-\ I 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 mh m» mn m\i imi «m wn umb bw inn bib w« «« ^^^ 
 
 019 757 104 4 W 
 
' — L 
 
 • 1 
 
 FREEDOM OF TEACHING: 
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO AN ATTACK IN THE" 
 
 BOSTON WATCHMAN AND REFLECTOR, 
 
 BY 
 
 W. P. ATKINSON, 
 
 Professor of English Literature in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
 
 PRINTED, NOT PUBLISHED 
 
 1870. 
 
 
0379 51 i 
 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 Of the papers forming this little tract, the first was printed in 
 the " Watchman and Reflector " in answer to an attack upon me 
 by a writer in that journal, and was accompanied by long edito- 
 rial comments, to which the second paper is a reply. This sec- 
 ond paper, with the exception of the notes, and a paragraph or 
 two, was offered to the editor and refused, on the score of 
 its length ; I had therefore no alternative but to remain silent or 
 print it myself. Nothing but the feeling that I and the institution 
 to which I belong had been placed in a false position would have 
 induced me to obtrude myself and my opinions upon the atten- 
 tion of the public. I wish simply to correct misrepresentations 
 and misapprehensions; to assume the entire responsibility of any 
 oversight I may have committed, if any can be fairly proved 
 against me, and to place, if possible, the question of the proper 
 method of historical and literary teaching upon a footing which 
 will be acknowledged to be the right one by all fair-minded men. 
 If I can do this, the controversy, perhaps, will not have proved 
 an unprofitable one. 
 
 For a lecturer to make an unfair use of his opportunities to 
 inculcate certain theological dogmas, whether orthodox or unor- 
 thodox, is one thing; for him to speak of historical or literary 
 subjects from his own point of view, whether that be orthodox 
 or unorthodox, is quite another. To deny him that privilege 
 would be virtually to shut the mouth of every lecturer who did 
 not chance to agree with all the dogmas of some particular re- 
 ligious creed which is covertly assumed to be infallible. No 
 teacher with a single spark of independence would consent to 
 be tongue-tied, or else to conform his whole method of teaching 
 to some system of thought in which he did not believe. The 
 institution of learning which submits to such dictation becomes 
 at once a sectarian institution, for it is simply impossible to 
 deal with literary or historical subjects in any manner that de- 
 serves the name of teaching, unless upon some theory. The 
 philosophy of history of Bossuet is radically different from the 
 philosophy of history of Guizot, and that again from the phi- 
 
losopby of Auguste Comte. The view which a Roman Catho- 
 lic lecturer would take of the English Reformation or of the 
 writings of John Milton, would diifer toto ccelo .from those 
 which an Anglican churchman would take ; and these again would 
 diifer fundamentally from those of a New England Puritan or a 
 Genevan Calvinist or Mr. Froude. I cannot see how this is to 
 be helped. Either history and literature are to become the un- 
 meaning things which they have become in so many of our school 
 manuals and compendiums, or a lecturer is to have liberty to speak 
 in accordance with the faith that is in him, — candidly, fairly and 
 courteously always, and with no assumption of authority : and 
 thus speaking he has a right to claim a confidence on the part 
 of his hearers that he, in common with themselves, is only en- 
 deavoring to find out the truth. 
 
 I did not suppose I should be misunderstood, when I said that I 
 should be happy to invite a scholar belonging to the Baptist 
 sect to lecture for me on historical or literary subjects, as in- 
 tending to say that I should be happy to invite him to give a 
 lecture on Baptist theology, but I believe I have been so under- 
 stood. The idea of turning a college lecture-room into an arena 
 for sectarian disputes, is so absurd that it did not occur to me 
 that such an interpretation would be put upon my proposal. 
 On the other hand, it seems to me that he would give but a 
 shallow and unprofitable lecture on many of the grave subjects 
 which constitute the essence both of history and literature 
 if he did not let it very plainly be seen what form of religious 
 faith underlay his philosophy. And is not the emptiness and 
 unprofitableness of so much of our teaching mainly due to that 
 moral cowardice which, for fear of exciting sectarian animosity, 
 dwells only on the surface of the subject, and never penetrates 
 to those thoughts which are all that make such subjects worthy 
 of study ? Two eminent gentlemen have done me the honor to 
 lecture in my place ; it was plain to me, though they said no 
 word on theology, what some of their religious opinions were, 
 and where I differed from and where I agreed with them. That 
 seems to me to be the true unfaithfulness which my critic talks 
 about, either to have no opinions, or, having them, meanly to 
 conceal them. 
 
 I ought perhaps to add that the evening course of lectures, 
 one of which gave so much offence to my critic, was not ad- 
 dressed to a class of young persons, but to a miscellaneous 
 audience of adults, to whom the attempt to apply class teaching 
 would have been simply an absurdity. I had to accommodate 
 
the form of my address to the character of the audience which 
 presented itself. 
 
 I have constantly spoken of history and literature together, 
 because I do not see how, in any instruction worth giving, they 
 can possibly be separated. Literature becomes a poor and con- 
 temptibly shallow bellelettristic affair when taken out of its 
 connection with history, and treated as anything but what it 
 really is, the history of a nation's thought. 
 
 The nature of the attack that has been made upon me will, I 
 think, be a justification in the eyes of those readers to whom 
 this tract is chiefly addressed for appending to these two arti- 
 cles the substance of a private letter to a friend, who asked me 
 for further information as to the exact nature of my religious 
 belief, which, as I was not giving" theological lectures, of course 
 only came out incidentally. I print the letter because, as what 
 is called in current theological parlance a "rationalist," I am 
 supposed by many very good people not to believe anything ; 
 when in fact on the most fundamental points of religious belief 
 I am really at one with what are called " orthodox" believers. 
 I have no disposition to parade my opinions before the public 
 on such sacred subjects, but on the other hand, I have no 
 opinions which I am ashamed to avow. My views on some 
 points considered vital by many, are doubtless very unorthodox, 
 but the time is fast going by, except among the most ignorant 
 and bigoted of sectarians, when it is considered a mark of 
 moral turpitude to differ from the opinion of the majority in 
 points of speculative belief. 
 
