalem. they were not called primates till the time of leo i. the ambition of the clergy found extensive means of gratification in the changes made by constantine, who adapted the government of the church to that of the state, which he had newly divided and ordered. as the superior clergy grasped at greater power, the inferior clergy pressed upon their steps; and we soon hear of arch-presbyters and arch-deacons, and of the occasional union of the offices of priest and deacon in the same individual. thus did the servants gradually become the masters of the church; and thus, in four centuries, was the constitution of christian congregations so entirely changed, that scarcely a shadow of their original institutions remained. this brief detail (the truth of which is so well known that it is needless to give as our authority every accredited ecclesiastical history) affords the best argument for the temporary nature of the institutions of church government, and sanctions the declaration of those who are charged by either church with schism, that before they can again be required to join the establishment, that establishment must be reduced to the simplicity of government and discipline which characterized the primitive church. the bishops must assume nothing over their brethren, and be superior in no respect but in holiness; they must be stewards of god, not given to lucre, but eminent in faith, in temperance, in charity. the deacons must administer the common revenues of the church for the benefit of those who have need, appropriating nothing themselves nor suffering others to appropriate. the church itself must be, in all its views and objects, not of this world; having no respect of persons, not awarding to the man in goodly apparel a better place than to the poor man in vile raiment, rejecting every inducement to the usurpation of secular power, and leaving to the conscience of every man, as peter referred to the conscience of ananias, the obligation of contributing to the common revenue. 'while the land remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was not the price in thine own power?' is not the language of ecclesiastical tax-gatherers in the present day: and till all contributions to the churches become strictly voluntary, till the churches abjure all temporal authority, and free their discipline and ritual from the encroachments of spiritual tyranny and the defilements of superstition, neither the one nor the other can advance any claim to spiritual allegiance, and men who dissent from both may hold themselves innocent of the sin of schism. thus much we say on the supposition that it might be possible or desirable to restore the ancient constitution of the church. but we make such a supposition only for the sake of meeting the views of those who, feeling that the ecclesiastical establishments of the present day are unchristian, would fain substitute for them the simple institutions of the primitive church. believing as we do, that all such institutions must be classed among the non-essentials of christianity, we would have them modified according to the circumstances of the age and country in which they are to be used. it is not possible that some of the original christian ordinances can be advantageously employed in every country and through every age. the first christians belonged, for the most part, to the middling and lower classes of society, and consequently had few possessions. these possessions, with whatever was voluntarily offered by the few rich men among them, were gathered into a common stock, in order that all might be so far freed from secular cares as to be able to devote their minds and hearts to the furtherance of the cause of the gospel. it is obvious that the same reasons for establishing a community of goods do not exist in a christian country, where the faith has no longer to maintain a struggle with the powers which opposed its first promulgation. nor could such a community of goods answer the same purposes in a wealthy commercial state and among the cantons of switzerland, among the nobles and boors of russia, and the back-woodsmen of america; in states where civilization is most advanced, and in regions where the rights of property are almost unrecognized. the same may be said of the external modes of worship. granting that the complex ceremonies of roman catholic worship, so nearly resembling the rites of paganism, might, by possibility, admit of a connexion with pure christian faith, it cannot be supposed that the cross, wax lights, and incense can ever form a ritual appropriate to the customs of arabs or indians, or that they will help the devotion of the fiftieth generation from the present. primitive modes of worship have, by a singular ordering of circumstances, been preserved among the vaudois, and are still consonant with their secular state: but men who dwell amidst ravines and mountain forests think and feel differently, and therefore worship differently from those who inhabit the cities of the plain; while the faith of all is essentially the same. it is, therefore, unreasonable of the catholic church to require of all her members, dwell where they may, in the north or in the south, in the metropolis or the wilderness, the vow, 'i also receive and admit the ceremonies of the catholic church, received and approved in the solemn administration of all the seven sacraments.' far more reasonable is the gospel in its requisitions, the sole condition of whose promises is, that men shall 'worship the father in spirit and in truth.' we have said that the essence of christian faith is the same through all varieties of manifestation. it has ever been so, and it shall ever be so, for these varieties of manifestation are ordained for the very purpose of preserving the essence. they are ordained, lest men, too much regarding things seen and temporal, should confound with them things unseen and eternal; should not only incorporate religion in material forms, but identify it with them. they are ordained that men may learn what christianity really is, what the lord god requires of them concerning it, what he promises them in it, what he purposes to effect by it; and furthermore, that men may mutually recognize the new bond of brotherhood which the gospel discloses, by which all are made heirs of god and joint-heirs with christ jesus. this recognition must take place as soon as the nature and design of christianity are understood, be it here or hereafter, in this world or in the next; and surely the sooner the better. that mode of belief which encourages the closest investigation into the principles of christianity; which discovers the most clearly all spiritual relations; which affords the most distinct apprehension of the permanence and universality of the gospel; which discerns how its promises are ratified, its threatenings confirmed, its truths corroborated by all other spiritual influences, by all the results of human experience, and all the developments of providence,--must be the best adapted to the needs and capabilities of an ever-expanding and immortal spirit. that mode of belief which adapts itself to all times and circumstances, and which is independent of all influences but those which are unfailing, must be the truest and best: and such a faith actually exists in those views of christianity under which it appears as simple and diffusive as natural religion. the greenlander, who sees how rapidly all natural influences combine to enhance the bloom of his transient summer, recognizes the same attributes of providence as the philosopher who marks the expansion of mind under the vicissitudes of events: both are natural religionists. the great truths of christianity may be also common to both. the greenlander loses the wife of his bosom, and wanders on the icy shore to watch if any skiff traverses the horizon, to bring him tidings from the world of spirits; he listens to the sullen roar of the waves and the moaning of the wind, in the intense hope that the voice of a spirit may mingle with their murmurs. the philosopher who has suffered bereavement feels a similar want, though his yearnings are differently expressed. his reason is adjured, and not his senses, to yield evidence of a life beyond the grave; and the intellect of the one is as intently fixed as the eye and ear of the other on whatever may bring a solution of his doubts. is not the main fact of christianity that which is preeminently fitted to afford consolation and hope to both? to each in the proportion in which he is able to receive it? the greenlander, who believes that there has been an actual resurrection in proof that all men shall live after death, is soothed and cheered by hope. he is brave when tossed by the storms of the ocean or half-buried in a snow-drift, because death is no longer the fearful thing it was. he is patient when his winter store of provisions is exhausted and his children ask him for food, because his faith teaches him that he who can restore the dead from the grave can preserve the living, though the means may not be immediately apparent. this faith is the same with that on which the philosopher reposes his trust, when he sees things that yet are not as though they were,--the revelations of the grave, the spiritual and intellectual communion of a higher state, and the blessed results of the trials and privations of the present. and a similar congeniality prevails respecting every other essential doctrine and principle of the gospel; and even respecting its minor details. the universal spread of glad tidings is a fit subject for universal rejoicing. the moral beauty of the saviour's character is recognizable by all; the spirit of his teachings is congenial to all; and the very illustrations in which they are set forth are of a universal nature. storms everywhere beat on human dwellings, and in all regions flowers spring, and the lights of heaven shine and are obscured. the filial and fraternal relations subsist everywhere; widowed mothers mourn over the bier of a son, and rejoicings are witnessed at marriage feasts. the parables of the gospel are the most appropriate elementary teachings for all minds from pole to pole; and the principles which christ proposed command the assent of every intellect, from that of the child whom he set in the midst of his followers, to that which, exalted by all holy influences, is surrounded on its release from the grave by a throng of perfected spirits. it is for man to beware how he limits what god has thus made universal; how he monopolizes what god designs to be diffused; how he encumbers by human inventions that truth which divine wisdom has made free to all. by the gospel, a new relation is established between him who gives and him who receives it; and it is for man to beware how he attempts to modify this relation, or to intrude on the special communion which it establishes. it is not in the power of man to take away any thing from the gospel, though he may narrow the capacity of its recipients; but he must beware how he adds to it the teachings of his own low and vain imaginations. he can do nothing to impair divine truth, for it is made invulnerable by god: but he may impair and destroy its efficacy for himself and his brethren, by mistaking its nature and perverting its influences; by transferring to others the task which he may not delegate, of admitting its evidences and interpreting its commands. it is not in the power of man to silence the voice of god speaking on earth through christ; but he must beware of listening to any other exponent of the divine will, whether or not he refer his claim to st peter; whether or not he appeal to human wisdom throned in the papal chair or attested by the unanimity of councils; whether or not he entitle himself the vicar of christ on earth. it is not in the power of man to restrict the influences of the gospel. what they have been, they will be; what they have done, they will continue to effect. they will bless the spirit in its wanderings and in its retirements, making the universe the record of its history, and its inmost recesses the dwelling-place of deity. they will restrain the excesses, chasten the emotions, and ennoble the sympathies of humanity. they will bless life, and hallow the grave. they will develope themselves perpetually as ages roll on, till it shall be their lowest office to still the sighings and subdue the conflicts of the spirit; while their highest shall still be, so to direct its pursuit of ultimate objects, so to invigorate its natural and moral powers, as to evidence to itself its ever-growing resemblance to its maker. it is for man to beware lest he exclude himself from these influences or impair their operation by mistaking superstition for religion, and by supinely relinquishing the intellectual and spiritual liberty with which christ has made him free. [transcriber's note: this book uses several non-standard spellings, e.g. "tho" (though), "thoro", "thoroly" (thorough, thoroughly), "thru" (through), etc.] from bondage to liberty in religion a spiritual autobiography by george t. ashley the beacon press boston copyright, by the beacon press, inc. all rights reserved foreword the substance of what is written in this book has been given on several occasions during the past five years in the form of sermons or lectures. on each occasion they met with such hearty commendation, and so many requests that they be written and published in book form that they might have a wider circulation, that i have been induced to undertake it. this volume is the result. it is in no sense a treatise on controverted theological questions; altho some of these are incidentally treated, but only as they entered as factors into my own religious life and experience. this book is simply the story of my own religious life from my early childhood to the present time, in its various transitions from the narrowest orthodoxy to a broad, liberal, rational religious faith. it necessarily deals to some extent with certain theological problems that from time to time confronted me, the way in which i solved them, the conclusions i finally reached, and why i reached them. but these have been treated in mere outline only. the temptation has been very great to treat, some of these at least, more elaborately; but i have been compelled to content myself often with the bare statement of my views, with few or no detailed arguments to support them. but as my object has been, not so much to try to solve these problems for others, as to point the way thereto, and stimulate the reader to further inquiry and deeper investigation of the subjects treated, if i have succeeded in this, my main object has been accomplished. no one is more sensible of the many defects in this work than i am. it makes no pretension to any literary merit, nor to any scholarly erudition. i am not a "professional writer." i have simply tried to tell my story in a simple way and make it "readable" if possible. my sole purpose in writing these pages has been to try to help others who may still be in the fetters of ecclesiastical bondage, or wandering in the quagmires of agnosticism--and i know there are many such--to find the way to light and liberty in a rational religious faith. if i can accomplish this, even in a small degree, i shall feel abundantly repaid for the time and labor spent in reviewing the story of my own religious evolution. introduction when the traveller, bent on some important quest, makes a prolonged and perilous journey and returns in safety to his friends and neighbors, instinctively those who have known him in former years realize that he is, and he is not, the same person who had dwelt among them. he has seen unfamiliar peoples, traversed strange lands, encountered unexpected dangers. old prepossessions have been effaced, erroneous opinions have been corrected, new habits of thought have taken the place of old ones and the narrow world of youth has expanded on every side. naturally, what has happened to him becomes a matter of curiosity and enquiry, and the hero of a great achievement is expected to relate the story of his adventures. the man who, in these revolutionary days, takes religion seriously--there are many who do not--must make a journey which is fraught with as many surprises and filled with as many anxieties--especially if it be a pilgrimage from orthodoxy to personal independence--as that which the explorer encounters in a voyage to the north pole or the jungles of africa. at every turning of the way he must be prepared for disillusions and the discovery of facts and errors which call for unlimited courage and boundless faith. religion is not simply a matter of the emotions, its very perpetuity depends upon that sane and persistent activity of the intellect without which the emotions are tyrannous and fateful. emotion in religion is the driving force by which religion may be applied to human welfare, but if emotion be not governed and directed by the well-trained intellect, informed by patient thought and the use of all the evidence available from those who are entitled to be summoned as witnesses, the result inevitably is merely a matter of superstition, or a spineless acquiescence in old and futile beliefs. to continue all the while to believe in _religion_ while one is pursuing a course of reasoning which is bound to shatter many of the interpretations of it which one has previously accepted, requires the kind of intellectual endurance and the quality of faith which characterize the inventor, or the scientific explorer. when the author of this volume, as an unquestioning disciple of his ancestral fellowship, earnestly sought to pledge all that he was and all that he hoped to become to the salvation of those who he believed stood in peril of everlasting torment, it was the unadulterated spirit of religion which prompted him. but he was at that time unaware of that fact. religion was with him when it moved him to give himself for others, but to him religion was itself something entirely different. he was urged and commanded by a force, old as mankind, and it took him, as the reader of these pages will see, many years of heart-breaking endeavor, to learn that what most he desired was what most he possessed. his quest was a long and weary one, and the reality of it and the importance of it to him are proven by the thoroughness and the eloquence with which his spiritual experience is recalled and set down in these pages. only one who had begun in earnest, proceeded in anxiety and continued to the end, as if he absolutely believed in the integrity of the human reason and the intimate friendliness of a supreme guidance, could have emerged at last triumphantly and with the ability to tell the tale. to him who thinks of religion only as a matter of course, or as an affair of the church, or as a medium of social advantage; or to him who identifies religion with the ravings of half-witted fanatics and regards it with patronizing contempt, this book will make no appeal. but to the man or woman who has learned that religion is one thing and theology another, and at whatever cost, is willing to share with the author in his struggle to know the truth about it and be at peace, these pages will command undivided attention; for they relate not only the story of mental perplexity ending in a great personal solution, but they likewise have the charm of a real romance of the soul. lewis g. wilson. contents chapter i my childhood, youth and education ii seeking liberty iii new visions and disturbances iv nearer the crisis v the crisis vi the reaction: a new confession of faith vii a new interpretation of religion viii jesus of nazareth from bondage to liberty in religion a religious autobiography chapter i my childhood, youth and education practically all people inherit their first religious opinions from their parents, their early environment or both, as i did mine. the trouble with most of us is that we never get beyond that stage. we take it for granted that these opinions, whether about religion, politics or anything else, are correct, because we have been told so, and never go out of our way or trouble ourselves for a moment to investigate their truth or error. and thus we go on from generation to generation, traveling in the same old ruts, thinking the same old thoughts, in the same old way, each of us assuming that our particular ancestors could not possibly have been wrong about anything; and although christianity is divided into several hundred different denominations and creeds, each believes his creed to be absolutely correct and all the others partly or wholly wrong. like saul of tarsus, i belonged to the pharisees of the strictest sect. i was taught from infancy that the church of my parents was the one and only true, scriptural and orthodox church on earth, with an unbroken organic succession from jesus christ himself down to the present time; that it was the only true exponent of apostolic faith and practice; the only true and lawful custodian of the word of god, and the only authority for the administration of the ordinances of the gospel; that all other organizations claiming to be churches were not churches in fact, but merely religious societies; and that while some of these societies might do some little good in the world, and some of their members might ultimately be saved, they could never reach those sublime heights of glory reserved exclusively for the truly baptized members of the true and only church. just when and how these ideas first took concrete form in my mind it is impossible for me now to remember. as above intimated, in the plastic condition of my youthful mind, i naturally absorbed them from the very atmosphere in which i lived, from the common talk i heard around me, as well as from the direct instruction given me. as far back as i can remember, i understood the bible to be the word of god, every word of it, from the first word in genesis to the last "amen" of revelation; that it was all divinely inspired, _verbatim et literatim_, just as it appeared in the old king james version; that it was god's revelation to mankind, beside and outside of which there never was, and never would be any other; that every word of it was literally, and infallibly true, just as it read. such a thing as figurative, or allegorical interpretations i never heard of until i was a grown man, as we shall see later. this, of course, meant a literal six-day creation, an anthropomorphic god, a literal physical heaven, and likewise a literal, physical hell, a personal devil, the absolute, literal, truth of the story of eden, the original perfection and fall of man, total depravity of the race, vicarious atonement and the eternal damnation of all mankind, individually and collectively, who did not accept the prescribed creed of the church of my parents, as the only means of escape. my first conception of god was that of a great big good man sitting high up in heaven on a great white throne, whence he would judge the world; that heaven was a great city somewhere up in the skies, with streets of gold and walls of jasper; that hell was a literal burning lake of fire and brimstone somewhere down under the world, and that it was presided over by the devil and was made to burn people in who were not good, or who had not believed in christ as a personal savior. as a little child i was taught that if i was not a good boy, when i died, the devil, usually spoken of as "the bad man," would get me and burn me in this hell forever and ever; and that i never could burn up or die, and if i called for water he would pour melted lead down my throat. many a time i would think over this horrible torture that i might inadvertently fall into by doing some bad thing when at heart i really meant to be good, and sincerely wish i had never been born. in my night visions i could see the devil with his tea-kettle of melted lead, pouring it down the throats of the helpless little ones, writhing in the tortures of the never ending fire! on the day that i was twelve years old a little incident occurred that so indelibly stamped itself on my mind, and so changed the course of my thoughts thereafter, that it is necessary to mention it. i was proud i had reached that stage of life. i was boasting of it to a hired man, with whom i was doing an errand, informing him that i was now "more than half a man," and that in nine more years i would be a man, when "i could do as i pleased." he informed me that, after all, it was not a thing to be so proud of; that i had that day reached "the age of accountability"; that on that day i became personally responsible to god for my sins; that if i had died before that day i would have been saved from hell by god's free grace, because of my infancy; but that _from that day on_, i must account to god for myself; and that it would be necessary for me to repent, and pray daily for the forgiveness of my sins, lest i die and fall into the "bottomless pit" for all eternity. this was news to me. i had never heard of before. it produced a profound sensation in my thought; and to say it seriously troubled me is to put it mildly. as soon as my errand was done i went to my mother with it. she confirmed it. then i sincerely wished i had died before i reached that fateful day. another serious trouble confronted me. when told i must repent of my sins and pray for forgiveness, i could not comprehend just what it meant to "repent." i was told that it was "to be sorry" for my sins. to be frank, i was not conscious of any sin. i had tried to be a good boy; i was obedient to my parents, and did no evil to any one that i was aware of. true, i made childish mistakes every day, as all children do. but i could not recognize that i had been personally sinful against god. i knew i had not meant to be. then they told me that i was _born_ a sinner! that when adam ate the "forbidden fruit" it made every person that was ever born into the world thereafter, a sinner by nature; and i would have to repent of this sin, as well as all that i ever committed, if i ever expected to escape the lake of fire and brimstone "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." my whole nature, even as a child, revolted against the injustice of thus making me responsible for, and punishing me for something some one else did thousands of years ago; but i had no remedy and had to take it and prepare to repent of adam's sin. what a monstrous doctrine to teach a child! can any mortal in this age of the world believe such nonsense, or perpetrate such a caricature of god? i wondered how the "good man" up in the skies on his great white throne in his beautiful city of gold, could be just and plunge a little child into hell and burn it for ever and ever because adam ate fruit from the wrong tree! but i believed it then, because i was told so, and knew no better. i don't believe it now, and how any human being with the instincts of justice pertaining to the common brute creation can believe such a thing is a mystery to me. as time went on i learned more about repentance, faith, conversion, baptism and the current theology of my time and environment. but i was ever anxious to escape from that dreaded hell that ever yawned before me in daytime and disturbed my dreams at night. the thought of it was a veritable nightmare to me. it destroyed the happiness of my early life. as a child i could not reconcile it with any conception of god's goodness or justice. i was often, in the silence of my heart, tempted to rebel against god and defy him. but i was afraid. my thought was to make the best i could of a bad situation, and at the earliest possible moment make good my escape. perhaps this is as good a place as any to state the fact that my parents were members of the baptist church, and that in this faith i was brought up. however, i am glad to be able to state that they were much broader and more liberal in their views than many of their brethren. i do not wish to be unjust to this great organization; but it is necessary here to make some statements concerning its doctrine and practice, in order that my future relations to it may be the better understood--statements, the truth of which, all intelligent baptists will testify to. first, the baptist church is just as exclusive in its claim to being the only true, scriptural, orthodox, apostolic church as are the catholics, episcopalians, or any other christian body. but this applies _only_ to their ecclesiastical organization, and _not_ to the character of its membership. second, it _does not_ hold that baptism is essential to salvation, but that it _is_ to church membership. they do not baptize people _to make_ them christians; but because they recognize them as already being christians, thru repentance, faith in christ, and the regeneration of the holy spirit. thus, they _recognize_ the true christian character of any and all others who furnish evidence of these fundamental characteristics of a christian life, tho they do not recognize them as "church members," no matter to what other ecclesiastical organization they may belong. these statements are necessary to understand what follows. now in the country where i was brought up, in the time of my boyhood, there were but two churches,--baptists and methodists. in fact i was nearly grown before i knew there were any others at all. these churches were generally friendly--in a way. while there was occasional criticism of each by the other, and some controversy over doctrinal differences, there was no open warfare; and often members of each would attend and worship with the other. as above said, i was anxious to make terms with god by repenting, being baptized, or anything else that would relieve me of that constant dread of eternal damnation that overshadowed my life. perhaps the reader has already surmised that i was brought up in the country districts. our churches usually held services but once a month. but in the summer, when the "crops were laid-by," we usually had our "protracted meetings," usually lasting a week--from sunday to sunday--having two services a day at the church, with dinner on the ground "for all who came." this was the annual revival season, when sinners were "snatched from the eternal burning," back-sliders reclaimed and the cold and indifferent warmed up and aroused. well, the summer after i was twelve years old and had reached that fateful period of "personal accountability," at our protracted meeting, i wanted to go to the "mourner's bench," repent, join the church and be baptized, and thus make good my escape and my "calling and election sure." at this time i had no clear conception of the meaning of conversion. somehow i identified it with joining the church and being baptized. contrary to the teachings of my church--which at that time i did not understand,--to me, baptism was the main thing. i wanted to be baptized. but they told me i was too young,--and too small to go down into the deep water. this was a great disappointment. but i saw a ray of hope. the next week the methodist church near our home had its protracted meeting and we attended. there i saw children, younger and smaller than myself go to the mourner's bench, join the church and be baptized,--by sprinkling. they even sprinkled babies. while i clearly understood that this was not _true baptism_, i also knew that many of the methodists were considered truly good people, good christians, and sure of heaven at death, notwithstanding their lack of true baptism. i therefore conceived the idea that after all, this sprinkling might possess some merit, at least provisionally; and i therefore insisted on being permitted to join the methodist church and be sprinkled for the time being, as a sort of emergency measure, until i should grow up to that age--and size--where i might join the baptist church and be baptized right. but this pleasure was denied me. during the next two years i learned much; for i was a close student, altho only a child. my mind also underwent a considerable change. that constant and tormenting fear and dread of hell gradually weakened. in fact i was consciously growing more and more indifferent toward it. yet i was not altogether uninterested. i had learned much more about the meaning of "conversion" as i saw it manifested in many, and sometimes violent, forms of demonstration. as i saw these i fancied that this was the kind of conversion i would like to have. i wanted to "get happy and shout" as some of the others did. the time came for the annual protracted meeting at the church of my parents. at this meeting i found myself the object of considerable solicitude. i was now old enough to be converted, join the church and be baptized. they were all anxious that i be "saved." of course i had to repent of my sins,--and also of adam's. i was not so self-conscious of innocence now as i was a few years before. i really felt that i had something to repent of. the preacher, and a good honest, sincere man he was, pictured the flames of hell and the torments of the damned with such power that i almost felt the warmth of its fires and smelled its fumes of sulphur. i set out in earnest to repent of my own sins as well as adam's. repenting was very easy. i cried until the tears refused to flow longer. believing was easy, for i believed it all. being baptized was easy. but i had not yet been "converted." there was no miraculous transformation in me. i had not yet "got happy and shouted." i waited for it. my tears dried up. i still went to the "mourners' bench," but nothing came of it. i could not even cry. one day the preacher, noting my condition, had a talk with me. i told him my feelings, and he said i was converted. but i told him that no such change had come over me as the others told about, and that seemed manifest in their emotions and actions. then he told me that as i was young and had never been a great sinner i could not expect that wonderful "experience" that often comes to the old and hardened cases. i was truly glad to hear it. i really felt saved. i had now escaped the devil. i had already learned the doctrine of "once in grace always in grace," and i felt supremely happy to think that after all i had now escaped from the "eternal burning" and was entirely out of danger. i joined the church and was baptized. i have thus referred at some length to my childhood for two reasons: it will be seen later how some of these experiences affected my after-life; and also because i feel that in some measure i am only repeating in substance the experiences of millions of others who have passed through similar conditions of life. also to say to you, who were brought up in the light of a liberal faith and free from these dogmas of dread, despair and damnation, that you ought to be sincerely thankful that you have escaped at least this much of hell, no matter how much the orthodox may have in store for you in the future; and further, to exonerate my parents from any blame in the premises. they taught me only as they had been taught and firmly believed, and did it all for what they honestly believed, to be for my best interests. like millions of others, they did the best they knew at the time. the call to preach.