 I am little concerned to defend myself against writers who 
 merely drop into my lecture-room on purpose to find grouud for 
 quarrel or material for a cheap newspaper sensation by attack- 
 ing a wholly unsectarian school. I am concerned to apologize 
 to my real audience and to exonerate the Institute of Tech- 
 nology from all responsibility if I have incautiously overstepped 
 any boundary which in lectures delivered in such a school it is 
 right and proper to set up. That boundary would be set at 
 very different points, however, by different persons. The bigot, 
 determined that no opinion but his own shall have a hearing, 
 would set it in one place; the candid inquirer, determined to 
 hear all sides, at quite another. A lecturer who, like that late 
 eminent and excellent man, the chemist Faraday, believed that 
 the lines of scientific and religious thought ran parallel, but 
 never touched, could lecture on magnetism at the Royal Institu- 
 tion, aud then preach, as he was wont to do, in the little " Sande- 
 
6 
 
 manian " church in which he was a deacon,* without the least 
 danger of his theology offending his scientific hearers, or his 
 science undermining the faith of his church. But a lecturer on 
 history and literature who, while agreeing with the orthodox 
 believer in viewing all History as governed by Divine Law, looks 
 upon creeds and churches as only the representatives of succes- 
 sive developments of man's religious nature, just as much as 
 sciences and philosophies are the successive results of the prog- 
 ress of his intellect nearer and nearer towards absolute Truth, 
 such a lecturer has sometimes a delicate task to determine what 
 is and what is not appropriate to his circumstances and his 
 place. I have repelled with the contempt which it deserves the 
 charge of " propagandism," of unfairly making use of my op- 
 portunities to advocate a particular creed. Have I, or have I 
 not, in the earnestness with which I hold to that philosophy of 
 history which seems to me to be true, unconsciously laid such 
 stress upon my own religious views, or so criticised the views 
 of others as to give offence to any candid hearer ? Those only 
 can determine who heard the whole of my course. I certainly did 
 not think I was transgressing legitimate bounds when, for in- 
 stance, in speaking of the recent Spanish Revolution, and in 
 connection with that the fall of Spain from the height of her 
 ancient greatness, I traced that fall in part to the intolerance 
 and bigotry of the Spanish people, and read from an article in 
 the Quarterly Review a picturesque account of a Spanish 
 auto daft. What is historical instruction good for if we are not 
 to draw such lessons from it ? As little did I think myself 
 violating any proprieties, when I read from the printed copy 
 of the Encyclical Letter of Pius IX. in connection with what 
 I had to say of the Ecumenical Council, or when I quoted, 
 in connection with some remarks on Protestantism and its 
 progress, that frightful saying, which has come down to us 
 from St. Augustine, that one of the pleasures of heaven will 
 consist in looking over its battlements at the torments of 
 the damned below. These are matters of history, and how 
 are we to deal with history adequately, if we omit all men- 
 tion of them in their proper place ? But my critic would 
 give the impression that my whole course of eighteen lec- 
 tures was made up of such material, when, in fact, nearly the 
 whole of what could be twisted into theological discussion, or, as 
 
 * See the recent biography of Faraday, by Dr. Bencc Jones. 
 
my critic phrases it, " infidel propagandisra " was confined to 
 only two. In those two I perhaps, uufortunately, made use of a 
 discourse prepared for an occasion on which I could not, by any 
 ingenuity, be supposed to- be hampered by professorial proprie- 
 ties. If, in using such material, I really offended, I wish to 
 apologize — not to my critic, who came to take offence, — but to 
 my real audience; and, in doing so, wish to exonerate the Insti- 
 tute of Technology from all responsibility, by taking the whole 
 blame upon myself. I am as entirely of the opinion that the 
 Institute of Technology is not to be made the arena for sectarian 
 controversy, on the one hand, as I am, on the other, that, in all 
 schools of learning that deserve the name, the instructors, while 
 giving their instruction calmly, impartially, and honestly, should 
 be permitted frankly to state their own jDoint of view. The 
 question, in regard to any particular teacher, must always be 
 mainly a question of confidence in his personal integrity. Is he 
 an honest and impartial seeker after truth ? or is he covertly 
 abusing his opportunities unduly to influence the minds of his 
 pupils, or to build up some orthodox or unorthodox sect? On 
 this point I am very ready to abide by the judgment of those 
 who really know me. The conception of an ucsectarian school, 
 very common among a certain class of people is, that a padlock 
 shall be put upon the mouths of all its teachers, in regard to all 
 subjects ever so remotely connected with religion, in order that 
 all instruction on such subjects may be confined to institutions 
 which are avowedly sectarian. I cannot speak for others, but 
 for my part, I would rather send my son to be taught by an 
 honest man, whose opinions differed most widely from my own, 
 than to a man who was so indifferent to all ethical truth that he 
 cared not on what principles he based his instruction. 
 
 It is perhaps incumbent on me to make another explanation. 
 I had made considerable progress during the summer vacation 
 on the preparation of a course of lectures on the History and 
 Literature of England during the eighteenth century, in the 
 hope that sufficient assistance would be furnished me in the 
 multifarious duties of my regular instruction to give me leisure 
 to complete the preparation of this course for my evening audi- 
 ence. In this I was disappointed. My only assistance was the 
 volunteer assistance of friends, and I was obliged to notify my 
 evening audience of a necessary departure from my programme. 
 In my very first lecture I gave notice that on Monday evenings 
 I should discuss the subject — often extemporaneously — of the 
 present aspect of affairs abroad and at home, as the latest 
 
8 
 
 chapter of history, using as my materials the current literature 
 of the day, and going back into the past to find the explanation 
 of the present; on Thursday evenings I should be obliged to 
 read old lectures, some of which I had had the honor of deliv- 
 ering some years ago at the Lowell Institute. On this footing 
 I had the pleasure of retaining a small but regular and appar- 
 ently much interested audience, in spite of the remoteness of 
 my lecture-room and the length of the course. Occasionally, 
 during the latter part of the series, stray hearers would drop 
 in ; and I believe it is in consequence of having had the honor 
 of the occasional attendance of such auditors, that I have be- 
 come the object of newspaper abuse. 
 
 It is unnecessary for me to say that no one but myself is in 
 the remotest degree responsible for any sentiment or opinion 
 advanced in this pamphlet. There are, I believe, in the Faculty 
 of the Institute of Technology, representatives of a very great 
 variety of religious beliefs. 
 
 W. P. A. 
 
To the Editor of the Watchman and Reflector: — 
 
 A friend has just brought to my notice an article in your issue 
 of last week by a contributor who comments on one of the lec- 
 tures in my evening Lowell course at the Institute of Technology. 
 The garbled report of the single lecture, which is the only one 
 your contributor seems to have attended, gives about as correct 
 an idea of the true spirit of the whole as, the distorted portrait 
 of a caricature paper. With the animus and intention of the 
 communication, however, I do not wish here to concern myself, 
 but only to claim a little of your space in order to correct some 
 of your contributor's misconceptions. 
 
 The lecture which he heard was one of a short series in which 
 I had undertaken to give an account of some of the present 
 aspects of European affairs, considered as a part of history, 
 endeavoring, as I proceeded, to trace the causes of present phe- 
 nomena in the records of the past. Of course, the religious 
 questions of the day, especially in connection with the Couneil 
 of the Romish church, came in for a share of notice, as they must 
 wherever historical questions, whether relating to the present or 
 the past, are properly treated. As I am an anti-supernaturalist 
 in my religious views, I, of course, dealt with such subjects as I 
 was bound to do as an honest thinker, from the anti-supernatural 
 point of view. 
 
 Your contributor must be singularly ignorant of the condition 
 of religious thought at the present day if he does not know that 
 there is a large and rapidly increasing class of thoughtful and 
 earnestly religious persons in this and all other intellectual 
 communities, — though perhaps in his intolerance he may be in- 
 clined to refuse them the name of religious, — who, disbelieving 
 altogether the miraculous element in the Gospel narratives 
 as entirely as they disbelieve the stories of the miracles of 
 Popish saints, and rejecting the " Eibliolatry " current in the 
 sects, do yet accept all the great fundamental truths which 
 Jesus preached, of love to God and love to man, of repentance 
 for sin, and accountability to and dependence on a Father in 
 heaven, and who, therefore, consider themselves as much entitled 
 2 
 
10 
 
 to the name of Christian as any so-called " Evangelical " Chris- 
 tian, who certainly, if he is a consistent Protestant, makes no 
 claim to infallibility for his sect or his creed. The Christianity 
 •which he, in common with the Roman Catholic, believes to have 
 been a miraculous dispensation, such persons as I am describing 
 believe to be the result of the normal development of man's re- 
 ligious nature as given in history. They may be in error, and 
 so may be their opponents, but their opponents cannot afford to 
 despise them, and give very poor evidence of their own Chris- 
 tian spirit when they attempt to misrepresent them. It might 
 be wholesome for your contributor, if he is acquainted with the 
 history of his own sect, to recall the days when Baptists were 
 persecuted, before he attempts to excite prejudice against a 
 teacher whose faith is as sincere as his own. 
 
 As it is my belief that the religious sentiment is the strongest 
 of all the elements in human nature, I should conceive it a gross 
 dereliction of duty if I, as a lecturer on literature, which is only 
 the record of human thought, or on history, which is the record 
 of human action, should fail to point out that practical influence 
 of dogmas and opinions on action which constitutes the very 
 essence of history. Religious opinions are a part of litera- 
 ture and a part of history. What would be thought of the 
 honesty or impartiality of a historian who should write history 
 on the principle of omitting everything that might by any possi- 
 bility be distasteful to his readers ? I cannot conceive what I 
 can have said to give your contributor the impression that I 
 thought I was doing anything wrong in dealing with the relig- 
 ious questions of the day as a part of current history. I shall 
 make haste to revise my lecture, and erase any expression 
 that could possibly bear such an interpretation. Perhaps^ your 
 contributor thinks it wrong to utter any opinions on religious 
 topics save what he believes to be the truth. 
 
 He seems to have taken offence at my mention by name of 
 certain living divines. I cannot see any objection to it, even if I 
 had criticised them as living preachers, as I certainly iutended 
 them no disrespect. My reference, however, was a passing one 
 to certain published books of those gentlemen which form a part 
 of current literature, to wit, a book entitled " Eternal Punish- 
 ment Consistent with the Fatherhood of God," published in 1861 
 by Rev. Dr. Thompson, pastor of the Tabernacle church in New 
 York; a work entitled "The State of the Impenitent Dead," by 
 Rev. Prof. Hovey, of the Newton Baptist Institution; and a 
 sermon by Rev. Dr. Nehemiah Adams, entitled " The Reasona- 
 
11 
 
 bleness of Future Endless Punishment." I simply mentioned 
 them in correction of a rather inadvertent statement made in a 
 previous lecture, that the so-called " orthodox " sects were no 
 longer much disposed to dwell on that particular dogma. 
 
 Your contributor inquires whether opportunity would be 
 given at the Institute of Technology for the presentation of 
 views opposed to those of the professor. I would say in reply 
 that I always try to give a fair presentation of such views my- 
 self, as, for instance, of the supernatural theory of religion; and 
 further, that in the temporary lack of a sufficient number of 
 teachers in the departments of which I have charge, I am in the 
 habit of sometimes inviting to lecture for ine such friends as can 
 give an able presentation of opposite views of disputed ques- 
 tions. Thus, two gentlemen eminently qualified to give a forci- 
 ble exposition of their respective opinions, have promised to 
 lecture to my class in Political Economy, one in favor of Pro- 
 tectionist, and the other of Free Trade views. So far as I am 
 personally concerned, nothing would give me greater pleasure 
 than to invite to my lecture-room any competent scholar who 
 would do me the honor to give to my classes the Baptist view 
 of any ethical, political, literary or historical subject, although I 
 must be permitted seriously to doubt whether the same courtesy 
 would be extended to me in any Baptist or other denominational 
 institution of learning. 
 
 Our large hall is not yet finished, though I trust it soon will 
 be. I speak without authority, but I think I hazard nothing in 
 saying that not only would the government of the Institute not 
 have objected to its use if it had been ready, for the delivery of 
 the course of public lectures now being given in Freeman Place 
 Chapel, but would most cordially consent to such use. I have 
 the honor of counting more than one of the gentlemen giving 
 that course among my personal friends, — no difference of 
 speculative opinion need interfere with the mutual regard of 
 honest men, — and so highly do I respect their opinions and 
 estimate the value of free discussion as the only foundation for 
 sound belief, and so important do I consider it to accustom my 
 students to think for themselves, that I have this morning been 
 taking your contributor's communication and this answer as a 
 text with one of my classes for a discussion on the subject of 
 freedom of speech and the duty of cultivating a habit of inde- 
 pendent thought on all important subjects, and in that connec- 
 tion have earnestly recommended them to attend the Freeman 
 Place lectures, as well as the course by equally sincere aud 
 
12 
 
 earnest men, given on Sundays in Horticultural Hall, as one of 
 the methods for getting light on questions of the profoundest 
 importance. For no one — such is the doctrine I teach my 
 students — can be said really to know about a question in 
 debate until he has heard all that can be said on both sides of 
 it I had thought this to be sound Protestant doctrine. In no 
 institution of learning where such freedom of thought is not in- 
 culcated, can historical, or literary, or even scientific subjects be 
 adequately treated. Scientific questions themselves give rise, as 
 we all know, to the most divergent opinions in regard to the 
 metaphysical foundations of belief. Are such questions to be 
 ignored for fear of what people are pleased to call heresy ? 
 And if so, where is the infallible Protestant church which shall 
 define for us the limits within which freedom of thought is 
 allowable ? I had thought that that theory was confined to 
 Roman Catholics. 
 