--it was a part of the orthodox belief at that time, and is very largely so even now, that after the fall of adam, practically all the human race was lost except now and then a worthy patriarch like abel, enoch and noah, down to the call of abraham; and after that only the pious and faithful of the seed of abraham, thru isaac, were saved, down to the coming of christ. all the balance of mankind were utterly and irretrievably lost, both wicked and apostate jews and _all_ gentiles. and since the death of christ those only are saved who repent and believe in him as a personal savior, and accept the prescribed creed of the particular church presenting it. all the balance of mankind, including all jews and nine-tenths of the balance of mankind are irretrievably lost. this being the case, the sole end and aim in life is to escape hell hereafter. nine-tenths of the preaching in my boyhood was to warn men to "flee from the wrath to come." but little was said about the love of god or the brotherhood of man, the nobility of character, human helpfulness, the promotion of happiness here, and the general uplift and advancement of civilization and mankind. it was wonderful the way they did ring the changes on hell and damnation, and fire and brimstone! it thundered from every pulpit like the traditional thunders from mt. sinai. taking this view of the world, of life and mankind, i felt that the greatest thing in the world a man could do would be to devote his life to warning men of their danger and pointing the way to safety. i wanted to sound my voice in warning men to "flee from the wrath to come." believing that all men were lost if they did not follow the prescribed course laid down by my church, i felt that if i did not do all in my power to direct them in the way of eternal life their blood would be on my hands. while i did not feel that i would be "lost" if i failed in this--for the doctrine of my church was, that once being converted all the devils in hell could not keep one ultimately from heaven--yet i felt that my future happiness in heaven would be diminished just in proportion as i failed to do my best in this behalf. this was interpreted to be a "divine call to preach." i accepted it with profound earnestness and deep conviction, and began early to exercise my gifts. in due course of events i went to college to "prepare for the ministry." i was in love with the work and happy in its prospects. i was ambitious to be thoroly efficient in my work in the future and pursued my studies with diligence accordingly. incidentally i learned much that was not in the books, as most college students do. i little knew what was before me. here in a "school of the prophets," where i was supposed to be thoroly trained, rooted and grounded in the faith of my church, i was to learn the first lessons that ultimately led me entirely out of the orthodox faith, into a broad, rational liberalism! a few of these it will be necessary to state here, not so much because of any immediate effect they produced, as to show the working of the leaven that years afterward "leavened the whole lump." the first shock i got was in the study of geology. when i began it i saw at once that it was out of harmony with the bible account of creation, the origin of the earth, and organic life upon it. while no one told me so, i somehow conceived the idea that we were not studying it because it was recognized as truth, but just the opposite. being rooted and grounded from my infancy in the belief in the absolute literalness, and infallible truth of the bible; and supposing that i was in college only to be more thoroly instructed in this divine truth, i conceived the idea that this book we were studying was merely the "guess-work" of some modern infidel, and that our real purpose in studying it was to be the more able to refute it when we got out into our life work; all of which would fully appear before we finished the book. one day when we were perhaps half thru, the professor, himself a baptist minister, catechised the class individually, as to their opinions as to the length of time the earth was in process of formation, previous to the appearance of life upon it. i noticed, with surprise, that the answers varied from a few millions to hundreds of billions of years, until the question came to me, when i answered promptly, "six days!" everybody laughed, professor and all. of course i felt "cheap"; but insisted on the correctness of my answer "because the bible said so," notwithstanding lyell and dana to the contrary. the professor complimented me on my "loyalty to the scriptures," but explained that the story of creation in genesis was to be interpreted "figuratively"; that it referred to six great geological epochs in terms of days; and that what we were studying was to be accepted as scientific truth in its general principles, subject, however, to possible revision in some of its details as further geological discoveries were made. this was a revelation to me. i know the intelligent reader of today will be provoked to laugh at my native, inherent "greenness." but it must not be forgotten that this was thirty-six years ago; and besides this, there are still, in this year of grace , literally millions of men and women, long past the age of student life, who still hold substantially the same views concerning the relations of science to religion and the bible that i held then. the simplicity of faith is often sublime. and i am not sure that it is not often the truth that, "ignorance is bliss where it is folly to be wise"; especially where the "wisdom" is just sufficient to disturb the mind but not enough to settle it. but i had a revelation,--two of them. first, that modern science is to be taken seriously; and second, that much of the bible must be interpreted figuratively. the latter was the most disturbing to me. the question that confronted me was this: if the bible is partly literal and partly figurative, when i get out into my life work as a minister, how am i to be able to always determine correctly just what parts are literal and what figurative; and how to interpret the figures? but the answer came as quickly as the question: this is just what i am here to learn, and before i am thru i will doubtless know it all! some time after this a discussion arose among the divinity students, about the doctrines of inspiration--as to whether the bible was literally and verbally inspired, word for word, or was merely an inspiration of ideas, the writers being left to write their "inspirations" in their own language and manner. my idea had always been that of the former, that the bible was inspired word for word, just as it reads. but i found the more progressive and better educated class among both students and professors had abandoned this idea, and accepted the doctrine of the inspiration of ideas only. it was strange to me that god could not have dictated the words as easily as the ideas, and thus have made sure of their correctness. but it set me to thinking. i had never had any doubt about the inspiration of the bible, yet i could give no reason for it, except that i had always been told so. now as progress and education were going to compel me to revise my opinions about the _manner_ of inspiration, i began to wonder what evidence we really had that the bible was inspired at all. i really had no doubts about the fact. i supposed, of course, the evidence existed _somewhere_, but that they had never been specifically pointed out to me; and i wanted to know just _what_ and _where_ they were. i confided my inquiries to a senior student in whom i had great confidence. he told me the devil was whispering doubts in my ear and i should not listen to him! that there could be no possible doubt about the _fact_ of inspiration; that this question had been definitely and finally settled over eighteen hundred years ago by the wisest and best men of the world, and there had never been a shadow of a doubt about it since; that the evidences of inspiration of ideas instead of verbal inspiration were found in the many different styles and manner of writing found in the bible itself as represented by the different writers. but as to the fundamental fact of divine inspiration itself, there had never been a shadow of a doubt! so i accepted the new idea of inspiration and said "get thee behind me, satan," and after that for many years i did not permit myself to doubt the fact of inspiration. yet occasionally i could not keep from thinking, and many years later this question arose again in my mind with tragic force and effect. chapter ii seeking liberty other questions now began to arise that were soon to materially affect my church relations, without, however, any material change in my fundamental theology. as before stated, my sole ambition in life was to warn sinners to "flee from the wrath to come." to this one purpose all other things must be made subordinate. for this one purpose i was pursuing my studies in college that i might become the more efficient in its accomplishment. impressed as i was with the awful truth of man's total depravity and natural alienation from god, and the certainty of his eternal damnation in the never-ending flames, unless he accepted fully, and followed implicitly the prescribed course which i had been taught was the only means of escape, i felt that "woe is me, if i preach not the gospel." i felt that any deflection on my part, from the full performance of my duty in this particular, up to the full extent of my power and opportunity, would not only entail eternal torments upon all who might have been thus saved thru my efforts, but would also detract from my own eternal glory in heaven in exactly the same ratio. i began to look upon the church as being at most but a means, or agency to this end; the channel thru which i might work to accomplish this central purpose. leaving other churches out of consideration, as not being germane to the purpose of this narrative, while yet in school i had become more fully informed as to the fundamental theology of the methodist church; and somewhat to my surprise, i found there was no substantial difference between it and the baptist church, to which i belonged. they both appealed to the same infallible revelation; both taught the same doctrine of the fall of man, total depravity and inherited sin; both taught the same doctrines concerning the personality and character of christ, and the vicarious atonement in his death; the same doctrines concerning heaven and hell; and the same doctrines of salvation by repentance, faith in jesus christ, and regeneration by the holy spirit. i perceived that the only substantial difference between the two was purely one of ecclesiastical organization and polity. as before noted, the baptist church did not hold that either baptism or church membership was necessary to salvation; but that "salvation" was first necessary before one was scripturally entitled to either baptism or church membership. it was also freely admitted that a truly repentant and converted methodist was just as truly "saved" and as sure of heaven as any baptist,--and that there were many such there could be no doubt,--true members of the kingdom of god and the church universal; true heirs of glory and fit subjects for the heavenly kingdom,--yet not fit for membership in the earthly church, admittedly imperfect at its best, solely because they had not been dipped under the water, an ordinance admitted to be secondary, and wholly unnecessary to the main object! i began to wonder from whence came the authority to bar the doors of god's earthly church against those who were clearly admitted to be members of the church universal, and of god's spiritual kingdom. thus my faith in the exclusive claims of my church to be the _only true church_ on earth, was very much weakened; tho i still firmly believed it to be the best church, and by far the most scriptural, orthodox and apostolic. yet, i could not see why we might not affiliate with, and co-operate more with our methodist brethren, imperfect and unscriptural (?) as their ecclesiastical organization was, especially in carrying forward the great central object we both had in view, the salvation of souls from hell; and more especially, since there was no substantial disagreement between us as to the means and processes of accomplishing this object; our real differences beginning only _after_ this was accomplished. the methodists were always willing to co-operate with us to the fullest extent we would permit them; but we, never, with them. during the summer that followed the close of my sophomore year in college (which, as subsequent events will show, proved to be my last), an event occurred that so affected my future ecclesiastical relations that it needs to be told in some detail. as is generally well known, one of the principal differences between the baptist and methodist churches is their difference of view in regard to the sacrament of the lord's supper, as well as that of the mode of baptism. the methodists, as liberal evangelicals, offer it to all christians present when it is celebrated, leaving it to each individual to judge for himself as to his fitness to partake of it; while the baptists limit it to "members in good and regular standing" in their own "faith and order." the baptists generally disclaim being "close communionists," but "close baptists." that is, they insist that no person is eligible to partake of the lord's supper until after baptism _by immersion_; and that by a regularly ordained baptist minister, upon the authority of a baptist church, expressed by a vote of its members. i do not know that i ever saw the ordinance celebrated in a baptist church, that some explanation along this line was not made, by way of apology. the event that so influenced my future thought was this: at a baptist church, some six miles from my father's residence, their annual protracted meeting had been going on a week,--from sunday to sunday. some eight or ten persons had joined the church during the week and were to be baptized at a.m. on this last sunday, after which was to follow the regular church services at a.m.; and then the celebration of the lord's supper. a half mile away was a methodist church, and the place of baptism was the ford of a creek about half way between the two. the methodist sunday school usually met at . a.m. but on this occasion superintendent, teachers and pupils, came in a body down to the ford to see the baptising. after it was over the methodist superintendent, with several of his teachers and older pupils, remained for the services at the baptist church. at the close of the sermon two persons presented themselves for membership, and were accepted, by vote of the members, subject to baptism, at the next regular monthly meeting; after which brother crawford, the methodist sunday school superintendent, was called on to lead in prayer, a function in which he was earnest, able and eloquent, as well as being universally recognized as a man of unblemished character, sincere and deep piety. the minister then proceeded to administer the lord's supper, prefacing it with the usual apologies and explanations about "close baptism" instead of "close communion"; and to illustrate this point, he referred to the fact that two persons had just presented themselves for church membership, and had been accepted, subject to baptism, concerning whose conversion and sincere christian character, there was just as sure confidence as there was of any that had been baptized that morning; yet these two could not partake of the lord's supper because they had not yet been baptized. just at this point there suddenly darted into my mind, almost with the force of a "clap of thunder from a clear sky," the question, "where is the scriptural authority for this?" i had heard it perhaps a hundred times. i was as familiar with it as i was with the alphabet, but for the first time in life the thought came to me with the suddenness of lightning, "where is the scriptural authority for it?" i could not remember that i had ever heard a single passage of scripture quoted in its support, or defense. (the reader must keep in mind that up to this time, and for several years thereafter, to me, the bible was infallible, inerrant, and the sole and final authority in all matters pertaining to religion and the church.) the shock was so great, and my mental agitation so intense, that it threw me into a fever. i went home sick. during the following week i read the new testament thru in special search for some passage to support the doctrine that baptism, in any form, was a necessary prerequisite to a proper participation in the lord's supper. _and i did not find it_. in fact i did not find any direct evidence in the gospel record that any of the twelve to whom jesus first administered this supper were ever baptized at all! and if they were,--which is only an inference, or a reading into the record, not what actually is there, but what somebody thinks ought to be there,--it was not christian baptism, but the baptism of john, which, according to the teachings of the baptist church, was an entirely different thing in meaning and purpose, tho the same in form. john's baptism, according to the teachings of my church, was a "baptism unto repentance," _in preparation_ for the appearance of christ; while christian baptism, "in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy ghost" was not instituted until _after_ the descent of the holy ghost, according to the promise of jesus, on the day of pentecost. then for the first time, and not until then, did christian baptism in the name of the trinity, have any existence or meaning. it was therefore quite clear to me, that this institution that we call the lord's supper, being instituted, and first administered to persons who, so far as we have any specific knowledge, were not baptized at all; and who in the very nature of the case _could not_ have been baptized under that formula commonly known as christian baptism; therefore, whatever meaning may be attached to the lord's supper, it has absolutely no connection with, or relation to any kind, or form of baptism whatsoever. it is one of my misfortunes that i have never had sense enough to "keep my counsel to myself." i have always had a habit of "thinking out loud." and when i thus began to express myself, my position in the baptist church began to grow "shaky," not to say precarious. yet, i still held rigidly to the doctrine that immersion alone was baptism, and that with all its defects, the baptist church was the most scriptural and orthodox in its doctrines and practices of any church in existence. the upshot of this whole matter was, that i was soon cited before my "church conference" to answer a charge of heresy, in holding to the doctrine of "open communion." i appeared and wanted to make a defense of my position before the church. i was vain and silly enough at that time to think if i could only make my argument before the church i would be able to convert a majority of the members to my views, and thus save myself and "reform" the church. but this i was not permitted to do. i was told i might answer either "guilty" or "not guilty," and no more. i refused to answer either way, unless i was further permitted to explain my answer. this was denied me. whereupon, a motion was made to "withdraw fellowship from brother ashley"; and without debate or further ceremony, the motion was put, four persons voting aye, and three, no, altho about forty members were present. and thus i went out of the baptist church, whereby my education for the ministry became automatically "finished," and all hope of my ministerial career blasted. strange as it may seem there was a sort of personal satisfaction in this. i had not entered the ministry as a pure matter of choice. while i did not shrink from it, but rather took it up joyously, it was because i felt it to be a duty divinely imposed upon me, and therefore an honor of which i was proud; and because it was the means thru which i might gratify my personal desire to be of some real use to god and humanity, in saving souls from the eternal burning. but now i felt that i had fulfilled my part as far as i possibly could, and was denied the privilege of going further by the action of the church; and that thereafter the church, and not i, was responsible for any failure on my part to go on with the work of warning sinners to "flee from the wrath to come." i was a little like jonah fleeing to tarshish. i was rather secretly glad i had gotten away, and shifted the responsibility somewhere else. but these impressions did not last long. my fundamental theology had not changed. the bible was still an infallible divine revelation. humanity was still lost, totally depraved, abiding under the "wrath of god"; hell was a reality towards which all humanity was bound; and the only means of escape was to "believe in the lord jesus christ" according to the prescribed formula. the burden of my personal responsibility soon returned. i could not escape it. true, i was out of the church--the baptist church; but it seemed quite evident that god was using other agencies, outside the baptist church, for the salvation of souls, and seemed to be doing it quite successfully. if god could so use the methodist church for this purpose, why might not i? what did baptism amount to anyway? i was never taught that it was necessary to salvation. and if not, why make such a fuss about it? if a person was already saved, and it was only "an outward sign of an inward grace," what difference could it make how it was administered, who administered it, or whether it was administered at all? these were some of the questions that ran thru my mind. i also began to note that there were at least a few places in the new testament that might be fairly interpreted to imply that baptism was, at least, _not always_ by immersion. for example, the baptism of so many thousands on the day of pentecost in jerusalem, where the supply of water was very limited, and this all under the control of the enemies of the new religion. the immersion of so many, in so short a time and under such circumstances and conditions was next to a physical impossibility, while easily probable if done by sprinkling. by these processes of reasoning, in the course of some two years, i found a congenial home in the methodist church, at first with some trepidation, but soon afterwards with perfect satisfaction. while this change in church relations involved quite a radical change in matters of ecclesiastical organization and polity, it must be kept in mind that it _did not_ involve any material change in matters of fundamental theology. but let it be noted here that during all this time i was striving for some degree of religious liberty; and in passing from the baptist to the methodist church, i was at least making some progress towards it, however small it might be. to shorten my story, in a few months i found myself a "circuit rider" in the louisiana conference of the methodist episcopal church, south--(i was born and reared in the "pine hills" of mississippi). it is not necessary to go into any lengthy details concerning my work at this time, beyond the fact that i was fairly successful in it, and for the time being, i found it eminently satisfactory and fairly pleasant to myself. however, under the workings of the itinerant system, in a few years i found myself located in the state of missouri, where i transferred my church relations to the st. louis conference of the m. e. church. this change involved nothing but a matter of personal choice and convenience. chapter iii new visions and disturbances having thus changed my church relations, and feeling that i had a greater field of usefulness open to me, my zeal for efficiency and success increased. i had a sincere and consuming desire to "save men's souls." and believing my creed to be as infallible as the bible upon which it was based, i studied to make myself efficient and able in its defense. by following the ordinary methods of interpretation, i soon found no trouble in doing this. does the reader inquire here what are the "ordinary methods of interpretation"? taking a chapter, or verse, or paragraph of the bible here and there, thru the whole book, from genesis to revelation, and weaving them together as a connected whole, regardless of whether there is any natural connection between them or not; then disposing of all contradictory passages as either "figurative,"--with unlimited latitude on the interpretation of the "figures,"--or as pertaining to those "great and mysterious, unknowable things of god's divine revelation,"--mysteries too great for man to know! this method of interpretation is the common practice, to a greater or less extent, of every church in christendom that accepts the doctrine of the infallibility of the bible, and looks to it as its sole and final source of authority in religion. there is not a creed in christendom today, and never has been, that cannot be supported and proved to be conclusively correct from the bible by this method of interpretation. by the same method the bible can be made the defense--and it often has been--of war, murder, slavery, polygamy, adultery, and the foulest crimes known to humanity, and these all made the divine institutions of god. and these are exactly the leading methods of interpretation of the bible that are being followed today, and have been since christianity first began to divide into sects and parties. but this is a digression. while i recognized some merit in nearly all the creeds, i firmly believed mine the best. my faith in, and devotion to the methodist church had become so intense that i believed the sum total of all theological knowledge was concentrated and embodied in john wesley. there could be no more progress, no more discovery. it was a finished science, and john wesley finished it. there are thousands who still think so, even to this day! i looked back over history to the days of apostolic purity, followed the trend of theological thought in its decline into error and superstition, thru the dark ages, to the first glimmer of light in wickliffe, followed by huss, until the flame of the reformation sprang up in luther, zwingli and calvin, followed by knox and arminius; but wesley was the end of knowledge, and wisdom died with him. yes, i was soon able to defend and prove my creed to the satisfaction of myself and my superiors. but now i wanted to go further. i wanted to _prove_ the _proof_. as i grew older and my mind broadened i desired to drink deeper from the fountains of knowledge. i started out with the best materials available to me to make a critical study of the bible. up to this time i had studied the bible only superficially. i had accepted it as truth, as divine, as inspired, as infallible, except the doubts of my school days before described, and these i had long since cast aside. i had studied the bible as the great mass of christians study it today--to support and defend preconceived opinions, most of which i had inherited. now i was to seek for basic principles. i wanted to know just who wrote each book of the bible, when he wrote it and why, and just what the specific proofs were as to these facts and of its divine inspiration. in looking back over the period of years that have since intervened, i am still unable to perceive any selfish, egotistical motive in these my ambitions. my unquenchable thirst for knowledge was inspired solely by my desire to increase my efficiency in that vocation to which i sincerely believed i was divinely called. i never had the opportunity of taking a divinity course in a divinity school. but both the great branches of the methodist church require all its ministers, before final ordination, to take a prescribed course of study, somewhat after the correspondence method, covering four years,--and longer if necessary to cover the full prescribed course,--that is practically equal to the curriculum of the average divinity school, minus the advantages of class room instruction and class lectures. it was this course of study that i pursued, prescribed by the bishops of the m. e. church. and it was here in these orthodox books, prescribed by the bishops of my church as necessary for me, not only to read, but to study, learn and digest, to fully equip me for the ministry, that i learned the lessons that completely upset my faith, and finally led me to abandon the church and religion entirely! i might add that it was perhaps as much what i _failed_ to learn from these books, things that i was looking for and could not find because it was not in them, that led me to this course, as it was from the affirmative facts i did learn. up to this time, and long afterwards, i had never read a book that might be called at all liberal in theology, much less anything of a sceptical character. in fact i had read nothing, outside of school text books, except such books as were authoritatively published by some baptist or methodist publishing house. robert g. ingersoll was then at the height of his fame, and i would not even read a political speech of his, because he was an "infidel." the strange anomaly of the whole thing is that i was led, or rather driven, clear out of the church into practical agnosticism thru and by my earnest and intense efforts to more strongly fortify and establish myself in my preconceived beliefs about the bible and religion. this will appear more fully as we proceed. first of all, all orthodox christianity is based upon the doctrine that the bible is the supernaturally inspired, infallible word of god. upon this bible as the sole authority, every doctrine, creed, dogma and ecclesiastical practice is based. take away this doctrine of biblical infallibility, and orthodoxy crumbles to dust. as long as it is held to be infallible truth, every creed in christendom can find abundant material in it to prove every point it claims. every one knows that among the many christian denominations which fully agree with each other the bible is an infallible revelation from god; yet the doctrines and conclusions they deduce from it are as diametrically opposed to each other as midnight and noon. as i have already said, i never had any doubt, up to this time, of the divine inspiration and infallibility of the bible, except a very slight one about the method of inspiration, which i have already detailed of my student days. as a methodist i had become fairly proficient in my ability to defend every detail of my church doctrine. i could repeat almost every passage of scripture from genesis to revelation in support of each of the twenty-five articles. my only trouble was when i would occasionally run across some sceptic who would question my authority,--the bible. of course i would tell him the bible was the word of god; and he would demand proof, "_detailed facts_," in support of my assertion. while perfectly satisfied in my own mind, these "detailed facts" were not in my possession. but now i was going to get them. in the last year of my conference course of study, one of the books prescribed was "harman's introduction to the study of the holy scriptures." dr. harman was professor of greek and hebrew in dickinson college. i was told that in this book i would find "completely detailed, uncontrovertible proofs of the divine authenticity, inspiration, and infallible truth of the bible." this was just what i had long been looking for, and just how i found it will soon appear. approaching the crisis the first one-third of this book of pages is devoted to proving the mosaic authorship of the pentateuch, its inspiration and infallible truth. on the subject of inspiration generally the author follows the _ideal_ rather than the _verbal_ theory. his theory of the _necessity_ of inspiration is based upon the idea that the bible contains records that could not otherwise have been known at the time they were written; for example, the account of creation "must have been divinely revealed to moses, as he could not otherwise have known it." the _extent_ of inspiration he limits to those matters that were "not otherwise known" to the writers. things of which they had personal knowledge were therefore not the subjects of inspiration. for example, the advice of jethro, concerning the division in the burdens of the government, was _not_ inspired, because moses got it directly from the mouth of jethro himself. nevertheless the author was "divinely guided" in writing of matters of his personal knowledge, in order that the "sacred record" might be preserved from error. as to the _proofs_ of inspiration, i quote verbatim: "the inspiration of the bible is evident from its sublime doctrines concerning god, the purity of its moral precepts, and from the wonderful fulfillment of its prophecies." when i read this i confess i felt a little disappointed. i had understood this before. i wanted something more specific, material, tangible. then follows a lengthy treatise on the hebrew language, the original characters in which the pentateuch was written, without vowels or punctuation marks; how it was preserved by copying from generation to generation; how errors crept into various copies; an account of the samaritan pentateuch, and the septuagint; how these all differ the one from the other in many details; of the ancient manuscripts that are still extant, and how these all differ more or less from each other,--not in anything fundamental, but in many minor details; and finally winds up with the statement that "the original text is uncertain"! this was all new to me. i had naturally supposed that not only the original text was divinely inspired and infallibly correct, but that by some sort of divine supervision, it had been so preserved and kept down thru the ages. and now i was not only disappointed, but alarmed. i wondered what would come next. and i soon learned. before this i had never discovered, nor had any one pointed them out to me, the many discrepancies and