 [I ought, perhaps, here to have explained more fully when the 
 article was first published, the nature of the exercise in which 
 this discussion found its appropriate place. It is my custom to 
 give from time to time with each of my classes a lesson or lec- 
 ture on the topics of the day, and the history, not of the past, 
 but of the times in which we are living, using as the materials 
 for such lessons the current numbers of respectable papers 
 and really able articles in the magazines and reviews as they 
 successively make their appearance. Thus I endeavor, to the 
 best of my ability, to keep the students acquainted with the cur- 
 rent of European and American politics, going back into the 
 past for an explanation of the phenomena of the present, and 
 striving to set them thinking on those topics on many of which 
 they will have to take action in the future. I do not know but 
 this is an unusual course to take in academical instruction and 
 contrary to old precedents, which would confine such instruction 
 to the anticleluvian world and the affairs of Greeks and Ro- 
 mans, but that seems to me to be no argument against its utility. 
 If there is anything a young American needs to be taught, it is 
 how to read his newspaper; if there are any questions he 
 needs to understand, they are the great questions of the day in 
 Europe and America ; and, inasmuch as tlip papers did me and 
 my doings the honor to make them the subject of their com- 
 ments, and as the question at issue is one of the most momen- 
 tous that can engage our attention, the question, namely, of real 
 freedom of thought and the right method of investigating truth, 
 a question on which I am neither ashamed nor afraid of my 
 
13 
 
 position, and further, as it is of prime importance to students 
 thoroughly to understand their teacher, 1 thought it a good op- 
 portunity to fix my pupils' attention on an abstract question by 
 taking advantage of an occurrence in which they naturally felt 
 a personal interest. The difficulty in didactic teaching lies in 
 discovering the right means for exciting a lively interest ; and 
 the value of such teaching consists not so much in the impor- 
 tance of the facts as in the stimulus given to independent 
 thought on the part of the learner. Nothing, for instance, is 
 more difficult than to get good themes written on the subject of 
 the cardinal virtues; as witness the common type of school 
 ''compositions." But I find that young men can write ex- 
 tremely well upon such a subject, say, as the position of woman, 
 if I can interest them in the argument of Mr. Mill or the crit- 
 icism of Sir Henry Taylor. Such proceedings will, I fear, ap- 
 pear very dangerous in the eyes of conservatives, and among 
 such questions I should not of course introduce questions of 
 technical theology. .But ou the other hand, all real thought is 
 dangerous. Nothing is altogether " safe " but dulness.] 
 
 I have myself but one rule in lecturing, the rule which every 
 sincere and earnest person must follow, to say on every subject 
 exactly what I think. A lecturer on history and literature, sub- 
 jects which legitimately include all moral and religious specula- 
 tion, would do scant justice to his theme, if, for fear of hurting 
 the sensibilities of somebody in his audience, he were to avoid 
 the subject of religion. He would be unworthy to address the 
 public at all if he were di3honest enough to conceal his real 
 opinions. It will never be my course while I have the honor to 
 be a public teacher; but your contributor would have better un- 
 derstood what my real opinions are, if he had had the patience 
 to attend all my lectures. 
 I remain, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 W. P. ATKINSON. 
 
 II. 
 
 To the Editor op the Watchman and Reflector : — 
 
 As your contributor, in his comments on my communication in 
 your last issue, persists in his misrepresentations, I must claim 
 a share of your columns to make another attempt to repel his 
 
14 
 
 attack. I am sorry I was not more successful in making myself 
 understood in my first article. 
 
 All through his comments, as in his first attack, there was 
 the grave confusion of thought which consists in confounding a 
 difference of religious opinion with an assault on religion itself, 
 and the incidental discussion of religious subjects, in literary 
 and historical lectures, with the giving of theological instruction. 
 When he points out that I differ from him in religious opinion, 
 he states what I am very happy to admit ; when he charges me 
 with assaulting religion itself, he slanders me. When he tells 
 his readers that I have been giving a course of theological, or 
 what he calls u infidel," lectures at the Institute of Technology, 
 he states what, if he had attended them, he would have known 
 not to be the truth. 
 
 His criticism may thus be divided into three parts. The first 
 consists in a charge against me of attacking religion in 
 my public lectures, and in an attempt to excite against 
 me the odium theologicum by calling me an u infidel " ; the 
 second, in an accusation of lecturing under false pretences; the 
 third, in an argument in defence of abridging liberty of speech 
 in the historical and literary instruction given at scientific 
 schools, and other institutions of learning. Let me notice 
 the three points separately. And first let me ask what precisely 
 is meant when my critic calls me an " infidel " ? The etymo- 
 logical meaning of the word infidel is " unfaithful " ; its usual 
 meaning is " unbeliever " ; but unfaithful to what, and unbeliever 
 in what? Obviously in any critic's mouth, it can only mean un- 
 faithful to and unbeliever in his particular religious views, with 
 the implied assumption that they are infallibly correct. Suppose, 
 now, that I were to turn round and call him an infidel, because 
 he is unfaithful to and an unbeliever in my religious views ; — 
 would not the process in the one case be as legitimate as the 
 other ? If it is being in the majority for the time being which 
 makes the difference, what then would become of the early Bap- 
 tists, who were in a small minority enough; what would be- 
 come of the claim of the early Christians ? Plainly, it is as legiti- 
 mate for me to call him an infidel because he disbelieves in my 
 views, as it is for him to call me an infidel for disbelieving in his ; 
 or else he is prepared to maintain tfiat he is infallibly right in his 
 view of the Bible and of Jesus ; and as a Protestant I presume he 
 does not take that ground, inasmuch as he has no infallible Pope 
 to fall back upon. It comes to this, then : that he views parts of 
 my religious belief as utterly erroneous ; just as 1 view parts of 
 
15 
 
 his religious belief as utterly erroneous ; just as we both view 
 parts of the Roman Catholic or the Swedenborgian religious be- 
 lief, as utterly erroneous. But what is gained by calling each 
 other infidels, except, perhaps, a certain amount of ill-fccling on 
 both sides, inasmuch as the applying of invidious epithets is 
 usually considered among gentlemen tantamount to an insult ? 
 And, therefore, although I have precisely the same right to call 
 my critic an " infidel," which he has to call me one, no more 
 and no less, I shall not do so, because I think the exchange of 
 insulting epithets is of all ways the worst to carry on an argu- 
 ment. Let us confine ourselves, like rational beings, to the task 
 of mutually showing, if we can, the errors in each other's views. 
 By that the cause of Truth will be a gainer ; it will never be 
 promoted by the assumption of infallibility, or by calling names. 
 Happily this talk about " infidelity," " infidel propagandise, " when 
 used, as my critic uses it, against such men, for instance, as Mr. 
 Channing, Mr. Weiss, Mr. Longfellow, and the other speakers 
 at Horticultural Hall, is becoming as harmless as the Pope's 
 bulls of excommunicaton which it imitates. It influences none 
 but the ignorant and the unthinking. I believe I can afford to 
 pass it by without further notice. It is unworthy of candid men, 
 and belongs to the lowest and worst style of bygone theological 
 disputation. 
 