contradictions in the early biblical records,--the two stories of creation, the two accounts of the flood that are so intricately woven together, the changes in the law in deuteronomy from those in exodus and leviticus; and others. my simple, blind faith had completely obscured all these until now. it is true the author pointed them out only to explain or reconcile them. but in practically every instance, the explanation failed to explain, or reconcile, and was only an apology or an excuse; and i was left with a clear vision of the discrepancy, and with no adequate explanation. the differences between some parts of the law, as recorded in deuteronomy and in the earlier books, was explained as a "progressive development according to the changing conditions and needs of the hebrews." from a purely human viewpoint, i considered this explanation satisfactory. but from that of "divine revelation," i wondered why god did not reveal it correctly at the first; or why he found it necessary to change his own law. concerning the ritual law of the tabernacle and the priesthood, the author confesses that, in all probability, moses was educated at heliopolis, in egypt, for the egyptian priesthood, and was therefore perfectly familiar with all the priestly regulations of the religion of egypt; and that _the tabernacle service, its priesthood, their dress, sacred utensils, etc., were doubtless all patterned after egyptian models, but devoted to jehovah instead of the gods of egypt; and he cites this as a proof of the mosaic authorship of the pentateuch_. and in support of this view, he quotes the opinion of the abbé victor ancessi! and i had always been taught that the tabernacle, the priesthood, and all that pertained to both, were divinely revealed to moses on mt. sinai! "according to the pattern shown thee in the mount." then on the question of interpolations, our author confesses that there are many of them in the pentateuch, most of them showing that they belong to a much later age than moses; yet he denies that any of them are material, or in any way change the original meaning or sense of the text. thus i went thru over pages, devoted, not so much to the questions of divine inspiration and supernatural revelation, as these seemed to be very largely taken for granted; but to the defense of the mosaic authorship of the pentateuch upon which seemed to hinge the whole question of its authenticity and infallible authority. as the author puts it, "if the pentateuch was not written by moses it is a forgery." to do this he quotes quite elaborately from the higher critics, bauer, davidson, bleek, ewald, kuenen, wellhausen, and others, for the ostensible purpose of answering and refuting them. now i had, up to this time, never read a line of such biblical criticism, except that quoted by this author. naturally, i not only had no sympathy with it, but was strongly prejudiced against it. but i could not fail to note that the refutations and explanations of my author very often failed to either refute or explain. to sum the whole thing up, when i had gone thus far, i could not avoid the impression that from the standpoint of logical argument, based upon any _known facts_, the whole thing was a failure. it was simply a continued series of apologetics; in legal parlance, a sort of "confession and avoidance." i began in the firm _belief_ that moses wrote the pentateuch, and that he was divinely inspired in doing it. i expected to find the definite proofs that this was true. when i got thru i didn't know who wrote it. i was equally certain the author i was reading didn't know; and i doubted if any one else did. i felt the incipient doubts of my school days returning, only in much larger volume and greater force. if the reader will pardon the phrase: "i felt myself slipping." then followed a study of the authorship, origin, character, and purpose of the remaining canonical books of the old testament. these may all be grouped into two or three divisions. of the historical books of joshua, judges, first and second samuel, first and second kings and first and second chronicles, i found to my surprise, that nobody knows who wrote any of them; nor anything definite about the time, or circumstances under which they were written. joshua was merely _believed_ to have been written not later than twenty-five years after the death of joshua, by some person or persons who were personally familiar with the events therein narrated. as the book is clearly divided into two distinct parts, the first ending with the twelfth chapter and the second beginning with the thirteenth, it is _supposed_ that it was written by eleazar and phinehas. but this is admitted to be mere conjecture. the book of judges is placed after that of joshua, because it takes up the narrative where joshua closes. it is assumed that it _must have been written_ sometime before the close of david's reign. "respecting the authorship of judges, nothing is known." the date of both books of samuel--originally one book--is wholly unknown, as is also that of the kings and chronicles. it is conjectured from internal evidence, that chronicles was _probably_ compiled by ezra, from samuel, kings, and possibly other documents, sometime after the return from the exile. as to the book of ezra, it was shown that it is probably one of the most authentic books of the old testament, and written by the man whose name it bears. nehemiah was also placed in the thoroly authentic class, with the admission that about one-fourth of the total contents of the book, appearing in the middle of it, is _very probably_ an interpolation by a later, and unknown author. but this, he insists, does not detract from the divine inspiration and authenticity of the book as a whole. ruth and esther also belong to the class of the unknown. nobody knows who wrote either, nor when, nor where. ruth is placed "probably sometime during the reign of david." esther is much later; in fact it is one of the latest books in the old testament canon, from which it was long excluded because the name of god nowhere appears in it. the historical events narrated in it are admitted to be of very doubtful authenticity, as they are nowhere else mentioned in the bible, and are wholly unknown to secular history; and such events, if they occurred at all, were of such transcendent importance to the jewish nation, that mention of them in the chronicles, or by some of the prophets, could hardly have been omitted. but our author gets around all these difficulties by the feast of purim. he insists that such a memorial as this, that has been and still is celebrated annually by the jews in all parts of the world, "since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary," could not possibly have originated in a mere fiction, and been perpetuated so long. therefore, the book of esther must be true, and divinely inspired! when i had read thus far, in spite of my former simple faith in the divine inspiration and infallible truth of the bible, i found myself clearly on the toboggan; and i was deeply disturbed in mind. i was studying a thoroly orthodox author, a distinguished professor in one of our leading colleges, whose book was approved by the bishops of my church; a book clearly written for the purpose of defending the traditional position of the church concerning the bible, on almost every page of which that i had thus far read, i found a series of apologetics rather than arguments; with constant admissions of the world's total ignorance of the origin, authorship and date of most of the books of the bible thus far reviewed. i began to wonder, if this was what i was getting from such a source, inspired by such a motive, what might i expect from a biblical scholar and critic who was in search only of abstract truth, with no preconceived opinions to support or defend? i felt an incipient revolution brewing in my mind. but i was yet to learn more. concerning the poetical books, i found that the book of job was not written by job; that nobody knows who wrote it, nor when nor where. i found that conjecture by different scholars placed it all the way from "before moses" to after the exile. nobody knows whether it purports to record, in poetic form, a series of actual historic facts and events; or whether it is merely a dramatic allegory, entirely fictitious, or founded upon some substratum of fact. we do not know who job was, whether a hebrew, an arab, or chaldean;--nor just where "the land of uz" was. concerning the psalms, which i had always been taught were written by david, "the sweet singer of israel," i found to be the jewish hymn book, compiled by an unknown hand, or hands, at an unknown date; but in its present form, perhaps as late as the third century b.c.; that the authorship of very few of them is known; that david wrote but few of them, if any; but that they were written by various authors, mostly unknown, ranging all the way from the time of moses to that of ezra, or later; that collections and revisions were probably made from time to time as new compositions appeared; until its present form was attained. i found that the "book of proverbs" was not written by solomon, but that it was probably compiled in the time of king hezekiah, by unknown persons. however, our author insists that most of the proverbs in the collection are solomonic in origin; and therefore we may very correctly speak of the collection as the "proverbs of solomon." the book of ecclesiastes, from the superscription in chapter i, verses and , always attributed to solomon, i found was not written by solomon, at all, nor until more than five hundred years after his death. our author concedes it to be the "latest book of the canon"; that it could not have been written before malachi, and possibly much later, and who wrote it, nobody knows. likewise i found that the "song of solomon" was not written by solomon, nor by anyone else until centuries after his death; and nobody knows who wrote it, nor what its real meaning or purport is, whether fact or fiction, spiritual or sensual. it is admitted that its real meaning and purport is the most obscure and mysterious of any book in the old testament, yet, as it is in the bible it must be the divinely inspired, infallible word of god! so our author thinks. coming now to the prophetic books, i learned from our author that the book of isaiah, as it now appears, is a collection and compilation of various writings of this great prophet, written piece-meal over a period of some fifty years, and after his death collected and arranged in its present form by some unknown hand; and that the present arrangement was made without any reference to the chronological order of the original writings, or the subject matter treated. he admits the radical difference in style, manner and subject matter of the two parts of this book, upon which modern critics have based their theory of two isaiahs, one living before and the other during the captivity, and reconciles these discrepancies by asserting the power of god to miraculously change the literary style of his servants at will. about the same thing is said of the book of jeremiah what was said of isaiah; that it is a collection of the writings of the prophet, made after his death, by some unknown person, but more probably by baruch; and that like isaiah the contents of this book are arranged without reference to their chronological order. great differences are admitted to exist between the hebrew and septuagint versions of this book, which our author does not try to explain or reconcile. he frankly admits that the last chapter of this book, which is identical with kings xxiv, , and xxv, was added by a later, and unknown hand. the book of ezekiel is treated briefly and considered one of the most authentic and unquestioned of any book in the canon. but the author devotes twenty-six pages to the book of daniel, almost entirely to prove that the book was written by the prophet of that name in babylon, during the exile. he quotes elaborately from the critics who hold to a later date and a different author, and tries to refute them. about the only effect produced on my mind was that neither party knew anything definite about it; and of course my faith in the authenticity of the book was greatly weakened. coming to the minor prophets, twelve in number, the author holds that hosea, joel, amos, micah, haggai, zephaniah and zechariah were well known prophets, concerning the date and authorship of whose books there is no grave doubt. yet, he admits that there are manifest interpolations and additions to the book of zechariah. of nahum, habakkuk, malachi and obadiah he admits that we know absolutely nothing, except what is written in their respective books, and the dates they were written can only be conjectured from their contents. obadiah is composed of but one chapter of twenty-one verses, and almost identically the same thing is contained in jeremiah xlix, - . the identity is so great that our author assumes that one of them copied from the other, but which, he does not say. of the book of jonah, he admits that it was not written by the prophet of that name mentioned in kings xiv, , nor for at least three hundred years after his time, notwithstanding he is evidently the same as that in the book. he insists, however, that no matter who wrote it, or when, the book is authentic and the story true; and as one of the principal proofs of this fact, he quotes matt, xii, , . thus i finished the old testament, considerably shaken in faith; but as the old testament belonged to a long past dispensation, i considered it of little value anyway, and approached the study of the new with the hope that all difficulties would be removed and all doubts made clear. if the new testament was truly inspired of god and infallibly true, what difference did it make if the old was doubtful and uncertain? it was "out of date" anyway. chapter iv nearer the crisis our author begins his "introduction to the study of the new testament" with an account of the language and characters in which most of it was originally written, as he did the old. these were greek uncials, all capital letters, without any space divisions between the words, and neither accent nor punctuation marks; that from these original manuscripts, down to the invention of printing, all copies were made by hand copying. the oldest existing manuscripts were made in the fourth and fifth centuries of the christian era, and no two of these are exactly alike. during the succeeding centuries several thousand manuscript copies of all or parts of the new testament were made that are still extant, _and no two exactly alike_! i also learned that there are still extant quite a number of ancient versions of the new testament, translated into different languages, all of which are more or less different from each other, not alone in the text, _but in the books recognized as authentic and canonical_. here the author gives a brief history of the formation of the new testament canon, which so surprised, and even startled me, that i must make some mention of it. (in his treatment of the old testament the author gives but a few pages to the formation of the old testament canon.) in the fifth article of religion in the methodist discipline it says: "in the name of the holy scriptures we do understand those canonical books of the old and new testaments of whose authority _was never any doubt in the church_." (italics mine.) but here i was to learn that for over three hundred years there was more or less controversy, and sometimes very bitter, over what books of the new testament were, or were not, authentic and authoritative; that as a matter of fact there never was complete agreement among the church fathers; and that there never was any authoritative declaration on the subject by any church council until the council of trent (roman catholic) in , which included in its canon all of our present recognized books of both the old and new testaments, and in addition thereto, included as canonical the old testament apocrypha, which is universally excluded from the protestant bibles. as this work is designed, at least partly, to stimulate additional study in others it may be well to cite a few examples, as i learned them from this book, designed to prove conclusively the authenticity, divine inspiration and infallible truth of the holy scriptures. the canon of muratori, about a.d. , omits hebrews, both epistles of peter, james and jude, as uncanonical, and expresses doubts as to the revelation. the peshito syriac, about a.d. , omits second peter, jude, second and third john and revelation. the latin version itala, about the middle of the second century, omits james and second peter. the version of clemens, about a.d. , omits second peter, james, second and third john and philemon. that of cyprian of carthage, about a.d. , omits hebrews, second peter, second and third john, and jude. eusebius, the great church historian, about a.d. , disputes the authenticity of james, and omits jude, second peter, second and third john, and doubts the revelation. he also gives a list of "spurious writings" at that time, a number of which are still extant. (it was years after this before i saw the apocryphal new testament.) ambrose of milan, late in the fourth century, rejects hebrews, second and third john, jude, james, and philemon. chrysostom, of antioch, about a.d. , omits second peter, jude, second and third john, and revelation. jerome, about a.d. , rejects hebrews, doubts james and jude, and attributes second and third john to john, a presbyter of ephesus, and not the apostle john. i have only cited the names of those who _did not_ accept the present canon. that many of the church fathers, perhaps a majority of them, did accept it is not questioned. i have cited these instances--and not near all our author gives--to show that opinion on this subject was by no means unanimous in this early day; nor was all the intelligence, ability and character on one side. i quote it also to show that the teachings of my church concerning those books, that there "was never any doubt in the church" was not correct. it must however be said in all fairness, according to our author, that from about the close of the second or the beginning of the third century, there was practical unanimity in the church as to the authenticity of all the books in our present new testament except these seven: hebrews, jude, second peter, second and third john, james and revelation. over these the controversy continued until the roman hierarchy overshadowed the church and suppressed all liberty of thought or expression. we now come to the detailed study of the origin, authorship, date and character of the different books of the new testament. the first shock i got was learning that "the gospel according to matthew," was not written in its present form by the apostle of that name. nor is the author or date definitely known. the substance of a long article on the subject is to the effect that matthew the apostle, about a.d. , wrote an account of the doings and sayings of jesus, in the syro-chaldee language, the vernacular of palestine at the time, for the benefit of the hebrew christians. from this basis some later hand, unknown, translated into greek, and elaborated it into substantially our present version. the earliest known hebrew, or syro-chaldee version was that used by the ebionites, which materially differed from our present greek version; but which is the original and which the recession has never been settled. the early ebionite version did not contain the first two chapters, giving the account of the miraculous birth; but our author insists that these were cut off from the original, rather than added on, tho nobody knows which. concerning the gospel of mark, he insists that it was also written as was the original of matthew, before the destruction of jerusalem, but after matthew; that the material in it was learned from peter, whose companion mark was (how does this comport with divine inspiration?) as mark was not an apostle and could not have known these facts at first hand. he admits the last twelve verses to be spurious and added by a later hand. concerning luke he says that he derived his information from paul (another case of doubtful inspiration), admits the date and place he wrote are unknown; admits the discrepancies between him and matthew, in regard to the circumstances of the miraculous birth and the genealogy of jesus--something i had never noticed before!--and undertakes to reconcile them. when i turned to the records and read them in this new light, his attempted reconciliation, to my mind, was an utter failure. like every attempted reconciliation i have ever read since, it was done by "reading into the record," not only what was not there, but what was wholly inconsistent with the record that is there. if any candid reader will first read carefully the first two chapters of matthew, noting all the details, and then likewise the first two chapters of luke, he will see that they are wholly irreconcilable in their details. they agree in but two points: that jesus was miraculously begotten, and born at bethlehem. but in every detail of what went before and after, they are wholly at variance. my belief in divine and infallible inspiration was here materially weakened. how could the holy spirit "inspire" in two different men, writing upon the same subject, such varying and irreconcilable accounts of the same event? besides, our author had practically abandoned the idea of inspiration by attributing mark's knowledge of the life of jesus to peter and luke's to paul. but, on the other hand, as i learned a little later, in all the writings attributed to paul, there is not a single reference, even most remotely, to the miraculous birth of jesus; but on the other hand there is much evidence in his writings to lead to the conclusion that he knew nothing about it. then where did luke get this information? concerning the gospel according to john, our author devotes forty-eight pages to an effort to support its authorship in the apostle john, and to try to reconcile it with the other gospels. like the differences between matthew and luke concerning the birth of jesus, this was the first knowledge i had that there were any discrepancies between them, or that there was any doubt about its authorship. he quotes elaborately from the church fathers in its favor, as well as from the modern critics both for and against. he admits that chapter xxi is a later addition to the book, but insists that john wrote it himself, except the last two verses, which were "added by the church at ephesus." he also admits that v, , , and viii, - , are both spurious and added by a later and unknown hand. when i had read it all i knew less about the authorship of the book than when i began. but the discrepancies between it and the synoptics loomed large and menacing. i will not go into details concerning these. the reader can easily see them for himself. but on the question of inspiration i was about at my wits' end. here i was at the very vital part of the christian religion, as i had been taught it and was trying to teach it to others. i have already told how i passed up the matter of the inspiration of the old testament as being of little importance under the christian dispensation. and now every prop was falling from under me in regard to the inspiration of the new. if the very records of the life and teachings of the christ himself, upon which the whole fabric of christianity rested, were now shown to be discordant and irreconcilable in their contents, and some of them very doubtful in their authorship; with it the whole doctrine of a divine and infallible revelation would have to go. i was dumfounded. was it possible that all this upon which i had staked my whole life, and had been preaching for years, was a mere fiction? it seemed to be so, if the bible was not divinely inspired, a true revelation from god, and infallibly correct. but how could it _all_ be true, when it told so many different and conflicting stories about the same thing? was not god the very essence of truth? then how could he miraculously reveal one thing to matthew, another and entirely different one to luke, and still another and different one to john, all about the same thing? and yet, that in many instances this was true, i could no longer doubt. even tho these discrepancies might not go to the essence of christianity as a system of religion; nor materially affect its fundamental doctrines; yet they did go to the very foundations upon which it was based,--a divine and infallible revelation from heaven. take this away and orthodox christianity is not left a leg to stand on; and i knew it. but we will hurry on thru this subject. the authorship of the acts of the apostles was attributed without serious question to luke. all the epistles usually attributed to paul are conceded to him by our author, except that to the hebrews, while some critics reject the pauline authorship of any of the pastoral epistles,--those to timothy, titus and philemon. the author of the epistle to the hebrews is admitted to be unknown, and its date uncertain, tho it existed in the church quite early. the epistle of james is admitted to be doubtful; and especially as to which of several men of this name might have written it. it is admitted that it could not have been written by the apostle james, as he was put to death at jerusalem long before the epistle was known. as has already been seen, it was rejected by many of the fathers; and even martin luther dubbed it "an epistle of straw." first peter is considered genuine, and written by the apostle; but second peter is admitted to have been unknown in the church before the third century, and consequently spurious. the first epistle of john is believed by our author to have been written by the same hand that wrote the fourth gospel, the apostle john. second and third john are admitted to be doubtful, probably written by some other john, and by later tradition, because of the identity of the names, attributed to the apostle. third john was unknown in the church before the third century. the epistle of jude is admitted to be a mystery. nobody knows even who jude was, or what he was, or when the epistle was written. it was known to exist early in the second century. it was generally rejected by the early church, but somehow got into the canon. the book of revelation is admitted to be the most mysterious book in the whole bible. by whom and when written are both unknown. tradition and its internal content is the only evidence that the apostle john wrote it, and this would apply to any other john as well. it is evident that the same person did not write it and the fourth gospel. it was unknown in the church until near the middle of the second century; tho it bears internal evidence of having been written before the fall of jerusalem. most of the early church fathers rejected it, but it got into the canon;--and is therefore divinely inspired! my study of "harman's introduction of the study of the holy scriptures" was here finished. i have elaborated somewhat on these studies for two reasons: first, because the results that these studies produced in me, that i shall presently sum up, were the results of the whole, rather than any particular part of it, except those portions which i have already specially noted. second, i desire to arouse a similar spirit of study and investigation in my readers; and i thus give this outline of study in detail, as a sort of basis from or upon which to work. i have already indicated in part my feelings at this time. i summed the whole thing up briefly. the one great question around which it all hinged was this: if the authorship of the books of the greater portion of the old testament are wholly unknown, as well as the dates when they were written, and the same is true of several of the books of the new testament, how are we to know these same books are divinely inspired, the infallible truth, the word of god? this is a fair question and a reasonable one. i had set out in earnest and good faith to find the proofs of inspiration, in which i had always believed, and only found them wanting. add to this the manifold discrepancies and direct contradictions which i now began to discover running thru the whole bible, both old and new testaments, and i found them wholly irreconcilable with any idea of divine revelation and infallible truth. i here recalled a small book i had read some years before on inspiration,--the author i have forgotten,--but i remember the three leading reasons for the inspiration of the bible which he gave, and which, with my limited knowledge at the time, seemed satisfactory. these were: tradition, necessity and success. the tradition of the jews as to the authenticity and inspiration of the books of the old testament: it was argued, that whatever may at this time be the limits of our knowledge concerning these books, the ancient jewish rabbis _knew_ just what they were, and if they had not every one been the word of god, these rabbis would have known it, and they never would have been in the canon. the same doctrine of tradition was applied to the church fathers concerning the books of the new testament. but i had here learned that these church fathers were by no means agreed as to these books. i began to see now that the same argument might be applied with equal force to the vedas, the zend avesta, or the koran. the argument from necessity was based upon the assumption that man in his fallen and sinful state was by nature wholly unable to discover anything about god, or the means of his redemption. therefore a divine revelation was necessary to meet man's needs in this case; and the bible meets this necessity. therefore the bible is a divine revelation. but i here recalled that the only evidence we have of man's original perfection and fall is in the bible itself; and that this line of argument must ultimately drive us back to the mere _assumption_ of the facts upon which this supposed "divine necessity" was based. the argument based upon success was that christ and christianity were not only the fulfillment of old testament promise and prophecy; but that it never could have made the success in the world that it has _if it had not been of divine origin, the result of divine revelation_. i was prepared at this time to look with some favor on the argument drawn from "promise and prophecy"; but if success was a true test i wondered if the same argument would not apply with equal force to buddhism, with a third more followers than christianity, or to mohammedanism with half as many in a much shorter time. these arguments could satisfy me no longer, in the light of the new facts i had learned. but i was not yet ready to give up religion and christianity. i began to look for some new basis of interpretation. i asked myself the questions: may not christianity be substantially true after all? is not man a sinner? and as such does he not need a savior? does not christianity meet this necessity? is not the bible after all, tho of purely human origin as i now conceived, a valuable book? may we not yet find much valuable truth in it, tho neither inspired nor infallible? may not the "great plan of salvation" be true after all? is it not of vital importance to know? but if the bible in which we find it cannot be relied upon infallibly, _how_ are we to know? in thus questioning myself i took into consideration my own personal experiences, those emotional impressions and manifestation which i had always been taught were the supernatural manifestations of the holy spirit on my life and consciousness. i could not deny them, nor get away from them. they were real. it was years later before i learned to interpret them from the scientific standpoint of psychology. i determined to take a new course--a course i had never taken before. i had heretofore taken my religion on authority. this authority had now failed. i determined to apply the test of _reason_, with a firm conviction that in doing so god would guide me aright. "if any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine." i may say just here that i have never yet met a person who undertook to defend the "christian system," or doctrine of sin and salvation, from the standpoint _of its own intrinsic reasonableness_. the only manner in which reason has been applied to its defence is, that it is _a reasonable deduction_ from the _divine revelation_ upon which it is based; which revelation _must be accepted_ as true without question or equivocation. to doubt is to be damned. in fact, its _unreasonableness_, from any natural human viewpoint, was quite freely admitted. but it was argued that man in his fallen state was quite incapable of perceiving, or understanding, any of the great mysteries of god. "great is the mystery of godliness" was often quoted to me; as well as, "for my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," saith jehovah. "for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." this was the court of last resort and must be accepted, and to ask further questions was to blaspheme. perhaps it may be well to give here a quotation which i came across years afterwards, as illustrating this process of reasoning from the assumed hypothesis of a divine and infallible revelation, that _must be taken_ as the starting point. it is from dr. albert barnes, a distinguished presbyterian minister of philadelphia, about the middle of the last century. i quote him because of his high character and representative position; and his dilemma is substantially the same with practically all others with whom i have conversed on the subject. here is what he says: "that the immortal mind should be allowed to jeopard its infinite welfare, and that trifles should be allowed to draw it away from god and virtue and heaven; that any should suffer forever,--lingering on in hopeless despair and rolling amidst infinite torments, without the possibility of alleviation and without end; that since god _can_ save men, and _will_ save a part, he has not purposed to save _all_; that, on the supposition that the atonement is ample, and that the blood of christ can cleanse from all and every sin, it is not in fact applied to all; that, in a word, a god who claims to be worthy of the confidence of the universe, and to be a being of infinite benevolence, should make such a world as this, full of sinners and sufferers; and that, when an atonement had been made, he did not save _all_ the race, and put an end to sin and woe forever,--these, and kindred difficulties, meet the mind when we think on this great subject; and they meet us when we endeavor to urge our fellow-sinners to be reconciled to god, and to put confidence in him. on this ground they hesitate. these are _real_, not imaginary difficulties. they are probably felt by every mind that has ever reflected on the subject; and they are _unexplained, unmitigated, unremoved_. i confess, for one, that i feel them more sensibly and powerfully the more i look at them, and the longer i live. i do not understand these facts; and i make no advances towards understanding them. i do not know that i have a ray of light on the subject, which i had not when the subject first flashed across my soul. "i have read, to some extent, what wise and good men have written; i have looked at their theories and explanations; i have endeavored to weigh their arguments; for my whole soul pants for light and relief on these questions. but i get neither; and, in the distress and anguish of my own spirit, i confess that i see no light whatever, i see not one ray to disclose to me the _reason_ why sin came into the world, why the earth is strewed with the dying and the dead, and why man must suffer to all eternity. "i have never yet seen a particle of light thrown on these subjects that has given a moment's ease to my tortured mind; but i confess, when i look on a world of sinners and sufferers, upon death-beds and graveyards, upon the world of woe, filled with hosts to suffer forever; when i see my parents, my friends, my family, my people, my fellow-citizens,--when i look upon a whole race, all involved in this sin and danger; and when i feel that god only can save them, and yet he _does not_ do it,--i am struck dumb. it is all _dark, dark, dark_ to my soul, and i cannot disguise it." i think the conclusions dr. barnes reached are about the only conclusions any honest, intelligent _man_ can reach, starting from his hypothesis, that a certain book is a divine and infallible revelation from god, which no one dare question, or go behind. but, as has been seen, this foundation had now entirely slipped from under me. my only course was to proceed just as tho no such book were known; or at least, that it was completely shorn of all claim to being a divine revelation, or infallible truth. i proposed to analyze every element that entered into the whole christian system, creation, sin, redemption, atonement, salvation, immortality, heaven and hell, going back to original sources so far as possible, without any preconceived hypothesis whatever, in search of abstract truth. i felt that since god had left me without any conclusive and indisputable proofs of the truth of those things which i had always believed to be of the most supreme importance to mankind for time and eternity, that this supreme, distinguishing feature of man that lifts him above all known forms of creation could, and should be, appealed to as the final authority and last test in all things. and since reason was universally recognized as the court of last resort in all other things outside of religion, why should it not be applied to this also? i felt that if i thus honestly and sincerely followed the last and only light i had, that god could not be just and everlastingly damn me for some possible error in my conclusions. the process i followed and the results i reached will be told in the next chapter. chapter v the crisis i went back to the beginning. god was certainly good. he was all-wise, infinite. he must have known all things---the end from the beginning. if he thus knew all things he must have known the whole destiny of man before he created him. he must have known that he would yield to temptation and fall, and that all the direful consequences would follow it that orthodoxy has pictured for centuries. i began to wonder how god could be just and make a creature, whom he knew in advance would do what adam is alleged to have done, and knew in advance the dreadful consequences that would follow it, not only to adam himself, but to all the unborn generations yet to people the world. especially was i perplexed to understand how god could be just and visit all the consequences of adam's sin on his entire posterity for uncounted generations when they were and could be in no way responsible for it and could not help it. yet i believed god to be just. he could not be god and be otherwise. since the whole purpose of religion, and christianity in particular, was to save mankind from hell hereafter, i first directed my inquiries to the question of hell. who made hell? and whence came the devil? the bible is silent as to their origin, except the vague reference in the book of revelation to the war in heaven and the casting out of lucifer with a third part of the angels with him into the bottomless pit so graphically portrayed by milton in paradise lost. but this only carried me back farther. who created the angels, or were they co-eternal with god? if they are co-eternal with god then there are other eternal beings in the universe over whom god has little or no control. if so god is not omnipotent. the devil is his rival in the spiritual world and, according to the current doctrine, his equal in omniscience and omnipresence, and a close and terrible antagonist in the contest for omnipotence. take the other horn of the dilemma. then angels and the devil are created beings, creatures of god, and not eternal. then god must have made the devil. if he created him a holy angel, yea, an archangel, as is claimed, god certainly knew in advance that this archangel would sometime lead a rebellion in heaven and lead one-third of the angels into the conspiracy! would an all-wise, a just and good god create such beings, knowing in advance what they would do and what the consequences of it would be? this forced god to create a hell in which to put and punish these rebellious angels whom he knew before he created them would rebel against him and thus have to be punished. if god needed angels to glorify him was it not just as easy to create good ones, that would not rebel against him! he created some that way, why not all? and if rebellious angels had to be punished why not do it by annihilation instead of making this burning hell for them? if annihilation be considered too merciful and this hell the only adequate punishment, all very well for rebellious and sinful angels; but why should this yawning gulf of eternal woe open its throat to receive the future being to be made in god's own image and called man? we are told that hell was not created for man, but for the devil and his angels. nevertheless, if the story of eden and the doctrines of modern orthodoxy be true, it is now and will ultimately become the eternal abode of about ninety-eight per cent of the entire human race. i could never again reconcile the old views of hell with any rational conception of a just and merciful god. the story of eden itself i took up for analysis. man was alleged to have been framed up out of dust, yet made "in the image and likeness" of god,--and consequently perfect. at least this is the universal teaching. he was alone. a companion was made for him from a rib. they are happy in a garden. god walks and talks with them like a man. everything is going smoothly until one day god comes in and points out a certain tree, hitherto unnoticed and unknown, and informs adam that he must not eat of the fruit of this particular tree on penalty of death. then comes the serpent, talking like a man, and tells the woman that what god said was not true; but if they would eat of the fruit of that tree they would "be as gods, knowing good and evil." "and when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat." gen. iii, . now, was the first sin that eternally damned the whole human race a mere matter of eating from a forbidden tree? it seems so from the natural import of the language used. "when the woman saw that the tree was _good for food_ ..." could a just god inflict such an awful punishment as orthodox christianity teaches, not only upon this simple, ignorant couple, but upon the entire human race for all time and eternity for such a trifling incident? i trow not. besides, i have often thought that if that particular tree had not been specifically pointed out and forbidden, probably neither adam nor eve would ever have had any desire to eat of it. it is the forbidden that always draws the strongest. let us examine this story closely and see whether the serpent or god told the truth. don't be alarmed and accuse me of blasphemy or sacrilege. we set out in search of truth; let us try to find it. god is alleged to have said, "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for _in the day_ that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." gen. ii, . but he _did not_ die, according to the subsequent story, for over nine hundred years thereafter. the fact that the penalty: "for dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return," was pronounced _after_ the transgression, does not fulfill the statement "in the _day_ thou eatest thereof." but we shall refer to this again. the serpent is alleged to have said: "ye shall not surely die: for god doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as god, knowing good and evil." gen. iii, , . and verse says: "and the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked." and verse says: "and jehovah god said, 'behold, the man is become as _one of us_, to know good and evil.'" does not this confirm that what the serpent said was true? the temptation is very great here to digress far enough to offer a rational interpretation of this beautiful poetic allegory of the "fall of man." but it is outside the scope and purpose of this work, and i leave it with the simple question: was not that which we call the first sin only the expression of man's natural aspirations onward and upward, in search of knowledge and a higher and better and broader and larger life, that always entails its penalties of trial, suffering, toil, and more or less disappointment? when god comes to call them to account, adam puts the blame on his wife, and she shifts it to the serpent. note what follows: the serpent is cursed to crawl upon his belly, just as we see him now. did he walk uprightly before, and did he have legs and feet? "and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." what did he eat before? as a matter of fact, serpents do not eat dust now. remember, this sentence was pronounced _to the serpent_ himself: "and jehovah god said unto the serpent,"--not to adam and eve. we shall have occasion to recall this again. "unto the woman he said, i will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children..." this was the penalty pronounced upon eve for her part in the tragedy. the question arises: was eve never to be a mother but for this transaction? this, if not the only, is at least the most natural inference. then how was the race to be propagated? or was it to be propagated at all? adam for his part was condemned to hard labor, and altho creation was supposed to have been finished and complete, the ground was cursed so as to make it produce thorns and thistles to annoy and tantalize him and increase his labor. were none of these things on the earth before? were the rose bushes in the garden of eden "thornless"? "in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground: for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." several questions arise here. was adam to be immortal in the flesh if he had not eaten of the forbidden fruit? did death enter the world, as we have always been taught, because of this sin? and if adam had not sinned would he and eve still be living in the garden of eden, without the knowledge of good and evil, naked and unashamed to this day? if eve was never to become a mother if she had not sinned, would she and adam still be there alone, with nothing but the animal world about them for companions? and if death only entered the world because of sin, why does all nature die? man alone was capable of sin, and according to the story, man alone sinned,--unless we include the serpent. yet, not a beast of the field, a fowl of the air, a fish of the deep, nor a reptile or creeping thing of all the earth has ever lived but that it died, or will die. not a tree has ever grown, not a plant has ever opened its leaves, blades or petals to the sun; not a seed has ever germinated, nor a flower ever bloomed that was not doomed to die. did all this come upon all nature because adam ate an apple? would all the beasts of the field and the birds of the air, paraded before adam that he might name them, be still living with him in the garden of eden, if he had not sinned? would all the plants and trees and flowers that grew and bloomed in the garden of eden in the days of adam and eve's innocence be still there, with the same leaves and blooms, just as they were, if man had not sinned? these questions i know look silly. but if we are forced to accept the premise, we must be prepared to accept the natural conclusion to which it leads. and if death--physical death--as orthodoxy has always taught, entered the world only because of adam's sin, it naturally and inevitably leads to the conclusions i have indicated. another question presents itself. can perfection, or that which is perfect, fall? if either man or angels were created pure, perfect, holy, and in the image and likeness of god, how can such a being fall? it seems to me that it would be just as possible for god himself to fall. the very fact of the fall,--if such a fact exists or ever existed,--of either man or angel, is in itself conclusive proof of some moral imperfection or weakness somewhere. that man is morally imperfect is freely conceded. in plain words, he is a sinner. but was he ever otherwise? the farther back we trace him the worse he appears on the general average. all the bible outside of this one story in genesis, as well as all history attests this fact. then may it not be a fact, that while man is a sinner, he always has been so; that he never fell, for he had been nowhere (morally) to fall from but always has been and still is morally imperfect and incomplete, but ever striving onward and upward? but supposing this story of the fall to be true, what was the penalty for it,--physical death, as we have seen, or eternal spiritual death, or both? after all the preaching and writing about eternal death, damnation, hell-fire and brimstone as a result of adam's sin, i could not find any such doctrine taught in the story of the fall, nor anywhere else in the old testament, and but very vaguely, if at all, in the new. the story in genesis cannot be construed by any reasonable rules of interpretation to mean or involve any other punishment on adam or his posterity, for his sin, beyond physical death. "dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" is the final climax of the penalty. there is no hint, so far as i can understand it, of immortality or any future life. there is not the remotest hint of it in this story. all the punishments for sin from adam to noah, and long afterwards, culminated and ended, so far as genesis is concerned, in physical death. the hebrew hades, sheol and gehena, were creations of a much later period. and who, or what was the serpent? a real snake, or the devil? i know the current belief is that the serpent is a mere figure for the devil, or that at least the spirit of the devil was incarnated in the serpent. but there is not a line of scripture to support either assumption. in the story itself it is stated only that the serpent was "more subtle than all the beasts of the field." he is classed with them, not above them, except in subtlety. the whole fabric upon which this idea of the identity of the serpent of eden and the devil is based seems to be a single verse in revelation (xii, ): "and the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the devil and satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him." there are one or two other passages in the same book that speak of "that old serpent, which is the devil and satan," but they have no more connection with or relation to the story of eden, than homer's "iliad" has to the nebular hypothesis. and yet upon these few passages is built up the whole fabric of the identity of the serpent of eden and the temptation, with the devil, satan or lucifer, that is so graphically portrayed in "paradise lost." this whole story of the serpent in eden is very likely but an adaptation, in another form, of the old babylonian myth of "marduk and the dragon." all this shifting of the penalty for adam's sin from physical to spiritual death and identifying the serpent with satan, was an after-invention, to try to make it harmonize with later developed doctrines of immortality. any candid reader can see that no such interpretation can be placed upon the natural and simple language of the story itself. in fact immortality for man, according to the story, is forever inhibited, according to verses - . after eating the forbidden fruit the only way to immortality was to "eat of the tree of life." and to keep adam from the "tree of life," of which he might "eat and live forever," god drove him out of the garden and placed the cherubim over it with a "flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." according to this story, man is not immortal at all, and the only way to attain it is to get by the cherubim, or scale the walls of the garden of eden and get to that tree. i was now ready to determine for myself that this whole story of the garden of eden was a myth, legend, or some oriental allegory, the true purport and meaning of which is now wholly unknown; beyond the reasonable conjecture that it originated with some very ancient oriental philosopher, in the childhood of the human race, and is an allegorical portrayal of his attempt to solve the problem of the origin of evil, of suffering and death in the human race. the flood but i pursued my course of reasoning and investigation further. i approached the period of the flood. the infinite and omniscient god is revealed as disappointed with this creature that he had made "in his own image and likeness." he gets angry with him for his perversity, declares he is sorry he made him, and resolves to destroy the whole race, except one family whom he proposes to preserve for seed for a new start; together with every beast, fowl and creeping thing of the earth, except one pair of each for seed. think of an infinite and omniscient god, who knew all things from the beginning, all that man would ever do, before he created him, now looking down from heaven on his work, confessing it to be a stupendous failure, getting angry and repenting that he had made man or beast; and now resolving to take vengeance by drowning the whole outfit! if man was so perverse that he needed to be destroyed, why wreak vengeance also on the animal creation that had not sinned? and if the animal creation must be included in the universal destruction, why do it by a process thru which all marine life naturally escaped, while all terrestrial life was destroyed? then why save any seed of such perverse stock? was not god acquainted with the laws of heredity that had worked so perfectly in transmitting the sin of adam down thru all the generations thus far; and did he not know the same thing would continue in the "seed of the race" after the flood? if he really desired to correct the mistake he had made, why did he not destroy the whole race, root and branch, while he was at it, renovate the earth and start with a new creation of better stock? this flood story must be noticed a little closer. noah is commanded to build an ark, as his family is chosen especially to preserve the race for a new start. he is also to save in pairs, male and female, specimens of every beast of the field, fowl of the air, and creeping things of all the earth to preserve the species. and now when the ark was ready, these beasts of the field, fowls of the air, and creeping things of all the earth, polar bears, moose, reindeer, and the thousand varieties of fur-bearing animals from the arctic north, together with those of the torrid deserts and jungles of the south, lions, tigers, hyenas, elephants, leopards, antelope, giraffes, ants, mice, hawks, doves, wolves, lambs, serpents of all varieties, of birds, beetles, flies, bugs and insects, all came of their own accord, in the exact number prescribed, quietly walked into the ark and lay down to rest until the deluge was over! the deluge over, the new race started was as bad as ever. even righteous noah got drunk from the first crop of grapes he raised, and cursed one of his son's posterity to perpetual servitude. the race soon tried to outwit god by building a tower by which to reach heaven, and god's only way to prevent its success was to confuse their tongues so they could no longer work together, and the scheme had to be abandoned. the race grew continually worse, drifted into idolatry, and god resolved to try a new scheme to ultimately save the race. we come now to: the call of abraham abraham is called to leave the land of his fathers, go to a new country and start a new race, through whom god would yet save the world, as all his previous efforts had proven failures. here we have the beginning of the jewish nation, whose history i have not space to even outline, much less to follow in detail. study it for yourself in its fullness, because it has a vital relation to modern orthodoxy as now represented and taught in most of the churches. a few points, however, must be noted. the story tells us that the great god of the universe selects this one man, one family and one nation to be supremely blessed above all the balance of mankind, and to whom he committed his revelation and plans for their ultimate salvation, and denied these blessings to all the rest of his creatures. could such a god be just? when the israelites were trying to get out of egypt, while moses and aaron were to go and beg pharaoh to let them go, god is said to have hardened pharaoh's heart not to do so, only to have an excuse to plague egypt, kill the first born in every house and then overwhelm pharaoh and his whole army in the red sea! can a just god do that? when they finally arrive at the borders of the promised land they are commanded to literally exterminate the inhabitants and neighboring tribes, root and branch, men, women and children indiscriminately and unsparingly. god is described as resorting to lying, deceit and intrigue to lure the enemies of israel to their destruction. time fails me to pursue this horrible record in its details. it begins with abraham and ends only with the close of the old testament canon. study it for yourself. could a just god be guilty of such outrageous conduct? i think not. as is well known, the doctrine is that god thus called abraham and the jewish nation apart from all the balance of the human race, that thru them he might ultimately send his son into the world to save the race from sin and hell. to this end promises and prophecies are said to point, thruout the entire old testament from abraham to its close, and even as far back as the garden of eden and the first sin. when jesus of nazareth appeared he was accepted by his followers as this promised savior, the messiah of promise and prophecy, and has been so accepted by the christian world ever since. to him was attributed a miraculous birth as the son of god; and in the opinion of his followers he was soon considered, not only the son of god, but god himself incarnated bodily in the son. in other words, that god himself came down from heaven in the form of human flesh, to save the world by making an atoning sacrifice of himself for the sins of humanity. and when jesus came, suffered and died on the cross, we are told that "the scheme of redemption was completed." and what is this "scheme" of redemption, or "plan" of salvation? this was the crucial point to me. i thought man was certainly a sinner and needed a redeemer. i looked it over with scrutinizing care. here is one god who is three gods. a part of god left heaven, came to earth as a man, died on the cross to satisfy the other part of himself for sins somebody else committed! i know this sounds to the orthodox like sacrilege, but i mean it seriously. think of it for a moment! god dividing himself, one part in heaven, one part on earth and the third part, the holy ghost, a go-between! boil it down to its last analysis and this is what it means. either this, or three separate gods, one of whom comes to earth to die in order to appease the wrath of the other, the third remaining in heaven with the first until the second returns, when he would come to earth to continue the work begun by the second. there would thus be always two gods in heaven and one on earth. this is, in a nutshell, the sum and substance of trinitarian orthodox christianity. we are told seriously that "there is no other name given under heaven, nor among men, whereby we may be saved except jesus christ." and that in order to be saved, we must believe in him as the only begotten son of god, and in the atoning sacrifice of his death for our sins. here i seriously inquired: if the salvation of the human race is entirely and exclusively dependent upon faith in the merits of the death of jesus as an atoning sacrifice, what became of all the people who died before his coming? orthodoxy answers that they were saved by faith in the _promised savior to come_, as given to abraham, moses, and the prophets. if so, how many were saved? the jewish nation never looked for a spiritual messiah. it was always a temporal one. there is no evidence that they ever had the remotest conception of a messiah that was to make a vicarious atoning sacrifice of himself for them. hence their faith in this promise was in vain. it was not the kind that saves, according to orthodoxy. an occasional prophet, like isaiah or jeremiah, or some others, _might_ have so understood and believed it. but very few, if any, others did. then the great mass of "god's chosen people" are now in hell; for they did not believe _rightly_; and all the balance of the world is there because they never heard of such a promise and hence did not believe at all! but the question here arises, if salvation from abraham to christ was secured by faith in the promised messiah _to come_; and which, as we have just seen, according to orthodox definitions, was practically a complete failure; how were they saved from the time of adam until the promise made to abraham? the answer of orthodoxy is, by the promise made to adam and eve in the garden of eden, that "the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head." this is not the exact language of genesis, but of the creed. the substance is correct. but according to genesis this was not a promise to adam and eve at all; but a part of the curse pronounced on the serpent! there is nothing in the record to indicate that either adam or eve even heard it, or ever knew anything about it. there is nothing in the record to indicate that the serpent was present when god accosted adam and eve about their transgression. besides, the incident is never referred to again in the whole bible, by either prophet, priest, christ or apostle. it is simply an example of that far-fetched method of interpretation i have before referred to, to establish a preconceived opinion and satisfy the demands of such a necessity. there is not a single line in the whole bible to justify such an interpretation of this incident. the only possible cross reference that might indicate it is in rom. xvi, : "and the god of peace shall bruise satan under your feet shortly." and this can have no reference to the incident in eden. besides, if this sentence on the serpent was a promise of the victory of christ over him, it was _already accomplished_ before paul wrote these words. and if such a promise had been made, with the meaning attached to it that is claimed, god certainly knew that the race would soon forget it, and thus render it futile and give him additional excuse to vent his wrath and wreak his vengeance against his helpless creatures. if faith in such a promise was the only way of salvation from adam to abraham then practically all the world up to that time is now in hell! who can believe such a caricature of god? but after all, what about the salvation of the race since the death of christ? if salvation since his coming is only attainable thru personal faith in him as the miraculously begotten son of god, and in his death as a vicarious atonement for sin; and that all are lost except those who have thus believed, how many are saved? certainly very few. take a mere glance at the world since the time of christ. leaving out of consideration the countless millions who never heard of him, and confining ourselves to those who have, how many of them fully met exactly these conditions? if such a doctrine is true, there are but few people in heaven except infants; and it is only in recent years that some of the orthodox have admitted infants indiscriminately into heaven! i could comprehend to some extent how, if god had offered salvation and a home in heaven forever to all mankind on such easy terms as faith in the merits of the death of jesus, he could visit condign punishment on such as knew it and wilfully rejected it. but i could not see the justice of such a punishment being inflicted on the countless millions of people who never heard of it, had no means of knowing it, and could not be justly blamed for not knowing it. another thing that i now put the test of reason to, was the doctrine of salvation by faith itself. was faith the only thing that could merit the favor of god? was character of no avail? was all moral purity, goodness and brotherly love but "filthy rags in the sight of god," unless buttressed by belief in the deity of jesus and the vicarious atonement? was salvation after all as arbitrary as that described in "holy willie's prayer"? "o, thou who in the heavens dost dwell, who as it pleases best thysel' sends one to heaven and ten to hell, a' for thy glory, and not for any good or ill they've done afore thee." i thought of such moralists and philosophers as zoroaster, buddha, confucius, socrates, plato, and thousands of others who have lived in the past, and left a lasting impression in the world for the good of mankind that continues to this day, some of them but little less than jesus himself, in the moral sublimity of their lives and teachings, and wondered if these men were all in hell to roast and fry and burn forever because they had not "exercised faith" in the merits of a dying god of whom they had never known or even heard! and every nobler sentiment of my human nature rebelled against such an idea. to attribute such a character and proceeding to god is to make him, in cruelty and injustice, below the level of the most ferocious beast of the jungle. this was not all. i beheld the divisions in the church itself. some hundreds of different denominations, all bearing the name christian, each claiming to be right and all the balance wrong, each claiming to expound the only truth, and all the balance error; each claiming to direct to the only true and infallible way of eternal life and all the balance only deadly heresies. i found the history of the christian church written in blood. for fifteen hundred years christian had slain christian as a part of his religious duty. fire and fagot, sword and rack and all the instruments of torture known to the ingenuity of mankind were employed for the torture and death of heretics--all in the name of christ and for the salvation of the world. catholics tortured and burned protestants and protestants murdered each other. calvin consented to the burning of servetus and the new england puritans hung witches and persecuted quakers and baptists by burning holes in their tongues with hot irons, and driving them from their midst as they would the pestilence. i wondered how, if god ever takes any interest in affairs on earth and hears the prayers of his children, he could sit supinely by on his throne and permit such things to be done in his name and for his glory! if his spirit could enter into the hearts of men and direct their thoughts and minds, why did he not do it and stop this useless slaughter? again i turned back to the beginning of things. if god foresaw what adam would do and the dreadful consequences of it, why did he not make him different so he would not fall? was it not just as easy? but if god can be better glorified by saving a fallen creature than by keeping him from falling, then why did he not make this "plan of salvation" so plain and clear that there could be no possibility of misunderstanding or misconstruing it? if god was to be ultimately glorified in the sacrifice of his son as a means of salvation for the world, and this salvation was to come simply by faith in this promise, why did he not make this promise so specific and clear that the most ignorant and benighted could not misunderstand and fail to accept it? why did not god reveal this promise to all mankind alike, so that all might be saved, instead of to one family and one nation? and when this son came and "died for the world" why did not god make it known to the entire world instead of a handful of jews in an obscure corner of the earth? and when this "plan" was completed, why was it not heralded in every nook and corner of the earth, wherever man was found, instead of being confined for centuries around the shores of the mediterranean? then again, i say, why was not this "plan" made so plain and unequivocal that no man, however ignorant, could possibly fail to comprehend it, and all men understand it exactly alike, and thus live in the bonds of a true brotherhood, the sons of the one great god, instead of butchering each other for fifteen hundred years in the name of religion, each sect claiming to be the only true followers of the son of god, and all the balance reprobates and devils? but the most inconsistent and unreasonable phase of the whole thing is yet to come. if salvation is attainable only through the merits of the "death on the cross" of jesus christ, then jesus _had to be crucified_. it was a part of the "eternal plan." no other death would do. if jesus had died a natural death there could have been no salvation. he must needs be punished, killed for the sins of adam and all mankind. he was "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world." to carry out this "divine purpose" somebody had to crucify him. every actor