 I do not know whether my opponent expected me to make 
 a recantation of all my principles in consequence of his attack, 
 but he seems surprised at my method of correcting him. Does 
 he not know that the worst sort of misrepresentation is that 
 which attributes to a speaker's words a spirit different from that 
 which really pervaded them ? I am perfectly ready to defend, 
 to the best of my ability, all the statements and sentiments put 
 forth in any of my lectures, and when I am proved to be in the 
 wrong, to acknowledge it candidly. It was the spirit attributed 
 to me, and the false aspect given to my statements by taking 
 them out of connection with the discourses which my critic did 
 not give himself the trouble to come and hear, that I complained 
 of. It is one thing for a lecturer to deal with a subject which 
 it belongs legitimately to him to treat, in a legitimate way and 
 in its proper place, from his own point of view, whether that be 
 "orthodox" or unorthodox; it is quite another thing to be 
 charged with abusing his position, and striving under false pre- 
 tences to be a " propagandist " of moral or immoral doctrine. 
 That is the charge which I repudiate with the contempt which 
 it deserves. And yet this is the slanderous charge which, all 
 
16 
 
 through both his communications, your contributor brings against 
 me. Knowing about a few things I do not believe, which he 
 considers necessary to salvation, but knowing absolutely noth- 
 ing of what I do believe, because he has taken no pains to learn, 
 he yet undertakes to denounce my character and excite popular 
 prejudice against me and the institution in which I teach. I do 
 not wish to charge him with wilful misrepresentation, because I do 
 not know him ; I am willing to believe him honest in his preju- 
 dices. I only maintain that he is writing of what he really 
 knows nothing about, to wit, any actual faith and the real spirit 
 of my teaching. 
 
 To his second charge, that I abused my position as a lecturer 
 to give a course of theological lectures in disguise, I shall 
 content myself with a flat denial, and, proceeding to the third 
 and main point, try to explain what I did attempt to do. 
 
 That third point is the really important question of the proper 
 method of treating historical, literary and philosophical subjects 
 in academical teaching and in public lectures. My critic claims 
 that they should either be treated with the careful omission 
 of all theological allusions, or else, that if theology is introduced 
 at all, it must be his theology on pain of the lecturer being held 
 up to public opprobrium as an "infidel." Let me try his 
 theory by an example or two. I have recently been reading, 
 with reference to some future lectures, the political and literary 
 history of England during the seventeenth and the early part 
 of the eighteenth centuries. Will my critic tell me how I, 
 as a professor of literature, am to give an adequate account 
 of the intellectual life of England at that period without 
 dealing pretty largely in theology ? Would he have me omit 
 the early struggles for freedom of his own sect? (I should 
 think they would make him blush at the thought of his 
 own intolerance.) Should I omit all mention of the non- 
 conformists, — of those noble seekers after truth, the early 
 Quakers, — of such men as Richard Baxter ? Would it, or 
 would it not, be safe, in my critic's view, to use such material as, 
 say, Sir James Stephen's account of that eminent man, for I 
 think Sir James was not " evangelical." How far might I be al- 
 lowed to explain the nature of the struggle from my own point 
 of view, without the risk of being called hard names ? Does 
 Milton's " Areopagitica " belong to English literature ? And 
 was it a flagrant breach of some tacit compact on my part in 
 commenting on English style the other day to read the passage 
 
17 
 
 which I append in a foot-note for the benefit of my critic ? * 
 Might I, or might I not, mention Edwards' "Gangraena;"t and 
 how far is it allowable in a lecturer on history to draw paral- 
 lels between ancient and modern times ? I have always been 
 wont to consider Bishop Jeremy Taylor's " Liberty of Prophc- 
 cying" a part of English Literature, — a book in which I find 
 the following passage : " We by this time are come to that 
 pass we think we love not God except we hate our brother ; and 
 we have not the virtue of Religion except we persecute all re- 
 ligions but our own. For lukewarmness is so odious to God 
 and man that we, proceeding furiously upon their mistakes, by 
 supposing we preserve the body we destroy the soul of religion, 
 or by being zealous for faith, or, which is all one, for that 
 which we mistake for faith, we are cold in charity, and so lose the 
 reward of both." 
 
 It appears to me that any account of the intellectual life of 
 those times, or indeed of any times, with the subject of religion 
 left out, would be Hamlet with the part of Hamlet omitted. 
 But must I be a Baptist, or at least " evangelical " in my views, 
 before I am permitted to teach the subject in any public institu- 
 tion of learning ? And is this what is called making our schools 
 " unsectarian " ? 
 
 Again, to take an illustration from the subject of grammar, I 
 was explaining the other day to one of my classes the theory of 
 
 * "As, therefore, the state of man now is, what wisdome can there be to 
 choose, what continence to forbear without the knowledge of evill? He 
 that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits and seeming pleas- 
 ures ami vet abstain, and yet distinguish, and yet prefer that which is truly 
 better, he' is the true warfaring Christian. I cannot praise a fugitive and 
 cloister'd virtue unexercised and unbreath'd, that never sallies out and 
 sees her adversary, bat slinks out of the race where that itninortall gar- 
 land is to be run for, not without dust and heat Since, there- 
 fore, the knowledge and survay of vice is in this world so necessary to the 
 constitutiug of human vertue and the scanning of error to the confirmation 
 of truth, how can we more safely and with less danger scout into the 
 regions <>r sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractats and hear- 
 ing nil manra r of reason."— Ar< opagitica, p. 15, Arber's edition.. [I take the 
 opportunity to recommend this admirable little series of cheap reprints of 
 old English literature to my readers.] 
 
 f " Toleration," says this worthy, " is the grand design of the Devil : 
 his masterpiece and chief engine he works by at this time to uphold his 
 tottering kingdom. It is the most compendious, ready, sure way to 
 destroy all religion, lay all waste, and bring in all evil; it is a most tran- 
 scendent catholic and' fundamental evil for this kingdom of any that can 
 be imagined. As original sin Is the most fundamental sin, all sin, having 
 the seed and spawn of all in it, so a Toleration hath all errors in it and all 
 evils." — Edwards' Gangraena, A. D. 1G-1G. 
 