in this great "drama of redemption" was a necessary factor. no one was either unnecessary or unimportant. judas was necessary to betray him into the hands of his enemies. he and the part he performed were necessarily as much a fore-ordained and eternally predestinated factor in the "scheme of redemption" as that of jesus himself. the jewish priests who prosecuted him before pilate were as equally necessary as the subject of the prosecution. the jewish nation whom they represented, or some other nation, was equally necessary as a background for this prosecution, in whose name it was conducted. pilate or some other was necessary as the judge to hear the trial and pronounce the sentence of death before it could be carried out. and finally, the roman soldiers were necessary to execute the sentence. all these, jesus, judas, the priests, the jewish nation, pilate and the roman soldiers, were necessary links in the one great chain of the "scheme of redemption," or "plan of salvation" by the vicarious atonement of the son of god on the cross. if either one of them had failed, the chain would have been broken, god's eternal plans and purposes thwarted, and man left without redemption to eternally perish! and yet poor judas was driven by remorse to a suicide's grave, and according to the doctrines of the church, for these nineteen hundred years has been justly writhing, frying and burning in the bottomless pit of eternal torments, and will continue so to suffer forever,--and for what? for faithfully performing and fulfilling that part in the scheme of redemption which he was, by the eternal decrees of god, foreordained and predestinated from before the foundation of the world to perform; and which he could neither escape nor avoid, without breaking the chain, and thus defeating the eternal purposes of god in the redemption of mankind! for nineteen hundred years the church has thus execrated and anathematised judas iscariot, pontius pilate, the high priests, the whole jewish nation and the roman empire, and consigned them to eternal perdition, the tormenting flames of an eternal hell, and scattered the jews to the four quarters of the earth, never ceasing its horrid persecutions, in many places even to this day; and all for what? for crucifying christ; for carrying out the divine purpose planned from before the foundation of the world; for obeying the eternal will; for doing only what they were _compelled_ by the eternal fates to do in order that mankind might be saved from the eternal burning! our author that i had been studying says on page , "no man can read the bible with any faith in its teachings, and deny that this terrible calamity (the destruction of jerusalem and the jewish nation) overtook the jews on account of their great sins, _especially their rejection of the son of god_." (italics mine.) suppose they had not rejected him. suppose they had accepted him as the messiah of prophecy, as the church insists he was, and had set about to make him their king and succeeded; and he had lived on a normal life and died a natural death, what would have become of the "scheme of redemption" by vicarious atonement? what about the "plan of salvation," the remission of sins only thru the "power of the blood"? "apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission." then if the jews _had not_ rejected jesus and thereby caused his blood to be shed, what would have been the eternal destiny of the whole human race? according to orthodox christianity, the whole plan would have failed, and the whole human race would have been irretrievably lost and plunged forever and ever into eternal torments, "where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"! i had now reached the crisis. after pursuing this course of study and this line of reasoning for a period of about three years after finishing the book i have herein described, does any one wonder that i threw the whole thing overboard, bible, inspiration, revelation, church and religion, into the scrap heap of superstition, legend, fable and mythology? i gave up the whole thing as a farce and a delusion, as "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals." i could no longer honestly preach such a gospel; i could not be a hypocrite. i withdrew from the church and ministry and turned my attention to secular pursuits. and having nowhere else to go, i naturally drifted into that state of mind which the world calls agnosticism. chapter vi the reaction: a new confession of faith at this time i knew nothing of a liberal church. if i had, i doubt if i was in a condition of mind to consider it. i was so utterly disgusted with ecclesiasticism as i knew it that i was but little prepared if at all, to give anything of the kind fair consideration. the pendulum had swung to the opposite extreme. i abandoned everything but god. i never doubted for a moment the existence of a supreme being. nature and instinct taught me this. but who, or what, or where, this supreme being was, or what his attributes or characteristics were, i did not pretend to know, or care. i relegated it all to the realm of the unknown and unknowable. for a while i went to church occasionally, merely for the sake of respectability, and not because i took any interest in common with it. i listened to the preaching with such patience and fortitude as i could command. i heard only the same old platitudes about a dying christ and the flames of perdition i had heard all my life and preached for eight years myself. i often felt as if i would like to help the preacher out in his struggle to "divest himself of his thoughts." i finally quit going to church altogether, until i located where i had an opportunity to attend a reformed jewish synagogue, which i did quite often, and always heard broad-gauged, intellectual discourses. as i have before said, up to this time, and for years thereafter, i had never read a distinctively "infidel" book, nor even a liberal religious one. my change of opinions had all come from an honest effort to seek proofs for the faith of my fathers, which i inherited. but i never ceased to be a student. my temporary antagonism to the church soon vanished. i simply viewed it with utter indifference, and somewhat of sympathy. i had no more creed to defend, and none to condemn. i had no desire whatever to propagate my own ideas or disturb any one else in theirs. i felt that if any one got any satisfaction out of his religious beliefs he was welcome to it. i would not disturb him for anything. i looked upon it as a harmless delusion, and if it made one any better, society was so much the gainer. but to me it was as "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals." but i cannot say that i was satisfied with my position. man is a social as well as an emotional animal. agnosticism is neither social nor emotional. it is cold-blooded and indifferent at its best. it is simply a bundle of doubts and negations. men are bound together in social and fraternal ties by what they affirm and believe in common. but they care nothing for what they deny. but having no creed to defend and no preconceived opinions to prove, and being of studious habits, i was now prepared to study in search of abstract truth for truth's own sake, ready to accept it from whatever source it might come, and follow it wherever it might lead. without arrogating to myself any special merit or credit for taking this course, i wish that all people would do the same. as i said in the very beginning of this book, most people inherit their religious beliefs, and there they stop. we are baptists, or methodists, or presbyterians, or catholics, because we were born so. we transmit our beliefs to our children, from generation to generation, each following the faith of his ancestors, without ever stopping to inquire why, or seek a reason. and if a thought is ever given to it, or any search made, it is but rarely for abstract truth, but for the proofs that support the inherited faith, the preconceived opinion. it is like one going into his house and bolting the door on the inside. nothing is ever given out and nothing ever permitted to come in. this is exactly why for centuries the world was drenched in christian blood, shed by christian hands. each had its infallible creed, to which all the world must bow--or take the consequences. it took me several years to get myself settled with anything like a definite "creed of my own," tho i was never in the least disturbed about it, and only gave it such time as i could spare from a busy business and professional life. by this time i had reached such definite conclusions as satisfied my own mind, tho i never,--after my "crisis,"--held any opinion, and do not now, that i am not willing to change at any time that evidence is furnished to justify it. in my search for truth i found myself confronted with certain facts that agnosticism did not satisfactorily explain. these were facts of nature, of man as a part of it, of man's nature, habits, history, thoughts, conduct, and social relations,--in fact, all that pertains to the phenomena of nature and human life and relations. the conclusions i reached constitute. my new confession of faith _the universe and god_ the first of these was the physical universe. i had accepted the theory of evolution in a general way; yet i could not account for the marvelous organism of millions of worlds and suns and systems, of which our earth is but a mere atom, filling the infinity of space, beyond all human comprehension, revolving and whirling thru space, each in its alloted orbit, with such perfect order and regularity, and all in the most perfect harmony, governed by such immutable, perfect and universal law, upon the theory of the operation of blind, unintelligent force upon inert matter. here was an effect. there must be a cause. the effect cannot be greater than the cause. here is an infinite universe; there must be an infinite cause; and that cause cannot be less than infinite eternal intelligence. this cause, for the want of a better name, we call god. i could thus easily account for the universe thru the processes of evolution, directed by eternal, intelligent will, operating thru eternal immutable and perfect law, upon eternal and indestructible matter. whether correct or not, this satisfied my mind as to god and the universe. i could sing with the psalmist: "the heavens declare the glory of god, and the firmament showeth his handiwork. day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge. their line is gone out thru all the earth and their words to the end of the world. there is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard." as i have before said, i never had any doubt about the existence of a supreme being, and that the universe was in some way the product of his creative energy. i think the doctrine of evolution satisfactorily solves the "riddle of the universe," if it recognizes infinite spirit as well as eternal matter; and that this infinite spirit is in some way, tho beyond our comprehension, the real force or energy, both the intelligence and life, the great uncaused first cause behind all phenomena, who, for the want of a better name we call god. perhaps it is impossible for any one to think of god without at the same time conceiving some sort of definition of him. yet, god cannot be defined. he is infinite. and infinity cannot be defined in terms of the finite. any attempt to define god is to limit him. our conceptions of god are at best limited, tho god himself is not. the finite mind cannot conceive unlimited space, nor eternal duration. we can conceive of them as _existing_; but we cannot conceive what they are. we can conceive of god as infinite; but we cannot conceive what infinity is. if we could, it would not be infinite, unless we are infinite. so all attempts to define god in terms of the finite are futile. and yet, when we look back over the past history of the human race and see what ruin has been wrought by this very thing it becomes appalling! all religious controversies, wars and bloodshed have had their ultimate source just here. certain men have formed certain conceptions of god, of his character, his attributes, his will, and his purposes concerning mankind. these they have labelled, patented, copyrighted, and declared to the world to be correct, final and infallible, and demanded that all the world accept them on penalty of death! to quote, in substance, from a recent author, we might as well try to make a meal of the stars and contain them all in our stomach at once as to comprehend god in his fullness. god _is what he is_, no matter what our opinions may be of him. but what any one of us _thinks god is_, that is what _god is to him_. this is all the definition of god that need be given. god is his own revelation. "the heavens declare the glory of god." nature reveals god in greater power and splendor than any book. what is _my_ conception of god? only this: god is the life of the universe; and this includes the all. as what we call the spirit is the life in my body, and permeates the whole of it from the most central vital organs to the utmost extremities of nails and hair; so god--and he is spirit--permeates the _whole universe_, and is the life of, or in it, as you please. "'all are but parts of one stupendous whole, whose body nature is, and god the soul.'" he is manifest in the majesty of the universe and is seen in the beauties of the flowers. he is reflected in the painted wings of the birds, in the rippling leaf, in the blade of grass, in the dewdrop, in the snowflake, in all nature; and above all in man himself, in whom he dwells and lives. how noble and inspiring the thought that i, even i, am a part of the life of the infinite, eternal god! all this i take on trust--_by faith_--and confess freely that, while believing it i cannot comprehend it. but such a god must be eternally good. he could not be the monster that jewish tradition and orthodox christianity paint him, eternally hating his enemies, all of whom were his own creatures, and plunging into an eternal hell of fire and brimstone the larger part of his own children, created in his own image and likeness. while i cannot understand the "problems of his providence," i am sure that "the judge of all the earth will do right." as to the perplexities that have grown out of the ideas of god's _foreknowledge, foreordination_, etc., my view is that no such a thing as _foreknowledge_ can be attributed to god. to do so is to attribute to him time limitations. to the infinite god there can be no such thing as past or future. all is the "_eternal present_" in which god is still at work, as much as ever before. i confess i cannot comprehend _how_ this is; but i can comprehend _that_ it is. "deep in unfathomable mines of never failing skill, he treasures up his bright designs, and works his sovereign will." _man_ "what is man that thou art mindful of him?" so far as we know, as a pure animal, he is the highest product, the climax of the processes of organic evolution. in addition to this, he is the only known creature on earth, or elsewhere, endowed with those god-like faculties of mind, thought, reason, will,--_soul_. as far as man's moral character and destiny are concerned, it matters as little how he came to be here, as it does who cain's wife was. we are confronted with the serious fact that _we are here_; and that we are endowed with these supreme faculties that differentiate us from the lower forms of life about us, and consequently entail upon us, not thru some supernatural revelation, but by natural instinct, certain moral and social responsibilities and obligations, not only to our own kind, but to all those myriad forms of life below us,--obligations and responsibilities which we cannot avoid or escape, except at our peril. and as to these responsibilities, it is not material whether man is immortal or not. i once had serious doubts of this. but while i now believe it with a firm conviction that in my own mind amounts to moral certainty, yet i recognize that it is beyond the pale of ocular proof or physical demonstration. it pertains exclusively to the realm of faith. "strange is it not? that of the myriads who, before us passed the door of darkness thru, not one returns, to tell us of the road, which to discover, we must travel too?" and yet this faith is one of the most comforting and inspiring of all the objects of faith known to man. but he that is governed in his life and conduct, solely by the fear of some dire punishment in the after-life, or some hope of bribing the infinite to give him a comfortable berth in heaven, is at best but a little and weak soul. no need to go into any argument here upon the question of whether, "if a man die shall he live again?" our social and moral obligations to live right with our fellowmen are none the less, whether there is an after-life or not. in fact no man can be right with god,--a part of whose life he is,--while wrong with his fellow-man. _the problem of evil_ this brings us to a consideration of the problem of evil. "ever since human intelligence became enlightened enough to grope for a meaning and purpose in human life, this problem of the existence of evil has been the burden of man." (john fiske.) out of some attempt to solve it, every religion on earth was born. i do not offer to solve this problem; but to try to take a rational view of it. good and evil are relative terms. how could we know anything about the one but thru its contrast with the other? if there were no such thing as evil, how could we be conscious of the good? how could we know that it was good? we cannot know anything except by its contrast with something else. some element of unlikeness must appear before we can distinguish anything from something else. to quote again from fiske: "if there were no color but red, it would be exactly the same thing as if there were no color at all." there could be no music except for variety and contrasts in sounds. if we had never tasted anything but sugar, could we know what bitterness is? but having tasted the bitter we then know what sweetness means. likewise, if there was no such thing as moral evil in the world, we could not possibly know what moral goodness is. we could not know what happiness is if we did not have some knowledge of sorrow and pain. just why this is so, i do not pretend to know. i am only stating facts as they are; and the great creator, who is the author of both, if of either, knows; and we may know in proper time. another pertinent question from fiske may be asked here: "what would have been the worth of that primitive innocence portrayed in the myth of the garden of eden? what would have been the moral value or significance of a race of human beings ignorant of evil, and doing beneficent acts with no more consciousness or volition than the deftly contrived machine that picks up raw material at one end, and turns out some finished product at the other? clearly for strong and resolute men and women an eden would be but a fool's paradise. how could anything fit to be called _character_ ever have been produced there? but for tasting the forbidden fruit, in what respect could man have become a being of higher order than the beast of the field?" the point is that the same law of evolution applies in the moral world as it does in the material. as the highest types of life have been developed only thru the processes of struggle with adverse elements, in which only the fittest, strongest and best adapted to its environment survived, so moral character is only developed thru the struggle with moral evil. just as one cannot learn to swim on a parlor sofa, but must get in the water and struggle, so one must come in contact with, combat, struggle with, and overcome moral evil in order to develop the highest and strongest type of moral character. "heaven is not reached by a single bound; but we build the ladder by which we rise from the lowly earth to the vaulted skies, and rise to its summit round by round." the rise from a bestial to a moral plane involves the acquirement of a knowledge of both good and evil. the moral conscience thus developed plays the same role in the moral world that the consciousness of pain does in the physical. as this consciousness of pain is a monitor to warn us from physical danger, so the moral conscience is our monitor to keep us from moral evil. and the higher this moral conscience is developed, the more sensitive it becomes, the higher will its possessor rise in the moral scale. this is the law which paul tells us is written in the hearts of all men, "their consciences meanwhile accusing or excusing them." this may seem a strange philosophy. but it comports with the facts of nature and life. the mystery of evil is not solved. but at least we have a rational, working hypothesis upon which to deal with it, as will further appear as we proceed. _sin_ evil, at least in the physical world, exists separate and apart from sin. we will not speculate upon the metaphysical differences that may, or may not, exist between moral evil and personal guilt. but i wish to record briefly the views i ultimately arrived at concerning the nature and consequences of sin. according to the orthodox doctrine, altho sin is defined in the new testament as the "transgression of the law," it is something _more_ than this;--a direct personal offence against god; and that therefore its penalties are punitive and vindictive, designed to vindicate the person of god against insult and injury by disobedience to his law. punishment was therefore believed to be administered judicially, according to the extent of the offense, that the sinner might be made to suffer _purely for suffering's sake_, measure for measure. i long ago abandoned this doctrine. i accept fully the new testament teaching that "sin is the transgression of the law,"--not the law of moses or any other penal code,--but the great universal, immutable law of nature in the moral world. that god is the author of this law does not make its violation any more a personal offense against god than the violation of a state statute is a personal offense against the governor, or legislature, or the judge that administers it. god cannot be personally sinned against. if so he is neither infinite nor immutable. to constitute a personal offense the person offended must take cognizance of it, which necessarily involves _a change of mind_ toward the offender,--otherwise it is not an offense. the same condition would be involved in a second change of mind toward the offender, upon his repentance and forgiveness. neither is consistent with any idea of infinity or immutability. neither does god ever punish sin. sin is its own punishment, and it operates automatically. no sin was ever committed that the sinner did not pay the penalty in full. from this there is no more escape than there is from the law of gravitation. if i put my hand into the fire i cannot avoid being burned. if i take poison i cannot avoid the consequences. the fact that there may be an antidote for the poison in no way destroys the truth of this fundamental law. "the moving finger writes, and having writ moves on; nor all your piety nor wit can lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out a word of it." jesus illustrated this law fully and beautifully in the parable of the prodigal son, and i can do no better than quote its substance here. this young man left his father's house. this was not a personal offence against his father, altho the father may well have conjectured what would be the result. he was of age and had a right to go. he spent his funds in riotous living, and as a consequence was reduced to want and suffering, his punishment for his sin. to thus waste his funds was sin, _he punished himself_ by his own conduct. his sufferings became so intense and severe that he resolved to abandon his present surroundings and return home at any cost, even to becoming a menial servant in his father's house. here we get a clear view of the _purpose_ of punishment, not as vindictive, but remedial and corrective. the young man suffered until his sufferings accomplished their end in correcting and changing his life. as soon as this was done his punishment ended. just so with all punishment for sin. it will continue until its remedial and corrective purpose is completed and no longer, whether in this life or some other. when the young man returned home his father received him, not as a servant, but a son. but remember, _his wasted fortune was not restored_. "was he not freely forgiven?" yes; but forgiveness does not blot out nor restore the past; nor absolve one from the natural consequences of his own acts already committed. it simply means a new opportunity and a new start, but with the handicap of the consequences of the past life. the returned prodigal was forgiven. he had the opportunity to begin life anew as a son, just as he was before. but his material resources represented in his squandered fortune, and the time he lost while squandering it, were lost forever! be as diligent and frugal as he might, he could never, thru time or eternity, reach that attainment _which he might have reached_, had he used the same diligence and frugality from the start, in the use of his natural inheritance as his operating capital. hence, one sins, not against god, but most of all _against himself_, by violating the law of his own being, and of humanity. and the _consequences_ of sins committed can never be escaped, in this world or any other. if this kind of gospel had been preached to humanity during all these past centuries of christianity,--instead of a gospel that teaches that no matter how vile, wicked and sinful one may be, nor how long he may thus live in sin, if, in the last hour of life he will only "believe in jesus," at death he will go sweeping thru the gates of heaven into eternal glory on a complete equality with the noblest saints and purest characters that ever lived on earth,--this world would now be much better than it is. "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," whether divinely inspired or not, is as eternally true, certain, and unescapable in the moral world as are the stars in their courses. man sins against society in transgressing those natural laws of social relations that bind society together. but even in this, while society suffers from his sins, the sinner himself must ultimately suffer for his own sins above all others. the question has often been asked me, "if a man cannot sin against god, but only against himself and society, by what standard, gauge, or measure am i to determine what is right or wrong?" i think the golden rule answers that question completely. all sins are either personal or social or both. a man may, by some sort of self-indulgence or abuse or by his own secret thoughts sin against himself _only_, from which he alone must suffer. he may also sin against society by doing some evil to or against some one else or against society as a whole, from which both he and others may suffer. a simple rule of conduct may be this: in view of any proposed course of conduct, word or act, these questions may be asked: "what may be the result? will it in any way injure me, or any one else? is any possible evil consequence, either to myself or any one else, likely to come of it?" if the answer is in the affirmative, it is wrong; otherwise not. these are my simple views of sin. _salvation_ what is salvation? almost the universal answer of christendom has been for eighteen centuries, escape from hell hereafter and the assurance of heaven. yet, according to the record we have of him, jesus never taught any such doctrine. it is true that he refers several times to the gehena of the jews, "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched," but always as a natural consequence of some failure to do, or perform certain things that they should do; but never does he appeal to any one to do or perform anything _for the purpose of escaping it_. did the reader ever notice that in all the record we have of the sayings of jesus, he is nowhere quoted as having ever said one word about the great, fundamental doctrines of christianity, over which pagans and christians wrangled for four centuries; and over which christians have wrangled and fought with each other for fourteen centuries? do we find where jesus ever said one word about the garden of eden, the fall of adam, original sin, total depravity, vicarious atonement, the mode of baptism, the trinity, the possession of the holy spirit, or any form of ecclesiastical organization or church polity? salvation, and jesus so taught, pertains to this life exclusively. it simply means _to save this life_,--not from physical death, nor hell hereafter,--but to its proper function, use and purpose, according to the will of god, as revealed in nature and human experience. in simpler words, it is to save this life from sin, wrong doing of every kind, and making of it the highest, noblest and best it is capable of. this is what jesus taught; and jesus is the savior of mankind _only_ in that he has taught mankind _how to live_,--not by dying for it. thus to save this life to the highest, noblest and best of which it is capable, is to save it from sin unto righteousness; and this is to save it both here and hereafter. he that _continually lives right_ cannot die wrong. and whatever the next life may be, it is but a continuation, a larger unfolding and fruition of this. salvation is here, not hereafter. _heaven and hell_ but do i not believe in heaven and hell? yes, and no. i believe in both, and neither. i do not believe in either the kind of heaven or hell i was taught in the church. yet, i have already said that i did not believe any sin ever committed by man ever went unpunished, either here or hereafter, until the full penalty was paid, and the punishment had completed its remedial and corrective purpose. and i will say here that i do not believe any good deed or word ever performed or said by man ever went unrewarded up to the full value of its merit, either here or hereafter. but i believe both heaven and hell to be _conditions_,--not places,--and we have them both here in this life, and will have them hereafter. each individual makes his own heaven, or his own hell, and carries it with him when he leaves this life. to quote from omar khayyam: "i sent my soul thru the invisible some letter of that after-life to spell; and by and by my soul returned to me and answered: i myself am heaven and hell; heaven's but the vision of fulfilled desire, and hell the shadow of a soul on fire." the idea of a literal lake of fire and brimstone to be the eternal abode of by far the larger part of the human race, according to the orthodox doctrine of christianity, is not only unreasonable, but unthinkable. if it exists god must have made it; and such a thought is a caricature of god. such a view of hell practically involves the necessity of the personal devil that has always been associated with it; and this is also both unreasonable and unthinkable. if such a being exists he is either co-eternal with god--which is unreasonable--or god created him--which is unthinkable. the idea that there is in this universe two co-eternal antagonistic spirits in eternal warfare with each other challenges human credulity. if the bible story of creation and the fall of man is true, as interpreted by orthodox christianity, the devil got the best of god right from the start, and has held it ever since; and according to the current doctrines of the plan and means of salvation, will hold it eternally. this leads us inevitably to one of two conclusions: god is neither infinite, omniscient, nor omnipotent, else he would not have permitted such a condition to come about, and permit himself to be thus defeated in his plans and purposes, and lose eternally ninety percent of the highest product of his own creation, man, whom he made in his own image and likeness. if we still insist that god is infinite, omniscient, and therefore knew in advance all that ever would take place, including the fall of adam and its consequences, omnipotent, and therefore able to prevent it, but did not, it only makes the matter worse. but to take the other horn of the dilemma, that god _created_ the devil first an angel in heaven, who afterwards led a rebellion in heaven and had to be cast out, and that hell was then created as a place in which to put him, but where it proved afterwards that he could not be kept, but got out and robbed god of the noblest product of his creative genius at the very threshold of creation, corrupting the very fountain of human life itself, whereby he became the ultimate possessor of nine-tenths of all the race forever, is only to make the matter still worse than before. he certainly was not omniscient, and therefore able to foreknow what this newly created angel would ultimately do, else he would not have made him; nor was he omnipotent, else he would have prevented it. but if it still be insisted--and unfortunately it is by far the greater part of christianity--that god is, nevertheless and notwithstanding, infinite, omniscient and omnipotent, and either deliberately planned or supinely sat by and permitted these things to take place, _then he is not_ a god of goodness, love, justice, truth, mercy and benevolence, but an unthinkable monster, more diabolical and cruel than the wildest savage ever known to the earth, or the most ferocious beast of prey in the jungle. i might naturally fear such a god, but never love or respect, but eternally hate him. i have already given my views of the story of eden and the fall of man; that man never fell, but is still incomplete, but progressing onward and upward forever; that he was never, on the general average, higher or better than now; and as the years and ages go on he will continue thus to grow better and nobler, making his own heaven as he goes along, and destroying his own hell by learning his lessons of suffering for wrong doing, and leaving it behind him. no, god did not make man in his own image, implant in his very nature that eternal aspiration upward that is possessed by every normal human being, and then make a devil to tempt and ruin him, and a hell in which to eternally torment him. i quote again from omar khayyam: "oh, thou who didst with pitfall and with gin beset the road i was to wander in, thou wilt not with predestined evil round enmesh, and then impute my fall to sin. ... "ne'er a peevish boy would break the bowl from which he drank in joy; and he that with his hand the vessel made will not in after wrath