18 
 
 the origin of language as it is held by nearly all the leading 
 philologists of the present day, when one of the class asked 
 me if I thought that the theory could be reconciled with the 
 account in the Book of Genesis. I answered that I did not 
 think it could by any possibility. What would my critic have 
 had me say ? Or is he prepared to maintain that no one is fit 
 to teach philology in a public institution who does not believe 
 that all modern theories can be reconciled with the Book of 
 Genesis, or that no geologist should be allowed to open his 
 mouth in such an institution who does not believe in a six-days' 
 creation ? This would be to take precisely the ground which 
 the Inquisition took when it threw Galileo into prison, and logi- 
 cally it is the ground which all sects take when they attempt to 
 stifle all teaching save their own, on the plea of all other teach- 
 ing being " infidel." It is astonishing to me that our Protestant 
 sectarians do not see that they thus lower themselves to the 
 level of the Koman Catholics whom they denounce, by borrowing 
 their pretensions to infallibility, and using the weapons of their 
 intolerance. 
 
 Let me give my critic one more illustration from still another 
 branch of teaching. It fell to my lot the other day to explain 
 to a class, in connection with the name of Lord Bacon, and the 
 literary history of the sixteenth century, the true nature of that 
 inductive philosophy for which he did so much, and of that in- 
 ductive reasoning which lies at the basis of their scientific pur- 
 suits. I was using the first chapter of Fowler's " Inductive 
 Logic," and among the books upon my table were Mill's Logic, 
 Sir John Herschel's "Discourse," and the recent learned and 
 elaborate treatise on the Human Intellect by Prof. Porter, of 
 Yale College. Of course I had to enter into the subject of 
 cause and effect, and to point out the radical difference between 
 the views of the materialistic and the intuitional schools. Was 
 it, or was it not, my duty to rehearse the views of Hume and 
 Mill, of Kant, and Hamilton, and the rest of the authorities, but 
 to preserve a studied silence as to my own, for fear of unduly 
 influencing the minds of my pupils ? Or because in this case 
 I happen to be in hearty accordance with the " orthodox " 
 views of Prof. Porter, was it legitimate for me to express an 
 opinion, when, if I had chanced to agree with the unorthodox 
 views of Mill, such an expression would have justly brought 
 down upon me the abuse of my opponent ? In what respect 
 does the spoken word of a lecturer, differ from the written word 
 of the writer, which was perhaps once itself a spoken word ? 
 
19 
 
 Suppose that my critic should write a book upon inductive 
 methods of ascertaining public lecturers' opinions, and I should 
 think it worth using in my instruction, — two rather violent sup- 
 positions, I confess, — should I be forced to expound his method 
 without interposing any oral objection in regard to its sufficiency ? 
 My own method is to say to my hearers, " Gentlemen, this is 
 the nature of the controversy, and these are the authorities. 
 This is my opinion respecting it. You must know it in order 
 that other parts of my instruction may be intelligible. But you 
 are not to adopt it, but to form your own." 
 
 I would not give much even for instruction in the abstractions 
 of mathematics which should carefully conceal from the students 
 those metaphysical questions, respecting time and space, that 
 have so close and intimate a connection with religion, that is to 
 say, with theology. Any institution, not intended for school- 
 boys, that should teach mathematics in that spirit might perhaps 
 turn out good machinists and engine-drivers, but could hardly 
 lay any claim to being considered an institution of learning. 
 
 I do not feel at all disturbed by the cases which my critic 
 puts as against my argument for the utmost liberty of teaching. 
 By all means, let us hear what his learned Jesuit has to say on 
 the subject of transubstantiation and the immaculate concep- 
 tion. How else can we answer him ? If he can bring such sub- 
 jects legitimately into a course of instruction in astronomy, let 
 us have them there, though I do not quite see how that is to be 
 done. They would find an appropriate place in a course on 
 history and literature. As a part of the record of human 
 thought, these have a necessary, and therefore legitimate place 
 there in Protestant as well as Catholic teaching of history, and 
 the Protestant teacher has as good a right to say that he does 
 not believe in them as his Roman Catholic brother has to say 
 that he does. For a teacher on either side to say that he does 
 or does not personally believe in any particular doctrine, whether 
 of art, philosophy, or religion, is one thing; it is often abso- 
 lutely needful to the clearness of his teaching to state his own 
 point of view; to make himself unfairly a "propagandist" 
 of any particular doctrine by attempting unduly to influence the 
 minds of his pupils, is quite another thing. Yet, my opponent 
 does not scruple, for the sake of exciting odium against me, 
 because I do not believe in all respects as he does, to confound 
 these things together in his argument. 
 
 In the case which he supposes of a Baptist professor lectur- 
 ing on literature, if I tell him what I should do if I were one, I 
 
20 
 
 shall be describing the course which I honestly attempt to follow 
 in regard to my own opinions, which are not Baptist. Believ- 
 ing, as I do, that it is impossible to deal intelligibly with history 
 or literature without basing my instruction upon some scheme 
 of thought and some system of the universe, I endeavor to 
 have opinions and to state them frankly as far as is necessary 
 to make my instruction intelligible, giving fairly the counter 
 view, if a point is disputed, and warning my students on all oc- 
 casions, to accept no views of teacher or of book without examina- 
 tion : because no man can be said to have an opinion till he has 
 formed it for himself. If, therefore, the Baptist professor were 
 lecturing on the history of the seventeenth century, I would not 
 have him omit the honorable history of his sect, or fail frankly 
 to give in his adhesion to the tenets they professed. Then his 
 students would know where to find him. If I were his pupil I 
 should respect him, however much I might differ from his opin- 
 ions. But if he shirked the subject when it was a proper part 
 of the history he was pretending to explain, or if he concealed 
 his real opinions, 1 should certainly petition to be excused from 
 further attendance on his lectures. 
 
 Alas ! for us, when writers as respectable as my opponent 
 begin to talk of " the flimsy pretence of freedom of speech " ! 
 It is strange and sad to think of, that while in despotic Ger- 
 many, " catholic " and " evangelical," " orthodox " and " ration- 
 alist " professors lecture side by side in perfect harmony, and 
 with mutual respect, and students in search of Truth listen 
 to them all, in this country, where we boast ourselves of our 
 freedom, an honest man cannot raise his voice on subjects 
 even remotely connected with theology without the attempt 
 being made by men calling themselves the only true Chris- 
 tians to excite odium against him by calling him an " in- 
 fidel." And the natural result of freedom on the one hand 
 and repression on the other, is, that we are forced to borrow 
 our " orthodox " theology, as well as our science and philosophy, 
 mainly from Germany. Without freedom of speech there can 
 be no freedom of thought ; and thus our young men and young 
 women grow up timid, hypocritical, and time-servers. Let me 
 copy some words of Mr. Maurice, the eminent professor of 
 Moral Philosophy at English Cambridge, which I took great 
 satisfaction in quoting the other day to one of my classes. 
 Prof. Maurice is a member of the Anglican Church, though I 
 do not know that he can be counted " evangelical," as I do not 
 know precisely the definition of that term. He is a disciple of 
 