destroy." _redemption and atonement_ it is hardly necessary to the purpose of this work, to say anything at all on these subjects. if man was never lost, kidnapped or stolen from god, he needed no _redeemer_, to _buy him back_ with a price. if man never "fell" from the favor of god by disobedience, and thereby incurred his anger, illwill and wrath that sought vengeance on his life, he needed no one to mediate, propitiate or atone for him by shedding his own blood as a substitute. the whole doctrine of redemption and atonement falls flat when the doctrine of the fall of man is removed from under it. but as this is the very crux of the whole orthodox christian system, the reader may be interested to know what conclusions i reached concerning it, after some years of study, as to both its origin and meaning. these conclusions i reached, not only from the study of the bible, but from the study of history generally; and especially the history of religion, in other races as well as the jews. it must be remembered that this doctrine of atonement by the shedding of blood, is--or rather was,--in one form or another, common to many ancient religions and nations. it was by no means exclusively jewish or christian. it probably had a common origin and purpose in all. i have already intimated that all religious doctrine and practice had their origin in man's attempt to solve the problem of evil, sin, suffering and death; and to remedy it. i will treat this more fully when i come to consider the subject of religion specifically. the general solution of this problem, if not the almost universal one, was, that men had offended the gods and incurred their anger and illwill; and for this reason the gods continually afflicted them thru life and ultimately destroyed them. thus death was the final penalty for sin. the gods could be finally satisfied only with the life,--the blood,--of the transgressor. "for the blood is the life." this doctrine is not confined to genesis and the jews. in fact, the best biblical scholars of today are of the opinion that this story of eden and the fall were not originally jewish at all; but that the tradition was learned during the exile in babylonia and persia, where, it has been learned from recent excavations, the tradition existed centuries before the time of the captivity. it is believed that this tradition so fitted into the jewish history and gave them such a satisfactory solution of their own sufferings and misery that it was brought back by them, and, with some adaptations, incorporated into their own sacred literature as a part of their own history. thus, genesis is now believed by the best scholars and most competent critics, not to be the first book of the bible written, but in its present form, one of the last written of the old testament. but this is a digression. quite early, however, tho the time and the exact reason why are both unknown, it is evident that man conceived the idea that, tho he could not escape ultimate death, yet, he might in some way appease the wrath of the gods, and thus at least mitigate his afflictions in this life, by offering them the life--the blood--of a substitute. thus originated the practice of offering burnt offerings to the gods, so common among so many ancient tribes and nations besides israel. it was believed that the gods would be satisfied, at least for the time being, with the blood of an innocent victim, especially if it was the best, or the most precious the offerer had. and from this grew the offering of human sacrifices, especially one's own children, as abraham offering isaac, jephtha his daughter, and the practice in israel so severely condemned by some of the earlier prophets, of making "their children pass the fire unto moloch." other offerings in the course of time grew up, such as fruits, vegetables, incense, etc.; but no offering was acceptable as an _atonement for sin_, except the offering of blood. thus cain brought an offering "of the fruit of the ground" and jehovah rejected it. but abel came with "the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. and jehovah had respect unto abel and unto his offering." the later levitical ritual with its organized priesthood, tabernacle, temple, etc., was by no means the beginning of this idea of appeasing the wrath of jehovah by blood atonement; but was only the more perfect and systematic organization and administration of it. blood was considered so precious, because it was the life, that the children of israel were forbidden to eat it on penalty of death. "for the life of the flesh is in the blood; and i have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your sins: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life." lev. xvii, . i shall assume here that the reader is already sufficiently familiar with the practices of the jews, as recorded thruout the old testament, concerning this matter of blood atonement, to render it unnecessary to go into further details. if he is not already familiar with it, he can easily become so. the question has been asked, why _burn_ the offering? why was it not sufficient simply to shed the blood? perhaps in the beginning this was the practice. there is nothing said about burning the offerings of either cain or abel. it is highly probable they were not burnt. jehovah was satisfied with the mere _sight_ of blood, the destruction of a life. but this, cain did not offer. there was no _blood_ in his fruit-offering; hence jehovah was not only unappeased, but insulted. the first mention of "burnt-offerings" in the bible is the offering made by noah after the flood. from this on they are common. the purpose of burning the offering was simply to cook it,--to roast it. the offering was nearly always eaten. sometimes only the fat, considered the choicest part, was burnt as an offering to the god; while the people and priests ate the balance, either roasted or boiled. see a full account of this in sam. ii, f. as man has always made his gods in his own image he imagined the gods, like himself, loved to eat. therefore, in addition to appeasing the wrath of the god by the sight of the blood of the victim, his favor was supposed to be further obtained by feeding him. as the good host always sets the best he has before his guest, so the best part of the sacrificed victim was placed on the altar for the god. altho invisible, it was firmly believed that the god consumed the burning flesh or fat, as it was reduced to smoke and ascended to heaven. the parties making the offering,--sometimes only an individual, or a family, but often the whole tribe,--ate the balance. they were therefore, "eating with the god," and consequently on good terms with him, just as eating together today is an indication of friendship, or the taking of salt together among certain savage tribes is a token of peace and friendship, or the smoking from the common pipe among the early american indians. later in israel, the whole offering was burnt. jehovah was entitled to it all. men had outgrown the idea of "eating with jehovah." we now come back more specifically to the _purpose_ of this blood atonement. we have no account in all the old testament where it was ever offered with direct reference to a future life,--for the purpose of escaping hell. we have already seen that there is absolutely nothing in the story of eden and the fall of man, upon which to predicate any thought of immortality after physical death, either a heaven or hell. we now come to note that there is nowhere any _direct_ reference to a life after death, in any book of the old testament, written _before_ the exile. the account of saul having the witch of endor call up samuel after his death; and david's faith that he could go to his dead child, indeed indicate some belief at this time in an after-life; but nowhere is there the remotest reference to a hell, a separate place of torment for the wicked. in the case of samuel being recalled to converse with saul, he says, that altho jehovah had departed from saul, and notwithstanding saul's great wickedness, "tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,"--the saintly samuel, all in the same place. there are a few direct references to a future life, _in a few places only_, in some of the books written _during_ or _after_ the exile. but nowhere in the old testament do we find a single reference to the offering of the sacrifice of atonement with any reference whatever to a future life. to ancient israel, jehovah was a god of the present,--not the future. he did things _then_,--in the present tense. he was the god of the _living_,--not of the dead. and jesus affirmed the same thing. he was exclusively a god for this world and this life. the atoning sacrifice was offered to appease his wrath against them for their past sins, not the sin of the individual only, but the sins of the whole nation. the benefits they expected to receive from this remission of sins thru the blood of the atonement were _here_ and _now_,--not in some future life. we pass rapidly now to the time of the christ. altho the canonical books of the old testament give us no clue to any definite, fixed beliefs among the jews concerning a future life, heaven, hell or the resurrection of the dead, yet, according to the new testament literature, these views were all quite clearly defined, and generally believed among all the jews, except the party of the sadducees, relatively a very small party. whence came these beliefs? if they had come by some divine revelation they would certainly have been recorded in some of their sacred books. but they were not. the only rational answer is that they learned all these things from their eastern masters during the captivity, where all these beliefs are now known to have been current centuries before the captivity, and brought them back on their return; and with some modifications incorporated them into their own system. yet there is no indication in the new testament, nor any contemporary literature now extant, that the atoning sacrifice that was continually offered in the temple, even down to the destruction of jerusalem, was ever offered with any view, or reference to a future life; much less as a means of escaping hell. we turn now to the christ. it has already been said that he nowhere makes the least reference to a vicarious atonement to be made by himself for the sins of world. true, he warns his disciples that he must needs go up to jerusalem, there to suffer and be put to death; but nowhere does he say that this death is to _redeem back_ mankind from the devil; nor appease the wrath of god against mankind by the sight of his blood; nor to vindicate the majesty of a broken law, for the benefit of mankind. it is all but universally acknowledged that his disciples had no such conception of his mission, but followed him up to jerusalem expecting to see him made king, sit on the "throne of david" and restore israel to her pristine glory, according to the universal interpretation of the messianic prophecies. after his tragic death, and alleged resurrection and ascension,--in which his disciples certainly implicitly believed, no matter what the actual facts may be,--we still hear not a word about his death being a vicarious atonement for sin. when peter preached that great sermon on the day of pentecost he says not one word about a vicarious atonement in the death of christ, but lays the whole emphasis on his resurrection and ascension. let the reader turn here to that sermon in the second chapter of acts and read it; and he will find that the whole burden of peter's sermon is to the effect, that since the jews had put jesus to death, he had broken the bonds of death and hades, they being powerless to hold him, and had ascended to the right hand of god, whereby he had conquered both death and hades, and for which "god hath made him both lord and christ." note, that because of this resurrection and ascension he had _been made_ both lord and christ,--and not by any virtue in his death itself. not the remotest hint of vicarious atonement! the natural inference is--tho peter is not quoted as saying so in so many words,--that men are to be saved from death and hades hereafter, because jesus had escaped from both, and thus not only paved the way, but himself thereby became able to save others also. as is well known, for half a century or more, the followers of the new faith, who for fifteen years were all jews, or jewish proselytes, looked with anxious expectancy for the return of this jesus, with the power and glory of heaven, to set up his earthly kingdom on the throne of david in jerusalem. not a word yet about saving men's soul's from hell thru vicarious atonement. no need for a vicarious atonement to save men from hell hereafter, if they were soon to live on this earth forever--those who died before his return to be raised from the dead as he was, while those that remained were to be "caught up in the clouds to meet him in the air and live forever,"--under the benign reign of the messiah of god. but we are approaching its development. there appears upon the scene one saul of tarsus, afterwards known as paul the apostle. it is generally conceded that he never saw jesus in his lifetime; in fact knew nothing of him while he lived. he early became a violent persecutor of the new sect, which for years was only another jewish sect, as exclusively jewish in its views and outlook as were the priests and rabbis. but paul was a well educated man, a scholar in his day,--and a philosopher. he was a jew to the core, and lived and died one. we need not consider the story of his trip to damascus, the supposed miracle on the way, and his conversion to the new faith. he soon became the greatest leader and exponent it had thus far produced; and he put a new interpretation on it, _entirely unchristian_, if we are to take the recorded teachings of the christ himself as our standard for christianity. and the christianity of the world today is much more pauline than christian, judged by this standard. this paul operated independent of the other apostles. he was a "free lance" and launched forth, both in a field, and with a doctrine all his own. he was thoroly familiar with the whole jewish system. he knew all about the meaning and purpose of the sacrifice of atonement. yet he was too wise not to know that there was no _intrinsic merit_ in the blood of bulls and goats to cleanse from sin, or appease the divine wrath. yet as a loyal jew he certainly _believed_ these to be of divine origin,--and that they must have a meaning deeper than the physical fact itself. he was a believer in the coming of the long-promised messiah--to restore israel. a man of his knowledge and foresight might well be able to read "the signs of the times," and see that the jewish nation could but little longer maintain its separate identity against the overwhelming power of the growing roman empire. it must soon be swallowed up and its separate identity lost in the greater whole. no power in israel seemed to be able to stem the tide of events. remember that this was now some years after the crucifixion; and after paul had changed his course towards the new sect, because of the events about damascus,--no matter what they may have been. at any rate, it is quite clear, no matter what the reasons may have been that induced him to do so, that he had accepted in good faith, as a veritable truth, the belief in the physical resurrection of the crucified jesus. paul tells us himself that after his escape from damascus he went into arabia for three years,--perhaps to try to think out some rational interpretation of the meaning of the events that he had felt himself forced to accept as true. after this we find him passing thru jerusalem, stopping a few weeks with peter and the other apostles to learn from them all he could; and then going on to his native city, tarsus, where we lose sight of him for several years before we find him starting on his first great missionary journey from antioch, in which we begin to get our first glimpses of the doctrine of vicarious atonement made for the sins of the world by the death of jesus of nazareth. during these years of paul's obscurity, both in arabia and at tarsus, what was he probably doing? we do not know. but is it unreasonable to conjecture that he must have spent at least a good portion of his time in profound study, to try to reconcile these new views with the past history, traditions and beliefs of his own people? if this new teaching meant only a new ethical standard of life; that men are saved by what they _are_ and _do_, without any reference to _belief_, then the whole jewish system of sacrifices had no meaning at all, and never did have. we can hardly conceive of paul, educated as he was in all the lore and traditions of his people, accepting such a view as this. to him all the traditions and practices of his people were at least of divine origin; and hence must have a meaning of eternal significance. yet, it must have been plain to him that in the natural course of events, as they were then clearly tending, it could not be long until the elaborate temple ritual, with _all_ its sacrifices, oblation, burning bullocks and incense, must soon cease forever! and now for the interpretation. all the ceremonial of israel had a meaning; but it was symbolic, typical of some reality to come. the blood of bulls and lambs and goats could not in themselves atone for sin; but they could _point_ to the "lamb of calvary," slain for the sins of the world. he that was without sin,--"the lamb without spot or blemish,"--was offered as a sacrifice for the sins of others. the law had its purpose, but it was now fulfilled, all its symbolic meaning was consummated in the death of jesus, and now it must go. it was only a school master, to keep us in the way until the christ should come. when this "lamb" was slain, god saw his shed blood, and was satisfied. his anger relented, his wrath cooled and the hand of mercy was extended, on the simple condition,--_of faith_. what was the meaning, intent and purpose of this vicarious atonement? according to the belief of the time, that jesus would soon return in the power and glory of heaven to set up his everlasting kingdom here on earth, it was to prepare a people for this kingdom. this kingdom was to be composed only of those who had been thus prepared for it, by the remission of their sins, thru this blood atonement. the earliest christians, all of whom were jews, led by peter, held that this new kingdom was to be forever limited to jews and jewish proselytes. if any gentile wanted to have any part or lot in this new kingdom, he must first become a jew. but paul took a broader view. to him the whole jewish system was purely preliminary to a greater dispensation, which was now fulfilled; symbolic and typical of a greater reality which was now here; and had therefore fulfilled its purpose and was ended. all symbolic ceremonial was now past forever. there was no longer any distinction between jew and gentile as far as god's grace was concerned. the new kingdom was open to all upon the same terms,--faith in jesus as the messiah of god, and this particular interpretation of his mission. this opening of the gates to all the world on equal terms produced a bitter controversy between peter and paul and led to a sharp and well defined division in the early church, which continues to this day. the roman church is petrine, narrow, exclusive and given to much elaborate ceremonial, as were the ancient jews; while protestantism is generally pauline, much broader, generally freer from ceremonial, and as a rule much more truly catholic; yet often narrow enough. as time went on, and jesus did not return as expected, faith in his early coming waned; and the idea began to grow that his real kingdom was not for this world at all, but a heavenly one hereafter. by this time the apostle paul was dead and the fourth gospel had appeared, supposed to be written by the apostle john, in which the master was quoted as saying, "my kingdom is not of this world." thus the idea took form, grew and developed that the real mission of the messiah, after all, was not the establishment of a kingdom here on earth, but a heavenly kingdom hereafter; and hence that his death was a vicarious atonement made by the shedding of his blood, to satisfy the divine vengeance against sin, and save souls from hell hereafter; and thus fit them for this heavenly kingdom. and ever since this doctrine became thus established, by the middle of the second century, almost the whole emphasis and entire energies of the church, catholic and protestant, have been directed, not towards making this a better world by making mankind better, building up, developing, purifying and uplifting human character; but toward saving them from a hell hereafter. and what little energy the church had left after this, has been spent, and is still being spent, in never-ending controversy among themselves over _just how to do it_. thus the doctrine of vicarious atonement, thru blood, and blood alone, had its origin in the lowest paganism, away back in the infancy of the human race, was transmitted down thru judaism, and transplanted from it into christianity. but i cannot leave this subject without a few remarks on the various meanings that have been attached to the idea of vicarious atonement, since it became an integral part of the christian system. we have already seen that the original pagan meaning of blood atonement was based upon the idea that the gods were angry and out for vengeance, and nothing but blood would appease them; but that the blood of a proper substitute would answer this purpose. but the earliest christian doctrine of the atonement made by christ was in the nature of redemption. in fact the term became so deeply rooted and grounded in early christian nomenclature that it has never been fully eliminated. but its use is much less now than formerly. the theory was based upon tradition, partly scriptural and partly not, that in the affair of eden the devil fairly outwitted god and became rightfully entitled to the souls of all mankind forever; but that on account of the great war in heaven, in which the devil and his angels were cast out by the "eternal son" of god (see milton's "paradise lost"), the devil held a bitter grudge against this son, and offered to bargain with god and give him back all the souls of mankind for the soul of this son. so god, knowing the power of his son to break the bands of death and hell,--which the devil did not know,--accepted the bargain; and in due time, as agreed upon, the son of god came into the world, died on the cross and went to hell, in fulfillment of this contract; and thus liberated all the souls already there, and obtained a conditional release of all the balance of mankind,---the condition of faith,--and then suddenly broke the bands of death and hell and escaped back to heaven. but he literally fulfilled his contract as originally made. thus we find the old church creeds reciting--and still reciting--that "he was crucified, dead, buried and descended into hell, and the third day rose," etc. this idea may look strange to present day christians; but all they have to do is to consult the early church literature to find that it was almost the universal belief as to the meaning of the atonement during the first few centuries of christianity. the next view that gradually developed as the older one waned, was the old jewish idea of _substituted suffering_ and to which was added that of imputed righteousness. that is to say, that in order to save mankind and yet appease the divine wrath, and satisfy the vengeance of an offended god, god sent his son into the world to bear the brunt of his wrath instead of mankind, and tho innocent, to suffer as tho guilty; and finally to die as a malefactor, tho innocent of sin; and because of the dignity and character of the victim and the intensity of his sufferings in both life and death, they were sufficient in both quality and quantity to satisfy the divine vengeance against all mankind; _provided_ man would avail himself of these provisions for his release by accepting by faith the son of god as his suffering substitute; whereupon, god would forgive the sins of the faithful and _impute_ to them the benefits of the righteousness of christ. this doctrine of the atonement dominated the middle ages. upon it was based the doctrine of supererogation, whereby the surplus stock of good works of the holy saints might be laid up for the benefit of the less worthy, who might receive the benefits of them thru the process of indulgences, sold by the church for a money consideration. it is still held in a somewhat modified form in a large part of christendom to this day. the more modern doctrine of the atonement is that called the governmental theory. that is to say, that god was not so mad with mankind after all; but having once ordained the law that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die," the law could neither be abrogated nor suspended, but must have its penalty. as no mortal man could fulfill it for any one but himself, and that only by his eternal death, only the son of god could satisfy it for mankind. therefore the eternal son of god became incarnate in human flesh, but still remained "very god of very god," in order that he might meet the demands of this divine law for all mankind, by not being amenable to it himself, being without sin; and yet by his sufferings and death paying its penalty in full for the whole human race; subject, however, to the appropriation of its benefits by the individual, thru faith. in a measure this is the same as that of the substitution theory; but it does not go to the extent of the doctrine of imputed righteousness. the only exception to it is in the roman church, and here the exception is apparent rather than real. in the roman church salvation is _by faith in the church_, the benefits of which are transmitted to the individual thru the sacraments of the church; but in the ancient church, and in practically all modern protestant churches, saving faith is held to be individual and personal; and must be not only faith in the atoning sacrifice made by jesus christ on the cross for all mankind; but it must be faith _in the correct view of the atonement_. hence, no matter which of the views i have herein outlined may be correct, those who have held to either of the others are all lost. this is the only logical conclusion any one can reach who insists that salvation is impossible except by accepting any prescribed creed. only those who possess and accept the _right creed_ can be saved. all the balance of mankind must be lost forever. to take either of these views of the atonement, or all of them together, as the only means by which mankind can be saved from hell is to make god a complete failure from beginning to end. as we have already seen, the orthodox view of creation makes god either a failure or a monster. the attempt to reform man thru the process of elimination by the flood proved a failure. and now if the success of god's last attempt to save mankind thru the death of his son, is limited to any interpretation orthodox christianity has ever placed upon it, it is the most stupendous failure of all. there is but one rational interpretation of any doctrine of salvation by vicarious atonement; and that is that the atonement must be automatically as far-reaching and comprehensive in its results as the sin it is designed to remedy. if sin entered into the world because of the offence of adam, the head of the race, and thus passed upon all men, without their knowledge or consent, simply because they were descendants of adam, any scheme of redemption, atonement, or salvation that purports in any way to remedy, or obviate the consequences of this original sin, in order to be just must be equally as broad and comprehensive, and operate as automatically and unconditionally in its remedial effects, as did adam's sin in its consequences. i have thus gone at some length into this doctrine of atonement and redemption. perhaps i have wearied the reader. but as it is the most fundamental doctrine of the whole orthodox christian system, and has been such a bone of contention in all the ages of the christian church, and was such a stumbling block to me for so long a time, i felt that my "confession of faith" would be incomplete if i did not go into it in some detail. my final conclusion is, that man never fell, but always has been and still is imperfect and incomplete, but ever striving upward. as man was never lost or stolen from god, he needed no redeemer to buy him back. as he was never an enemy to god, but always his child, god was never angry with him; hence he needed neither mediator, nor any one to make any atonement for him. chapter vii a new interpretation of religion what is religion? this over which men have waged the fiercest controversies known to human history; that has been the source of more strife and bloodshed than any other single cause known to mankind; and perhaps, in one way or another, more than all other causes combined, previous to the recent world war. it will be remembered that i said after finishing my special course of study on the origin, authorship, history and character of the bible and the processes of reasoning which it inspired, "that i gave the whole thing up, inspiration, revelation, church and religion, as a farce and a delusion, as 'sounding brass and tinkling cymbals'; and cast it all into the scrap-heap of superstition, legend, fable and mythology." but after several years of study and observation i changed my mind again. i found that what i had always been taught and understood to be religion was not religion at all, but only a _form of religious expression_. creeds and beliefs i found were not religion, but the products of religion. that subtle emotional experience which i had always been taught was religion, i found was itself but a form of religious expression. i learned that religion was not something one could "get," by repentance, faith, prayer, etc., as i had been taught and taught myself for years; but something every normal human being on earth had by nature, and could not get rid of. then what is religion? while it is the simplest thing on earth, it is yet perhaps the hardest to define; especially by one person for another. its very simplicity eludes definition. in trying to define it i shall use in part the definitions given by others, as these are more expressive than any words of my own that i can frame: "religion essentially consists of man's apprehension of his relation to an invisible power or powers, able to influence his destiny, to which he is necessarily subject; together with the feelings, desires and actions which this apprehension calls forth." another definition that is perhaps more direct and simple than the above is this: "religion is an impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive upward. it is a yearning of the soul in man to transcend its own narrow limits, and to soar to the heights of supreme excellence, where it may become identified with the noble, the lofty, the divine." another has said that "religion is simply the zest of life." to these i will add that i understand religion to be that _inner urge_ in all humanity that pushes it onward and upward; that inspires in man the desire to rise above his present station and attainments, and improve his condition; that spirit within man that has lifted him from the lowest savagery to the highest attainments in civilization, refinement and culture that man has yet reached; and will still lead him on to heights yet invisible and undreamed of. this _inner urge_ is common to all humanity, different only in degree, and not in kind. it is possessed by the lowest savage, tho often in latent form, yet capable of being touched and aroused into life and action, as thousands of modern examples attest, as a result of some form of missionary effort. from the time that man first emerged above the brute, stood erect, looked up, beheld the phenomena of nature about him, thought, and recognized that _somehow_ and _somewhere_ there was a power above, beyond and greater than himself; and conceived in his own mind, however crude, the first faint spark of an aspiration to improve and better his condition, man became a religious being, and has been such ever since, varying only in degree, not in kind. all religion is therefore one and the same. there may be many religions. but back of all these is religion. religion is one in its origin. it is a part of the fundamental essence of human character. it is inseparable from the faculties of thought, reason and will. it is one and the same with these. man without these faculties of thought, reason and will would not be man at all, but a brute. so without this _inner urge_, and the faculty of _aspiration upward_, which i have defined as the very fundamental essence of religion, man would still only be a brute. he would not be man at all. religion is one in its origin because it is an essential characteristic of all human nature. all religion is one in that it recognizes something above man. i use this word advisedly. if i had said, "because all men recognize the existence of god, or a supreme being," i would have been misunderstood and the statement challenged. men have become so habituated to calling all other men atheists who do not accept their particular definition of god, that i omit the word entirely until i can further define my meaning. because voltaire did not believe in the god of moses and the pope, he was dubbed an atheist, altho he was a devoutly religious man, and built a chapel at his own expense on his estate and dedicated it "to the worship of god." man instinctively recognizes _something_ above him. it is immaterial by what name this may be called; whether jehovah, elohim, allah, heaven, nirvana, or jove; nor what attributes we give it, whether we call it person or principle, the great unknown or the ultimate cause; or whether it be a mere abstract ideal, the creation of one's own fancy; it is still that "_something_" which man recognizes as above him, toward which he aspires and hopes to attain. man also instinctively recognizes that he sustains some sort of personal relationship to this "something," that for want of a better name, we call god. it is necessary in this connection to repeat what we have already said: that very early in the history of the human race man was led to this conclusion, concerning his relationship and obligation to god, thru his effort to interpret and solve