21 
 
 Coleridge, who furnished me with that word " Bibliolatry," 
 which seems to have given my critic some offence. " You pray 
 to the living God/' says Prof. Maurice, addressing a missionary 
 about to depart to the East, " that he will enable heathens to 
 think, that he will break the bonds that hinder them from 
 thinking. Only when they begin to think freely can they re- 
 nounce the devil's service and enter upon his. And what a 
 lesson is this for us ! We have learned to connect frec-think-, 
 ing with atheism. We warn our sons from free-thinking. I am 
 well persuaded that we must, one and all, laymen and priests, 
 repent of this language, and of the temper which it expresses. 
 Unless we have much more free-thinking in our land than we 
 have now or ever had, I fear we shall sink into devil-worship- 
 pers : unless the clergy cultivate free thought instead of check- 
 ing it, they will become the devil's ministers, and not God's. 
 
 . . We should encourage men to desire much more free- 
 dom of thought than they ever desired ; we should rebuke them 
 only with being content with too little. The name of free-thinker, 
 therefore, is one which we should honor in any one who claims 
 it for himself; we should dispute his right to monopolize it." 
 I am far from agreeing with Prof. Maurice's theology, but I 
 recommend one or two of the first lectures in his little book * to 
 the thoughtful perusal of my critic. 
 
 Questions whose real merits are hidden when obscured by 
 the mists of theological prejudice become clear enough when 
 applied to some other topic. What would my opponent think 
 of my fairness in teaching Political Economy, if I were to give 
 my students but one side of disputed questions ? Yet it is 
 very plain that but one side, say of the question of Protection 
 versus Free Trade, can be right. Should I be justified, on the 
 plea of its being my duty to avoid all propagation of error, to 
 suppress altogether the side which I did not believe in myself? 
 
 When members of the Board of Education having charge of 
 three of our Normal Schools invited me to lecture, as I could 
 find opportunity, to the pupils in those schools on History and 
 Literature, and when, in return for such lectures, my excellent 
 friends, ex-Governor Washburn and Secretary White undertook 
 to help me supply a temporary deficiency in the English depart- 
 ment of our own school by giving interesting courses of lectures 
 to my older classes on the Law of Business and on Civil Polity, 
 
 *" Conflict of Good and Evil in our Day.' 
 
22 
 
 I presume that they felt confidence enough in me to believe that 
 I could discriminate between the respective positions of a 
 stranger invited to lecture to pupils not his own, a professor 
 lecturing to his own pupils, and a lecturer addressing a miscel- 
 laneous public audience. I assure my critic that lean make the 
 discrimination, and that though I am the same man in either case, 
 and in either case hope to be true to my convictions, my valued 
 friends the principals of those Normal Schools can best tell him 
 whether I have ever made any dishonorable use of my oppor- 
 tunities. I can appeal to them the more willingly, because they 
 are entirely untainted with my heresies. But it suggests to me 
 the question whether that could be called an " unsectarian " 
 school into which none but " Evangelical " lecturers were per- 
 mitted to enter. 
 
 The discrimination which every fair-minded man would make 
 seems to me to be this : A lecturer addressing an audience 
 only occasionally, especially if it be an audience of young per- 
 sons, should always bear in mind that he has no such opportunity 
 to explain himself as he has to a class to whom he is giving 
 systematic instruction. He would therefore justly be expected 
 to confine himself to topics which are either not in dispute, or to 
 those on which no misconception can arise in the minds of his 
 hearers, leaving it to the responsible teachers to handle other 
 topics. In pursuing this course he need not be unfaithful to 
 himself, and within such limitations he has ample scope to make 
 himself useful. 
 
 The case is different with regard to his own pupils, who are 
 constantly under his instruction. There he attempts to deal 
 with subjects as wholes, and to develop all sides of a question, 
 and I do not see how he is to do that except in accordance with 
 some system. My instruction in history, for instance, is based 
 upon a certain philosophy of history, the one, namely, which I 
 believe in, a philosophy differing on the one hand from that 
 which a Roman Catholic professor would adopt as much as it 
 does from that of a Comtian on the other. I do not see how I 
 am to be intelligible to my students unless they understand my 
 philosophy ; and I do not see, on the other hand, why explaining 
 my philosophy need be confounded, as it constantly is by my 
 critic, with the attempt to impose it on my pupils, or with what 
 he is pleased to call " infidel propagandism." 
 
 Again, the position of a public lecturer addressing a miscella- 
 neous audience of adults is different from that of a teacher attempt- 
 ing to give systematic instruction. I think he may reasonably 
 give himself more latitude in emphasizing his individual views, 
 
23 
 
 for his object is rather to stimulate thought than to give syste- 
 matic teaching. For my part, I like no lectures better than 
 those with which I most heartily disagree; for I find none more 
 profitable to listen to. Of course a lecturer should observe 
 rules of courtesy ; should not needlessly offend the sensibilities 
 of those with whom he differs. If, in my earnestness, I have ever 
 given just cause of offence on this score to my evening auditors, 
 I am very sorry, but I shall not select as a judge an auditor who 
 heard but one lecture. 
 
 I am sorry for my critic's "young relatives," but I do not see 
 what, acting upon his own principles, he can do in the case ex- 
 cept place them in some safe " Evangelical " monastery, if such 
 a thing can be found, and institute at once, in connection with 
 their studies, and, in all their reading, an " Index Expurgatorius," 
 in imitation of the Romish one ; in which I greatly fear he will 
 have to include the larger part of the current literature of the 
 day, including, Mr. Editor, your issue of the 17th instant, unless 
 it should be thought that for the bane of my communication you 
 had furnished a sufficient antidote in the shape of the comments 
 of my critic. The last number, for instance, of that venerable 
 quarterly, the North American Review, contains an exceedingly 
 dangerous article on the state of religion in Great Britain, by 
 Prof. Goldwin Smith ; and to proscribe a public lecturer for deal- 
 ing with such subjects when such books are lying on every coun- 
 ter is much like forbidding a man to bring a lighted match into 
 a house on fire. 
 