the problem of evil, or his own sufferings from it, and his ultimate death. the only possible method he had of interpreting these problems was drawn from his own nature and experience. he knew himself as being alive, as a conscious individual, capable of exercising will and exerting force. thus when he heard the roaring thunders, saw the clouds floating overhead, and the flashes of lightning among them, felt the force of the wind and the falling rain; in fact all the phenomena of nature and life about him, including his own aches, pains, diseases, suffering, and the ultimate death of his kind, he could only interpret these things in terms of living personality, some great, powerful individual, or individuals behind, and directing it all. these became man's first gods. man also interpreted his own relation to the gods, and theirs to him, in the same terms that defined his relations toward his fellowmen. he recognized the fact that some of his fellowmen sometimes did him an injury, or committed some offense against him; that this offense or injury aroused in him a spirit of resentment, a desire for vengeance in kind, even to the taking of the life of the man who had injured, or seriously offended him. man made his gods in his own image. he believed these gods to be like himself. thus, man interpreted his own sufferings to mean that he was out of right relations with the gods; that he had personally offended them,--or, one or more of them in some way, according to the source from which he conceived some particular affliction to come. when the individual was conscious of his own innocence, he concluded that some of his ancestors had grievously offended the god, who relentlessly pursued his posterity and inflicted on them the penalties due for the sins of this ancestor. hence the doctrine of inherited or original sin. man then set about to devise some means to appease the wrath of the gods, and thus restore harmonious relations with them. a volume might be written here, but we _must_ proceed with the next proposition. all religion is therefore one in its ultimate purpose, and objective end: to attain to its ideal, or harmonize with its objective. in other words: to attain unto right relations with god. lest i be misunderstood, i will repeat: it is immaterial what this god may be, jehovah, allah, nirvana or jove; person, principle, or abstract ideal. it is that which man _in his mind_ sets before him, toward which he aspires and strives to attain. remember that what we _think_ god to be, that is what god is to us. we have now reached the point where divisions arise, where religion branches out into religions. "wherewith shall i come before jehovah, and bow myself before the high god? shall i come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? will jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall i give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" "what must i do to be saved?" this has, in one form or another, at one time or another, been the burden of almost every soul among men. how can man attain unto right relations with his god? this is the great question of the ages. _keep in mind_ that it is immaterial who or what this god may be, how crude or how refined, from the lowest fetish to the highest spiritual conception, the fundamental question remains ever the same: how shall man get right with his god? what must man do to be saved? to answer this question has been the purpose of every system of religion known to mankind, and every sect, order and denomination known to every system. and here is where confusion begins. some one evolves a formula, means, or method that he believes meets the case. some others are persuaded to accept it and the sect grows. in the mean time some other person has evolved another; and some other still another, and so on, and on, and on, _ad infinitum_; all having the same purpose in view, and each claiming to be the _only right one_, or at least, the _best one_. and it is immaterial how erroneous, crude, or even barbarous one may look to the devotees of the other; in fundamental purpose they are all the same. the hindu mother who casts her babe into the ganges as food for the crocodiles, as a sacrifice to her gods, does it with as sublime a motive as any christian mother ever bowed before the altar of her own church,--and for the same purpose: to get right with her god. the parsee wife, who burns herself to ashes upon the funeral pyre of her dead husband, does it for the same purpose: to get right with her god. the devotee who throws his body before the wheels of the juggernaut to have it crushed as an act of devotion, does it for the same purpose: to get right with his god. the devout mohammedan who bows himself to the earth five times a day, and says his prayers with his face towards mecca, does it for the same purpose: to get right with allah. the savage who repeats his incantations to his fetish that he has probably made with his own hands, does it for the same purpose: to get right with god as he conceives him. the chinese that burns his sticks before the image in his joss-house, does it for the same purpose: to get right with his god. and so on _ad infinitum_, the same central purpose running thru it all, whether hindu or parsee, buddist or janist, confucian or shintoist, jew or gentile, mohammedan or christian, catholic or protestant, methodist or baptist, presbyterian or lutheran, calvinist or arminian, unitarian or trinitarian, one and all, have one and the same ultimate object: to get into right relations with god, each according to his own conception of god, and what he understands to be his will concerning him. however, in the more rational interpretation of religion in these later times, the element of fear of punishment hereafter has been almost, if not entirely eliminated; and the religious objective is made the highest, noblest, purest, and best possible life in this world, for _its own intrinsic worth_, and without any reference to any future life, resting firmly in the faith that he who lives right cannot die wrong. hence, religion does not consist in creeds, dogmas, or beliefs; nor in forms, ordinances, ceremonies, or sacraments, as i was early taught to believe. but these are, one and all, but so many varying _forms of expression_ which religion takes. they are all only so many different ways, means and methods religion takes to attain to its ultimate purpose and aim. they are only so many different paths which different men take in their search for god. and is there but _one_ true path to god, while all the others only lead to hell? and if so, _which_ is the right one? ah, herein lies the fruitful source of most of the world's tragedies and sufferings! it was this that burned john huss, savonarola and bruno. it was this that lighted the fires of smithfield and hung helpless, silly women in new england, as witches. but thank god, it is abating and the dawn of a better day is in sight. i have long since come to believe that all who honestly, sincerely, and diligently seek god will ultimately find him, in some way, at some time, when god sees best to reveal himself, no matter what method may be pursued. i do not mean that all methods are equally good; no, not by any means. the quest for god may be helped or hindered, advanced or delayed, accordingly as the methods of search may be correct or erroneous. but i do mean to say that i do not believe the infinite god, who knows the hearts of men, and will ultimately judge them by this standard, will forever hide, and deny himself to any, in whose heart he sees honesty, purity, and sincerity of purpose and motive, because in their finite judgment, they were unable to intellectually determine just which was the right, or best way;--and this, whether the searcher be hindu, chinese, pagan or parsee; hottentot or arab, savage or philosopher; christian, mohammedan or buddhist; or any one else on earth. "man looketh upon the outward appearance; but god looketh upon the heart." and they that diligently, honestly and earnestly seek after him will find him,--somewhere, somehow--in this life or some other, and when found, it will not be "in far-off realms of space," but in one's own heart. "the outward god he findeth not, who finds not god within." the bible from the foregoing it is quite clear that religion is not something miraculously revealed from heaven, handed down in a package already bound up, complete and finished, ready for use; but that in its origin, essence and purpose it is natural and common to all humanity alike. its present status is but the result of its progressive development, from its crudest forms in early humanity, to the present day. while forever remaining one and the same in its origin, essence and purpose, it has undergone changes in its forms of expression, its means and methods, in all ages as mankind has progressively developed upward. what we call the great systems of religion, such as buddhism, christianity, mohammedanism, and others are but so many different forms of expression thru which religion manifests itself in human life; and the various sects and denominations in all these systems are but further subdivisions in these forms of expression, according to different desires, tastes and opinions among different people. hence, religion was not produced by the bible, nor is it in any way dependent upon the bible as a source of authority, but just the opposite. religion was long before the bible and itself produced the bible; and the bible derives its sole authority from religion. here is perhaps as good a place as any to answer the question that has often been asked me: "if the bible is not the ultimate source of authority in religion, what and where is it?" just the same to you and me today that it was to noah, abraham, moses, the prophets, apostles, and all others in all ages. "but were not these men divinely inspired?" no more than you or i _may be_, even if we are not in fact. this subject will be fully elucidated when i come to treat specifically of inspiration and revelation in the next subdivision. the answer to this question about the source of authority in religion is clearly indicated in the very definition i have given of religion, and i only make it more specific here to avoid any misunderstanding of my position on it. if "religion is a natural impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive upward"; if it is the "zest of life"; if it is "that _inner urge_ in all humanity that ever pushes it onward and upward"; these natural impulses themselves constitute the sole source of authority in religion. thomas paine once said: "all religions are good that teach men to be good." to which might well be added: that religion alone is best which teaches men to live the best lives. life, not creed, is the final test of religion. to perceive what is right and what is wrong, to cleave to the right and avoid the wrong, is the highest, noblest and best expression of religion. now, there is no single universal standard of right and wrong that is universally the same in its application to human life, in all ages, at all times, and under all circumstances and conditions. life is progressive; and as it moves on new conditions arise, new relations develop, new problems present themselves, and new and changing standards come with them. for example, human slavery and polygamy were both practiced in the days of abraham, jacob, moses, david, and solomon, and for centuries afterwards; and according to the bible, with the divine sanction and approval. the simple facts are, that according to the standards of those ages, according to the social development of the race at that time there was no moral turpitude in those practices. but who would dare defend them now? and yet these, or most of them--and i say it reverently and sincerely--were doubtless _good men_, judged by the standards of their time; and devoutly religious. coming directly now to the answer to the question: the ultimate, final authority in all matters of religion is the _individual conscience_, the inner light, that law written in the hearts of all men, aided and assisted by all the light of the present day, which includes all the light of the past that has come down to us, both in the bible and from all other courses, history, science and the record of human experiences generally interpreted and applied by human reason. that "natural impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive upward"; that "inner urge that ever pushes him onward and upward," will not only start him in the right way of life, but will remain with him and guide him to the end, if he will but hear and obey its voice, interpreted by reason. the reader will recall the opinion i reached concerning the bible after my special course of study and the process of reasoning that followed it. but after fifteen years of continued study i changed my opinion about it again. when i took a different perspective i got a different view. first, i was confronted with the fact that _the bible is here_. and while all my inherited opinions as to its origin, meaning and purpose were gone forever, the second question remained unanswered: _how came it here_? after all these years of study and investigation i found an answer to this question satisfactory to myself, which i have already indicated above, but will here more fully elaborate as a part of my new confession of faith. the old testament is but a record preserved and handed down to us, first of events, legends, opinions and beliefs that existed in crude form as traditions, long before a line of it was written; and thereafter, for a period covering approximately a thousand years, it is a record, tho evidently imperfect, of the progressive development of the jewish race, nation and religion, which are so inseparably bound together that they cannot be separated. let us go a little more into detail. no one claims that a line of the old testament was written before moses. (and it is here immaterial whether moses wrote the pentateuch or not. the jews believed he did.) yet the jewish system of religion, at least in its fundamental features, had been in existence since abraham, some five hundred years before, to say nothing of previous peoples back to noah, or even to adam and his sons. yet none of these had any bible whatever. if it is claimed by any one that moses was the originator of the jewish system, it leaves abraham and all his posterity, down to the time of moses, but pious pagans. but according to the record, moses added nothing to the _principles_ of religious worship as practiced by abraham and the other patriarchs. he simply reorganized, systematized, refined and somewhat elaborated the ancient system of worship, and at most reduced it to regularity and order. it was quite natural that moses should then reduce to writing the traditions and practices of his people, and make a more or less complete record of their laws, regulations, and civil and religious institutions; and especially of that system of religious worship which he had not originated, but organized, systematized and reduced to more perfect order, so that all this might be preserved for the benefit of the people thereafter. this was the beginning of the sacred literature of the jews which, when completed in its present form, was called the bible--meaning simply, the books. after this, tho the jewish system of religion, according to the jews themselves, was finished and complete, they had but five books of written scripture,--the pentateuch. yet thirty-four additional books were afterwards written and added to these. can these later books be quoted as _authority_ for that which existed, in some instances, a thousand years before they were written? certainly not. but the facts are plain. the system of religion already existing, but continually progressing, gave rise to these subsequent books, which are merely a record of the progress, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, practices, etc., of this peculiar and intensely religious people. thus we see that the old testament is a _growth_ produced by, and recording the historic development of the jewish race, nation and religion. it is simply the _literature_ of a people. its various parts were written by representatives of the people themselves, many of whose names are unknown, at various times covering a period of a thousand years, under many varying conditions and circumstances. it records in part their history, traditions, legends, myths, their beliefs, superstitions, hopes, fears, ideals and aspirations; and the legendary deeds of their national heroes, just as we find them in the literature of ancient greece, rome, england or scandinavia. it contains books of law, ritual, maxims, hymns, poetry, drama, letters, sermons, denunciations, rebukes, warnings, arguments, anecdotes and biography. no literature on earth is more multifarious in its contents. that it contains many contradictions, errors, inconsistencies and incredible statements is nothing to its discredit from this viewpoint of its origin. the wonder is that there are not more. but that it contains only what the various writers of its different parts, at the time they wrote, honestly thought and _believed_ to be true, may be freely admitted without in the least derogating from its true value, or adding supernatural sanctity to it. the old testament considered simply as a collection of ancient jewish literature, reveals to us to-day many of the stages in the national, racial and religious evolution of ancient israel, just as the literature of any nation or people reveals the same thing concerning them,--no more and no less. turning now for a moment to the new testament: is it the source and authority for christianity? or just the reverse? which was first of the two? that which goes before is the cause of that which comes after,--not the reverse. if christianity is to be considered as a separate and distinct system of religion, based upon divine authority, the system was finished, full and complete with the resurrection and ascension of christ--for the argument's sake, admitting these to be facts. hence christianity would have existed as a fact just the same, whether a line of the new testament had ever been written or not. as a matter of fact, not a line of it was written for twenty-five or thirty years after these events, and it was not completed for a hundred years thereafter. therefore the new testament did not produce christianity; nor is it the authority upon which it is based, but just the opposite. christianity produced the new testament and is the authority upon which it is based. so the new testament, like the old, is just literature,--no more. it records what the authors of its various parts, in the light of their time, and with the knowledge they possessed, as common, fallible, mortal men like ourselves, honestly thought, felt, hoped and believed was the truth. it gives us the only historical sketch we have of the origin and early development of that system of religion that in one form or another now dominates a third part of the human race. and as such it is the most valuable book the world possesses today. but it is no more the "infallible word of god" than the old testament, herodotus, josephus, plato or plutarch. the conclusion of the whole matter is: the bible is not the supernaturally inspired, infallible word of god, given by him as the source and final authority for religion, outside of which and since its close there is no more revelation; but it was written by fallible men of like passions with ourselves, who wrote,--not as they were infallibly and inerrantly guided by the holy spirit, but--as they were moved by the same impulses, passions and motives that have moved men in all ages to write their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, hopes, fears, aspirations and views of life. thus, as has already been said, the bible is a _product_ of religion instead of being its source and authority. thus the literature of the jewish race and the early christians _grew_. in course of time the thirty-nine books containing our present old testament were brought together in one collection. we do not know just when. afterwards the twenty-seven books of our new testament were collected in the same way. age and tradition first embalmed them in an air of sanctity; and then superstition made of them a fetish. until this "spell" is broken there can be no hope of anything like unity in the religious world. until this fetish of a "once for all divine and infallible revelation, completed and handed down from heaven" is abandoned, there will continue to be "diversities of interpretation," and consequently divisions, controversies, bickerings, persecutions and recriminations will continue among mankind, and wars will continue among nations. it may be said here that all the other sacred literature of the world, the bibles of other systems of religion, the zend avesta, the vedas, the upanishads, the koran, and others, had their origin in exactly the same source and manner as did our bible; and attained sanctity and authority among their respective followers in exactly the same way. but we need not go into it in detail. but when we return to our first proposition, that all religion in its origin, fundamental essence and ultimate purpose is not only one and the same, but is _natural_ and common to all humanity; that its processes are a continual revelation in nature and human experience in man's continuous progress onward and upward in the scale of human attainment; and that the bible, and all other literature of its kind, merely records a part of these processes and revelations in nature and experience, by which we are able to read the footprints of human progress in the past, and that these various writers, mostly unknown, merely recorded what they saw, felt, believed or understood at that time to be the truth; then all these difficulties of interpretation and sources of division vanish, and these books take on a new value and importance that they never otherwise attain. with this view of its origin and purpose the bible readily takes and holds its place as the most remarkable and invaluable book the world has ever known, or perhaps ever will know. it becomes at once an inexhaustible treasure-house of knowledge indispensable to the world's highest thought and progress,--knowledge which cannot be obtained anywhere else. in this view its many contradictions, discrepancies, errors of fact, and incredible statements become at once of little force and easily accounted for; and when we consider the various ages in which its parts were written, the many different authors of its different parts, the standards of human knowledge and attainment in these times, the wonder is that there are not more. the bible is thus the greatest book of _religious instruction_ that the world knows, or ever has known. it contains inexhaustible treasures of religious thought, feeling, emotion and experience, of every conceivable type and variety, which makes it indeed "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." it is an inexhaustible mine of the richest and purest gold, fused in the fires of human experience in many ages. but the gold is mixed with the sand and dirt and rocks and rubbish of the human frailties and weaknesses of the ages in which it was accumulated in this mine. the pure gold must be separated from this dross in the crucible of _present day_ human intelligence, reason and experience. it is like a great river that has wound its course thru many countries and as many different kinds of soil, receiving tributaries from many different sources and directions. it contains much pure water; but it is impregnated with the sand and dirt and mud of the channels thru which it has passed. it must be filtered and these elements eliminated before it can be put to its highest and best use. as a great book of religious instruction it contains riches in human experience and inspiration from which any and all may draw something to fit their particular case and need. but to get the highest value, each must separate the gold from the dross, the pure water from the sand and mud, according to his particular case and need. used in this way and for this purpose, the bible will doubtless remain the world's greatest book of religious instruction and inspiration. but to persist in the claim, in the light of present-day knowledge, that the whole of it is a divine revelation, supernaturally given from heaven, and infallibly and inerrantly true, is to perpetuate confusion and discord among men, and cause the wisest and best among them to discredit it altogether, as many of them have already done. but to reverence it for what it really is, a record of the religious evolution of the most intensely religious nation of antiquity, a great race that has contributed more to the religious life of the world than any other, is a credit to the intelligence of any one. to enshrine it in superstition, and make it a fetish, is idolatry. inspiration and revelation i am a strong believer in inspiration. but i believe it to be, like religion, natural, in a greater or less degree, to all peoples, in all ages and at all times; and _not_ something miraculous and supernatural, limited to a select few, of a single race, in a long past age, and since then has forever ceased. it is perhaps hard to define inspiration according to this view of it. like religion, its very simplicity and universality eludes any exact definition; especially by one person for another. that it has often been manifest in much greater degree in some persons than in others; and in these much stronger at some times than at others, is not to be doubted for a moment. it is no more a uniform condition than human attainment in intelligence and character are uniform. the simple dictionary definition will perhaps be adequate for our purpose,--at least as a starting point: "the inbreathing or imparting of an idea, emotion, or mental or spiritual influence; the elevating, creative influence of genius; also, that which is so inbreathed or imparted." it is that elevation of mental conception usually produced by intense concentration of mind, deep earnestness of thought, intense interest and zeal in a special subject or cause, or by some objective environment. a few simple illustrations will convey my meaning better than any lengthy metaphysical analysis. one night a long time ago, some sage philosopher was looking out upon the heavens, contemplating the beauties of the stars in their majesty and glory. these _inspired_ a train of thought in his mind that found utterance in the nineteenth psalm: "the heavens declare the glory of god, and the firmament showeth his handiwork...." this is inspiration if there ever was such a thing; and yet there is nothing miraculous or supernatural about it. it is as natural as the raindrops that fall from the clouds. on another occasion some devout and intensely religious saint, but at the same time probably a great sufferer from some adverse fortune, beheld a shepherd taking care of his sheep, providing for them food and water, caring for the sick and lame and nursing them back to strength, leading them out to pasture thru the narrow defiles of the mountains, amidst many dangers, yet guarding them diligently against all. and this sight gave rise to reflections on the divine providence that found expression in that sublime and beautiful twenty-third psalm: "the lord is _my_ shepherd; i shall not want. he maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he leadeth me beside still waters; he restoreth my soul." what is there in all the world's literature more inspired and more inspiring than this? and yet it is no more miraculous nor supernatural in its origin than the shepherd caring for his sheep. inspiration is simply a condition or state of mind. it is purely psychological in its nature, and may be produced by a great variety of causes; but is not supernatural. to some extent, and in some degree, but by no means always equal, it has been common among all peoples of the past; and at all periods of their history. specimens of it have come down to us in this age, enshrined and preserved in the literature, music and art of these peoples. it is as common among men today as it ever was in any past age. it is embodied in some degree, in most, if not all the literature, art and music of all ages; but by no means to the same extent in all. there are passages in dante, goethe, shakespeare, milton, browning, emerson, carlyle, bryant, longfellow, lowell, and a thousand others, ancient and modern, that are just as much the products of inspiration as the twenty-third psalm or the sermon on the mount. but no one would pretend to say that _all_ that these men wrote was equally inspired, or of equal value. what then is to be the test of inspiration? how are we to know what is inspired from what is not? there is no absolute and infallible test. the rule i have generally followed is what may be termed, the test of reproduction. the test of the perfect life of an oak is the production of an acorn that will produce another oak. the test of all complete and perfect animal life is its power to reproduce itself in the perpetuation of its own species. the test of inspiration is whether or not it reproduces its kind:--does it inspire? who can read the twenty-third psalm, or the sermon on the mount, the parable of the lost sheep, or the thirteenth chapter of first corinthians without feeling the spirit of inspiration in his own soul? therefore these must be inspired, because they inspire others. who can read emerson's essay on spiritual laws, or the over-soul, and not be inspired? or longfellow's resignation? or bryant's lines to a water-fowl, or thanatopsis, and not be inspired? then these must have been inspired, or they could not inspire. who today can sing the star spangled banner, geo. f. root's battle cry of freedom, or julia ward howe's battle hymn of the republic, without feeling a thrill of inspiration that stirs the very depths of the soul? then, these must have been inspired. time and space fail me to mention even any of the great orators of history from demosthenes to woodrow wilson, who by the power of their eloquence have been able to so inspire men to action as to change the course of empires and the destiny of nations. the secret of all this is that these men were themselves inspired,--not by some miraculous supernatural influence,--but by the natural intensity of their own earnestness, sincere devotion to, and all-absorbing interest in the cause they espoused, until they _lost themselves_ in their cause, and became thus inspired, and inspired others. yes, inspiration is as common and potent in the world today as it ever has been in any age of the past. its spirit still "enters into holy souls, making them friends of god and prophets." just a few words about revelation will suffice. revelation has been generally looked upon as almost synonymous if not identical, with inspiration; or so intimately connected with it that they could not be separated. what might be distinctively called revelation was the product, or out-put of inspiration. whatever truth may still remain as to these relations, since we have seen that inspiration is not something miraculous and supernatural, but purely and wholly natural, there can be no such a thing as revelation in any miraculous or supernatural sense. and yet, all that man has ever learned, accomplished, attained to, or achieved is a revelation. man, with all his boasted knowledge and achievement, has never created anything; all that man has ever done, at his best, has been to discover and utilize things and forces that are as old as the universe itself. all the discoveries he has ever made, all the knowledge he has ever gained, all that he has ever accomplished or achieved, has been the result of a continuous, unfolding revelation from the dawn of time to the present day; by which he has been able to discover, utilize and appropriate to his own use and benefit, that which has existed, in one form or another, eternally--all of which is a revelation, divine, but not miraculous. a few centuries ago copernicus gave us a new view of the universe. this was revelation. but the universe had existed in exactly the same form and relations since "the morning stars sang together." a little later newton revealed to us the law of gravitation. this was the first man ever knew of it. but the law had existed just the same since the chaos was first reduced to cosmos. the potential power of steam as a mechanical force was just as great in the days of noah or abraham as it is today. but it remained for robert fulton, but a little over a century ago, to apply it to practical use; and this was just as much a divine revelation as the call of abraham, or the vision of moses on the mount. the same is true of electricity. all the multifarious uses to which it has ever been applied, were just as potent in the days of shalmanezer or solomon as they are today. every discovery and new use to which it has been applied since the day that franklin drew it from the clouds and corked it up in a bottle, has only been so many new divine revelations; as much so as the vision of paul before the gate of damascus, or john on the isle of patmos. in fact more so. and on _ad infinitum_. all the progress man has ever made or ever will make is only the result of this divine revelation ever unfolding itself to him, just as fast, and no faster than he is able to appropriate and use it. thus god reveals himself to man, not miraculously, but naturally and _thru nature itself_, just in proportion to man's ability to understand, receive and appropriate it. jesus is quoted as saying: "i have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. howbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth." did that spirit of truth ever come? and if so when, if ever, was it withdrawn? he said in another place that it should remain forever. yes, i believe that same spirit of truth is still in the world today and has been ever since man has been here, guiding men into the way of truth just in proportion to their ability to receive it. and also, all truth is divine, because all truth comes from the same source--god. the truth concerning the universe, the laws of nature in the material world are thus just as divine, as are the moral laws governing man in his social relations, or those governing his relations to god. and the great store-house of nature has not yet revealed even an infinitesimal part of her infinite riches for man's use and benefit, that are yet to be revealed as man progresses onward and upward. instead of having reached the zenith of man's discoveries and achievements, and therefore a finished revelation, we have not yet passed the dawn. the heavens still declare the glory of god; but the scientist, philosopher, and astronomer of today sees much more in them than does the savage, or did the author of the nineteenth psalm. and as man goes on he will see more and more of god in nature, and understand him better, until the final fruition of his hope and faith is reached. inspiration and revelation are thus both living realities, as much so now as at any time in the past, and will continue so while mankind continues to inhabit this planet. all the progress, achievement and attainment mankind has ever made, from the days of the cave man and the stone age to the present time, are but the products, results, fruits of this inspiration and revelation, that has ever impelled and led mankind onward and upward. i firmly believe that the future holds in store a civilization, social status, human achievement, intellectual and moral attainment on this planet, as far above the present as this is above that of the cave man; and as inconceivable to us now as this was to him; and all this will be but the product, result, fruit of this eternal, never-ending process of inspiration and revelation that has brought mankind to where he is today. chapter viii jesus of nazareth we have now reached the most interesting, if not the most vital part of this confession of faith. thus far i have said almost nothing about the man of nazareth. "what then shall i do unto jesus, who is called christ?" the temptation is very great here to elaborate at some length upon my views of this, the most unique character in all history. i would like to give my views in full, with all the arguments, pro and con, as to his personality, character and mission. but this would extend this work to an undue length. some day i may write it more fully in another book. i must be content now to give as briefly as possible the conclusions i have reached, without going into any very detailed arguments to support them. what do we know about jesus anyway? he never wrote a line that we have any record of, except a few words in the sand when the jews brought a sinful woman before him to accuse her; and we know not what these words were. we have no record that he ever authorized any one else to write anything for, or about him. we have three short biographies of him that were written anywhere from fifty to eighty years after his death, the exact date of neither being known. the authors of two of these--mark and luke--it is admitted were not apostles; and there is no evidence that either of them ever knew jesus in his lifetime. it is admitted that each of them got all his information from another, and that one of them got his information from a person--paul--who himself never knew jesus in the flesh. it is admitted that the other--matthew--as we now have it, is not the original writing of the apostle of that name; that the original is entirely lost, and no one knows what additions or eliminations it underwent in its translation and transcription into another language. years later a fourth biography appeared by an unknown author,--tradition being the only evidence that it was written by the apostle john--so entirely different in its general make-up and contents, that but for the _name_ of its subject and a very few passages in it, no one would ever take it to be about the same person that formed the subject of the other three. when these four are taken together, and all repetitions and duplications are eliminated, it would leave us with a small pamphlet of some sixty or seventy pages as our only record of this most remarkable character of all history. none of the epistolary writings throw any light on the life, doings, sayings or personality of jesus. they only deal with deductions drawn from or based upon it. when we add to this the fact that at least fifty years had elapsed, after the events described had happened, before a line of it--at least in its present form--was written; and that in an age when few people could write and no accurate records were preserved, and when those that did then write, wrote only from memory or tradition; and when we further consider the varying and often very different accounts given by the different writers of the events they describe, differences in both the doings and sayings of jesus, altho these are mostly only matters of minor detail, yet we become more and more convinced that we have no means of knowing for certain just what jesus did; nor whether or not he uttered the exact words that the writers put into his mouth. compare today the memory of any individual as to the exact details of some event, even that he personally witnessed, fifty years ago; especially as to the exact words used on any particular occasion, and we will have more than a fair example of the imperfection of human memory. add to this the fact that this was in a very superstitious age, when every wonder was translated into a supernatural miracle, and our perplexity only becomes the greater. the doctrine of infallible guidance by divine inspiration is out of the question. if there was no other evidence against such an idea, the internal contents of these books themselves would forever destroy it. then, what do we _know_ about jesus? very little. i do not accuse these writers of any deliberate misrepresentation, conscious fraud or forgery. they undoubtedly wrote what they honestly and sincerely believed at the time to be the truth. but they wrote simply as fallible men like ourselves. their means of information in many cases was doubtless very meager and uncertain. they doubtless did the best they could under the circumstances. they wrote the truth as they understood it to be truth, just as any other historian or biographer would do today. and what they wrote is all we know. it is the only basis we have upon which we can form any judgment as to who or what jesus of nazareth was. what paul may have thought of him, and the system of theology he built thereon, is of but little value. what the church fathers may have thought, in the light of the age in which they lived, and their own standard of intellectual attainments, is of less. we have got to fall back upon the four gospels, and interpret them, not in the light of the superstitious age in which they were written; not assuming them to be exact truth; for in view of the fact of their own contradictions of each other on material and vital points this is impossible; but in the full light of this age of science and exact knowledge; of a more highly developed intelligence, and a deeper and more accurate reasoning power. with these records as a basis, or starting point, we must work out the problem for ourselves: who and what was jesus? first, he was a jew,--born, lived and died a jew. there is no evidence that he ever rejected, or abrogated the religion of his fathers. that he tried to reform it, inject into it a deeper spiritual life, a more rational and higher ethical standard, will more fully appear as we proceed. he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it,--not by dying on the cross, for the law nowhere says, or even intimates, anything about anybody dying on a cross or anywhere else. he came to fulfill it by living up to its full ethical and spiritual import, and teaching others to do so. "moses had summed up the law in ten commandments, the pharisees of the time of jesus had made of these ten thousand--to be exact, six hundred and thirteen--and jesus reduced them to two,"--and kept them. this is how he fulfilled the law. next, jesus was the son of joseph and mary by the same process of natural generation by which all other human beings come into the world. paul, the earliest and most elaborate writer of the new testament, nowhere gives us the remotest hint that he had ever heard of any such a thing as the supernatural birth; and it is wholly unthinkable that if such had been the truth he should have been ignorant of it; or that if it sustained such a vital relation to the christian system of religion to which he devoted his whole life, he should never in the remotest manner refer to it. mark's gospel, written to the best of our knowledge about fifty years after the death of jesus, nowhere refers to it. as we have already seen, we do not know what the apostle matthew may have written, as we do not have his original writing at all. the early ebionite copies of the greek translation and transcription did not contain the first two chapters, and consequently no reference to the supernatural birth. we are left to fall back on luke and we will have to examine his story a little in detail. in all of its details, including the genealogy, it is quite different from that in matthew. luke alone mentions the visit to jerusalem when jesus was twelve years old, and in which he was missed from the company when they started on the return home. when joseph and mary found him in the temple, she is quoted as saying, "son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold thy father and i have sought thee sorrowing." now, if jesus was _not_ really the son of joseph, but of the holy ghost, his mother certainly knew it; and if so her statement, "_thy father_ and i have sought thee sorrowing," was not only a deliberate untruth; but if jesus was god, he also knew it was an untruth. another inconsistency in the story is, that if jesus was thus the son of the holy ghost, and therefore god, and his mother knew it, why should she worry about his being missing from the caravan? couldn't god take care of himself and find his way back to nazareth at any time he wished to go? on another occasion, mentioned by all the synoptics, when jesus was teaching, his mother and brethren are reported as calling for him, evidently for the purpose of restraining him in his work, or persuading him to desist,--and this is the interpretation that has been most generally given to these passages, and the answer which jesus gave supports it as correct,--such a course is entirely inconsistent with any conception that his mother at the time _knew_ him to be the supernaturally born son of god. turning now to the fourth gospel, we have not only an entirely different character, but an entirely different philosophy as to his life and mission. not a word is said or anywhere hinted about a divine birth. "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.... and the word became flesh, and dwelt among us." to state it in the simplest words i can command, the theory of the fourth gospel is that of the old alexandrian philosophy of the incarnation of the divine logos, or word, or message from god, in human flesh, applied to jesus of nazareth. his pure and simple manhood is recognized, into which, in some mystical manner, nowhere explained, the divine logos, or word, or life, or god himself, entered into _the man_ jesus, whereby he became the son of god and the messiah,--and not by the process of miraculous generation in the flesh. the old ebionite doctrine was that this divine logos, or word, or spirit of god entered jesus at his baptism, and that he thereby became the messiah, distinctively "the son of god" by divine selection, and not by supernatural generation. there is no evidence that his disciples during his lifetime ever had the slightest conception that he had a supernatural birth. when philip tells nathaniel that he has found the messiah of whom moses and the prophets wrote, he also tells him that this messiah is "jesus of nazareth, the son of joseph." even after the death of jesus the disciples seem to have had no knowledge of any supernatural birth. the two on their way to emmaus, after the crucifixion, express their disappointment: "we hoped that it was he who should redeem israel." no such expression of disappointment can possibly be reconciled with any thought that this jesus who had so recently been crucified was the "eternal son of god" incarnated in human flesh. on the day of pentecost peter speaks of him in no higher terms than "a man approved of god." if jesus was supernaturally born, as a matter of course his mother knew it all the time; yet during the whole life of jesus she is nowhere mentioned as giving the slightest intimation of it; but on the contrary all the record we have of anything she did do or say would naturally lead to just the opposite conclusion. of course no one else knew anything about it. taking it naturally for granted, that at least at the beginning, his disciples knew nothing of it, if they ever learned it afterwards, there must have been some special time, condition or circumstance under which they came into possession of these remarkable facts. yet, there is not a hint in the new testament about any such time, place, circumstance or incident. how then did the idea of a supernatural birth and the deification of jesus come about, if it was not a real fact? very simply and quite naturally. any one acquainted with ancient history knows that in that age of the world, and for centuries before, it had been almost a universal custom, especially in greece and the roman empire, to attribute some supernatural origin to, and deify their heroes,--sometimes while they were yet alive, but most certainly after their death. just so, after the death of this remarkable man, and his cult continued to gather adherents, time and distance lent perspective, and he naturally grew larger and greater in their estimation, until, naturally and inevitably, permeated by the universal thought of the age in which they lived, they gradually came to look more and more upon their great master as being something more than ordinarily human, until this thought gradually ripened into his deification; and of course to be consistent with this he _must have been_, like all other deified heroes, supernaturally born. and out of this the legend of bethlehem, in both its forms, in matthew and luke, somehow grew,--nobody knows exactly how. it is just like many other myths of past ages. the first we know of them they are full grown and complete; yet, like all other things, they _must_ have had a natural and gradual growth. as to where he was born we do not know, nor is it material. it is by far the most probable that he was born at nazareth where his parents lived. the legend that he was born at bethlehem was doubtless a pure conjecture, made necessary by those who accepted him as the messiah of hebrew prophecy, to make it correspond with the prophetic declaration that the messiah should be born at bethlehem of judah. this fully accounts for the bethlehem story as the place of his birth. the fact is they are all purely conjectural, made to fit into some preconceived notion of his personality or character. we have no reliable account whatever of his birth or early life. we now come to consider the man,--yes, the man christ jesus. we have already said he was a jew and lived and died one, with apparently no thought or purpose other than to reform and correct the abuses into which his people had lapsed, and revive and intensify the deep spiritual and ethical meaning of religion. born of the most intensely religious race of all antiquity, he was the most intensely religious of his race. he perceived a new conception of god, not as the arbitrary ruler and vindictive judge of his people, but as the universal father of all men, not anthropomorphic, but infinite spirit, whose greatest attributes were love, justice, mercy and truth, expressed in the great term fatherhood; and that all men are children of the great father, and therefore brothers. this expresses his fundamental philosophy and working basis of life. upon it he undertook to build up and establish, not a new system of religion, but a new order of life. the central idea in this was man's direct relationship to god. in his own life he embodied a perfect example of his ideal. he thus became not god incarnate bodily in human flesh, nor the son of god in any _different_ sense than all are sons of god--except perhaps in degree and not in kind--but the most complete reflection and interpretation of god in terms of human life that the world had ever known before his time, has ever known since, or perhaps ever will know. but this last statement is saying more than any man can know for certain. we know not what god may yet have to reveal to mankind, nor how he will reveal it. his course of life and teaching naturally brought him into direct conflict with the prevailing order of his time. we need not discuss that in detail. it soon led to a violent and tragic death, before he had fairly begun his work. we cannot form any guess what _might have been_ the result if he had been permitted to live out a normal life and continue his teaching. he only met the same fate that many prophets before him had met, and many more since. if he should appear today here in america and pursue the same course toward public institutions and popular beliefs and practices, he would meet with a reception little different from what he met in palestine nineteen hundred years ago. he might not indeed be crucified on a cross; but he would stand a good chance to be cast into jail and sent to a penitentiary for a term of years for sedition and attempting to interfere with the established order. and no persons would be more active in his prosecution than some of the modern pharisees who occupy high places in that great institution that bears his name. if he had appeared in europe some four or five hundred years ago, he would have been almost dead certain to meet the same fate of john huss, savonarola and giordano bruno. but now, as then, the poor, down-trodden and oppressed would doubtless hear him gladly. there is no reliable evidence that he ever claimed to be the messiah of hebrew prophecy. he is quoted on several occasions as having accepted the appellation when applied to him by others. on one occasion only is he quoted as having affirmatively declared himself the messiah; and that was to the woman of samaria, and the whole circumstance of it renders it incredible. it would certainly be a very unusual course to take, for the jewish messiah to come and announce himself as such, not to the jews themselves, but to a very obscure, not to say disreputable woman, of the most despised race known to the jews. it was however quite natural that, after his followers had universally accepted him as the jewish messiah, they should recall some occasional remarks that he may have made, upon which to base this belief; and that these remarks would finally take more concrete form, until when written, fifty to a hundred years after they were uttered, they were perhaps entirely different from anything jesus ever said. as a matter of fact there is nothing in the life or teachings of jesus, as recorded in the new testament, that at all corresponds to the personality or character of the messiah of hebrew prophecy. and may i add here, that the messiah of hebrew prophecy, for whose coming the jews were looking at that time, and for which most of the jews have been looking ever since, is but a fiction and a myth, born entirely out of the patriotic devotion and fervid poetic fancy of the old hebrew prophets? in the days of israel's adversity, when all the really unquestioned messianic prophecies were uttered, the mind of prophet and people turned back to the golden days of david's glorious reign; and in their intense patriotism and unfaltering faith in jehovah, they hoped and _believed_ that he would some day raise up a king of the line and house of david that would restore the ancient glory of israel; and so they prophesied--"the wish being father to the thought." and this is all there is to old testament messianic prophecy. and a great many of the most intelligent jews of the reformed school of today are beginning to think the same. but if there was ever a true prophet of god, a man in whom the god-life in human form was truly manifest, a man supremely divine,--not by miraculous generation, but by spiritual union with god, whereby god indeed became manifest in human flesh,--that man was jesus of nazareth. and as such he becomes the eternal example for all mankind after him. as a man he justly commands the highest homage that the world can give to man. but make him god, and the chain that connects him with man is at once broken. if jesus was god, and therefore incapable of temptation or sin, the temptation and triumph in the wilderness becomes a farce, without any meaning to mankind whatever. but as a mortal man struggling with and overcoming the strongest temptations of life, it has infinite significance to all mankind. if he overcame as a man, so may i. as a god, the sweat of gethsemane and the agony of the cross are but mockery--not equal to a single pin-prick in a whole mortal life. but as a man, struggling with the last enemy, with eternity before him, a means of escape at hand, but deliberately devoting his life and his all in the most excruciatingly torturous manner known to human ingenuity in cruelty, it becomes a spectacle to command the awe and admiration of angels. jesus is indeed the savior of the world, not by having _redeemed_ mankind with the purchase-price of his own blood; but by his life and words in teaching men how to live, and by his death how to die, if necessary, for the right. i know of no more fitting close to this my view of jesus, than a quotation from ernest renan's apostrophe to jesus. ernest renan was called an infidel because he abandoned the church of his fathers, and with it the deity of jesus. but he found in jesus the supreme model of all human life, the most perfect and complete reflection of the god-life in mankind the world has ever known. "repose now in thy glory, noble founder. thy work is finished; thy divinity is established. fear no more to see the edifice of thy labors fall by any fault. henceforth beyond the reach of frailty, thou shalt witness from the heights of divine peace the infinite results of thy acts. at the price of a few hours of suffering, which did not even reach thy grand soul, thou hast brought the most complete immortality. for thousands of years the world will depend on thee: banner of our contests, thou shalt be the standard about which the hottest battle will be given. a thousand times more alive, a thousand times more beloved, since thy death than during thy passage here below, thou shalt become the cornerstone of humanity so entirely, that to tear thy name from this world would be to rend it to its foundation. complete conqueror of death, take possession of thy kingdom, whither shall follow thee, by the royal road which thou hast traced, ages of followers." liberty _my new church relations and second call to the ministry_ i have thus outlined, perhaps at greater length than was necessary, the processes thru which i passed in my religious life from my early childhood to mature middle life. i have shown how i was born in the bondage of orthodoxy; and how i was ultimately driven to abandon, not only it, but religion altogether. i then outlined the processes thru which i passed that led me to a satisfactory settlement in my own mind, of the problems embraced in the general and comprehensive term religion, which i have tried to describe as "my new confession of faith." from the time i left the church and ministry until i reached the conclusions herein outlined, was about fifteen years. i reached them purely by my own investigations, not knowing that there was a church on earth that would accept me in its fellowship while holding them. i could not perjure myself by subscribing to a creed which i not only did not believe, but despised, merely for the sake of the social prestige or business advantage such church membership might give me, as i have known some to do, and was often importuned to do myself. whatever other shortcoming may be charged to my account, it can never be said of me that i was untrue to my own moral convictions in these matters; altho this tenacity to principle, or as it was often called, "hard-headed stubbornness," has more than once caused me embarrassment, and put me at some disadvantage in business. i could not "let the tongue say what the heart denied." my views of the church itself had also necessarily changed with my changed views of its theology. i no longer looked upon it as an institution of supernatural sanctity and authority. to me it is simply the assembly. any assembly of people gathered together for the worship of god is a true church. it does not depend upon any particular form of organization, the maintenance and administration of any particular ordinances, or so-called sacraments. it does not depend upon "succession,"--apostolic, baptismal, ordination, organization or otherwise. "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am i in the midst of them." this is all that is essential to a true church. it depends upon unity of purpose, rather than uniformity of belief. hence, any assembly of people, anywhere, united together for the worship of god, striving to live better lives themselves, and to help others to do the same, and thus make this world better and human life happier, meets all the essentials of a true church of god, regardless of any form of organization, ordinance, sacrament, creed, belief or ecclesiastical pedigree. but for years,--as will presently appear,--i did not know that any church existed, that would come any way near meeting this definition. i naturally supposed that any organization calling itself a church was based upon belief in the bible as the infallible word of god, and the sole source of authority in all matters of religion. this i had completely abandoned and could never go back to it. in fact i did not trouble myself to inquire for a possible church fellowship. i supposed i was forever barred from any church membership whatever, except that i felt a welcome in attending the reformed jewish synagogue, where the preaching was on a high intellectual plane, sane and rational, dealing with modern problems instead of ancient creeds and dogmas; and i liked this. but i was not a jew; and i knew i could never accept their theology. all i could ever expect was to be a welcome visitor, "a stranger within the gate." however, i must go back a little. some few years after i left the ministry of the methodist church, and while still living not far from the last church i served, a friend one day asked why i had left the church and ministry. i told him very briefly a few of my doctrinal difficulties; to which he replied, "ashley, you are a unitarian." i thought but little of it. i was not really interested in churches any more anyway. but he handed me a pamphlet to read and told me he was a unitarian back in ohio where he came from. i read the pamphlet at his request. i do not now remember what it was, or just what it was about. but i was impressed with the fact that the views therein expressed were very similar to my own; and if that was unitarianism i was also probably a unitarian. but still it aroused no special interest as there was no unitarian church anywhere about. if there had been, i might then have been led to investigate further. but years went by, and all the perceptible effect was that i would occasionally think how nearly i must be a unitarian, until i finally determined that if i ever had an opportunity i would investigate the matter further. in the summer of , business relations led me to move to dallas, texas. passing on the street one day, i noticed the sign, first unitarian church. a new inspiration came to me. i now had an opportunity to investigate just how near my religious convictions coincided with those of this church. when the church opened after the summer vacation i began to attend its services, only occasionally at first, reading in the meantime much of its literature kept at the church for free distribution. i became intensely interested and by the spring of i was a regular attendant. the more i read the more i found myself in substantial accord with what i understood to be the salient points of twentieth century unitarianism. i found especially these points that impressed me very deeply: it had no creed. it had no specific statement of beliefs. it had no doctrinal standard or test of religious faith as a condition of church membership. it not only permitted, but encouraged the greatest freedom of thought and the most searching investigation of all subjects presented for consideration, believing firmly that truth had nothing to fear from such a course. i found it had no test of membership but that of human character. i found a man was judged by what _he is_, and not by what he thinks or believes. i found its service to be reverent and dignified, but free from useless ceremonial. the preaching by rev. george gilmour, its minister, i found to be profound and scholarly, yet deeply spiritual and inspiring, dealing primarily with present-day religious and social problems rather than creeds, dogmas or beliefs. i was profoundly surprised and much gratified to find a church and people and minister so broad, so liberal and so fraternal as i found this first unitarian church in dallas. i soon found that whether i agreed with all other unitarians or not, i at least had here a free and cordial fellowship for the worship of god and the service of man, without any ecclesiastical harness to put on, or any strings to limit me to prescribed bounds. a new light dawned upon me. the bondage of orthodoxy i had broken years ago. but i wandered for years in the desert of agnosticism, famishing and unfed. i had found in my own heart the bread of life; but i had no table at which to spread it--and man being a social animal as well as a religious one, cannot live alone. my name was soon on the membership roll of this church, where i hope it will remain until i am translated, no matter where else i may serve and place it. it was here that i first found my bearings and placed my feet on the solid rock of rational religion. the supreme satisfaction, the peace of mind, serene content, and supernal joy of this situation i shall not attempt to describe. those that were born in a liberal faith and have never known anything else can neither understand nor appreciate it. it is indeed a new birth, a new light, a new life of freedom, fellowship and fraternity in a common service for god and humanity. the new call to preach i have before described what i once interpreted as a "divine call to preach." it was the new-born enthusiasm of one who felt himself "a brand snatched from the eternal burning" to proclaim the same deliverance to what he believed to be a lost and ruined world; to warn sinners to "flee from the wrath to come." it was then the consuming passion of a soul on fire with zeal for the salvation of all mankind from what he believed to be an overwhelming and eternal destruction that awaited them, and might come upon them at any moment without warning. and now, having tasted of the sweets of liberty, i desired "to proclaim liberty thruout the land to all the inhabitants thereof," the same liberty to those yet in the bondage of fear from which i had escaped and to those who were still wandering in the deserts of doubt, looking for a haven of rest, and not knowing that it was so near. i knew that the great masses were inside of the houses in which they were born, with the doors all bolted and the windows fastened down. not a ray of light is permitted to enter there, because a new thought might explode their delusions and disturb their repose. for these there is little hope. but i knew there were yet thousands--i had met and talked with many of them--who, as i was for years, were wandering in the deserts, hungering for the bread of life, looking for a fellowship where they might have freedom of thought and conscience, and yet join with others of like minds in the free worship of nature's one great god. i would address myself to these. i was so long one of them, i thought my experience might be of benefit. it would aid me in helping them. i would tell my story of bondage, of deliverance, of wandering in the deserts of doubt, of the dawning light, of the full blaze of the sun of liberty, of freedom and fellowship in the worship of god and the service of mankind. i have now spent five years in this service, the happiest and best years of my life. they have been crowned with some degree of success. i am not yet old. i hope to be able to devote at least a score of years yet to this happy service. having escaped from bondage to liberty myself, my only ambition now is to carry the message of deliverance to others, until they shall likewise find freedom in the fatherhood of god, the brotherhood of man, the leadership of jesus, salvation by character instead of creed, and the hope of the progress of mankind onward and upward forever. my only regret is that i did not discover this way of light and liberty long before, so that i might have had more years to devote to this happy service. an afterword dear reader, my story is finished. i have had but one motive in writing it: a hope that i may in some way help others who are still in the meshes of ecclesiastical bondage, or disturbing doubts, to find the way of light and liberty in a rational religious faith. to what extent i have succeeded or failed, only the future and my readers can determine. if you have derived any benefit from it; if i have been able to cast any ray of light along your pathway; if it has helped you to solve any problem that has perplexed you, i am fully repaid for the labor of writing it. i have not said nearly all that is in my heart, nor all i would like to say, but all the compass of this work would permit. but if i have stirred up in the mind of the reader a desire to know more of the questions so briefly discussed herein, and to press his investigations further for this purpose, i have little doubt as to what will be the ultimate result. and just one more thing, dear reader: if this book has been of any benefit to you; if it has helped to clear up any doubts in your mind, and point the way toward light and liberty in your own life and experience, may it not do as much for others? it may be the saving of a life from bondage to liberty; to that "peace that passeth understanding," in a rational religious faith, based, not upon dogma or creed, but upon man's fundamental nature and need, interpreted and applied by that highest and best light that man has, enlightened reason, for the same god who is the author of religion is also the author of reason.