 There is much heresy lurking in Prof. Lowell's last poem, 
 but I am afraid my critic's young relatives have read it. I 
 think, indeed, I quoted a part of it in a lecture on poetry as a 
 beautiful specimen of contemporary literature. It may have 
 been, however, that I only read from the safer part. That 
 clever English review, the u Fortnightly," which contains so 
 much of the brightest and freshest of English thought, is sadly 
 leavened with the doctrines of Auguste Comte ; and I mention it 
 the more readily, as I have myself no faith whatever — though 
 my opponent, in his entire ignorance of what my real faith is, 
 will perhaps find difficulty in believing it — in any scheme of 
 atheism or materialism. On the other hand, — happier in this 
 than my opponent, — -I have no fear whatever of anything the 
 materialist or atheist can say. I read their writings myself, and 
 I tell my students in philosophy that they have no right to an 
 opinion on philosophical questions till they have read them too. 
 
 I do not believe, however, that his monastic system would 
 succeed. In the thirty years during which I have had a large 
 
24 
 
 acquaintance among young people, and an opportunity to watch 
 the career of many former pupils of my own, my experience all 
 goes to show that the freest system is the safest. Some of the 
 worst specimens of humanity I have ever seen have been the 
 direct fruit of my critic's repressive policy. 
 
 When I was appointed Professor of Literature in the Institute 
 of Technology, I did not accept the place that I might teach only 
 an emasculate History and an emasculate Literature ; and such 
 would History and Literature be with no mention made of the 
 subject of Religion. No directions were given me as to what I was 
 or was not to say, nor do I know at this moment the opinion of the 
 government on the great questions of freedom of thought and 
 freedom of teaching which we have been discussing. I speak, 
 therefore, only for myself when I say that in my judgment it 
 would be better that the halls of a school of learning should for- 
 ever remain empty, that not one stone even should remain to mark 
 the spot where it stood, rather than that it should surrender, at 
 the bidding of any sect or any party, its absolute right to the free 
 and untrammeled search after truth, to the free utterance of all 
 honest opinion. Surely there are denominational schools 
 enough in the land where thought is fettered within the bonds 
 of a creed. I am equally sure that there are men and women 
 everywhere to-day who have confidence enough in truth to 
 be willing to trust her; faith enough in freedom to allow 
 their sons and daughters to follow wherever it may lead. It is 
 in that faith that I have brought up my own boys, and they have 
 arrived at man's estate without causing me to repent of my de- 
 termination. I teach my pupils only as I teach my sons. If 
 my opponent, instead of assuming to possess all truth, and call- 
 ing me invidious names, for not agreeing with him, would hon- 
 estly seek to know what I believe and teach, he would, I think, 
 materially alter his views respecting me. 
 
 I hope I shall always discuss serious subjects in a reverent 
 spirit, but if my dislike of Scribes and Pharisees, of those who 
 thank God that they are not as other men, even as these " in- 
 fidels," has ever led me to say anything in my public lectures 
 that gave just ground of offence to any sincerely religious per. 
 son, I am heartily sorry, and shall try not to repeat the error. 
 Whether my critic, with the spirit which he showed respecting 
 me, is an unprejudiced judge, I am quite willing to leave it to 
 your readers to determine. 
 I am, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 W. P. ATKINSON. 
 
nr> 
 
 IIIc 
 
 Provoked witli you for asking me questions, my clear' 
 
 If I could be provoked with you at all, it would be for not asking 
 them. You have a claim on me for further explanation, which I 
 will not lose a moment in meeting. As well as I can, will tell 
 you the nature of a religious faith in which I find entire content- 
 ment. 
 
 God is a Father to me as much as to the most " Orthodox." 
 "When I am in trouble I pray, and when I am happy, too. I con- 
 stantly try to find light and guidance in what is above me and 
 beyond me, because I feel weak myself, and have lived long 
 enough to have had my share of trials; and though I do not 
 know how I get strength through this sense of dependence, I am 
 sure it is the true attitude of mind. We call God Father with- 
 out understanding his infinity, not really, as I think, because 
 Jesus was a miraculous being, sent to command us to call him 
 so, and turning water into wine to prove his mission, but simply 
 because, when Jesus tells us so, we instinctively feel that he is 
 right. He appeals to a religious sentiment which is a part of 
 our nature. And Jesus saw it was so, not because he was a 
 miraculous being, or because he was God himself, — a doctrine 
 as incredible to me as the Roman Catholic doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation, — but because he was, though nothing but a human 
 being like ourselves, so true to himself that he was the first to 
 see it in the shape in which he taught it, though it would have 
 come through some other channel even if he had not taught it ; 
 just as Newton was the first to proclaim the law of gravitation, 
 though I think the world would have arrived at the law if New- 
 ton had never been born. 
 
 What we call Christianity to-day is to me the accumulated 
 religious experience of all that part of human kind that was 
 influenced by the religious revolution which began with the 
 preaching of Jesus. It contains more of absolute religious 
 truth than any other religion, but surely it is not, in any of its 
 multifarious forms, absolute religion, — perhaps it does not con- 
 tain all the elements of religious truth that are in the world 
 now; nor do I Bee why mankind should not advance in religious 
 as in all other kinds of knowledge, by the tame natural methods. 
 I think one of the results of modern physical science is going to 
 be, by and by, more adequate conceptions of God through the 
 4 
 
26 
 
 removal of childish superstitions. And with more adequate 
 conceptions will come more and not less reverence, and truer 
 and more heartfelt obedience. No doubt the conception of 
 father and child is an inadequate one to express the whole of our 
 relation to God, — for how can the finite have adequate concep- 
 tions of its relations to the infinite ? — but by realizing all the 
 love we can feel for the dearest of human beings, we come as 
 near as we can to the conception of the love of God. I do not 
 strive to realize too closely my relation to an unseen and infinite 
 power, because I cannot realize it as I can my relation to other 
 beings like myself; but I am sure Jesus was right when he said 
 that the more we love those whom we can see, the .more we 
 shall love him, though we cannot see him. 
 
 I think that the natural way for our religious feeling to de- 
 velop itself is in an earnest desire to be and do the best and 
 highest that is in us ; not any ascetic feeling, like the old super- 
 stitions about " mortifying the flesh," and denying one's self inno- 
 cent happiness, which is just as needful to us as bread ; but al- 
 ways to strive to bring out of ourselves, according to our nat- 
 ural dispositions, everything in us that is pure and true. Some 
 in this effort have to go through sharp trials and temptations 
 which other happier spirits escape ; but to all these must come 
 a sense of Duty, of obedience, and service to be done, and denial 
 of the lower for the sake of the higher, — though always with- 
 in the bounds of healthymindedness ; for the best service is 
 always done by healthy minds in healthy bodies. Gloomy and 
 ascetic views of religion spring from morbid and unhealthy 
 minds ; it is recorded of Calvin that he was a dyspeptic. 
 
 Such thoughts as these are nowadays in the minds of a great 
 many earnest persons, but in the sectarian creeds — which are 
 all of man's making — they are mixed up with gloomy views 
 and dark superstitions. Science is destroying our childish be- 
 lief in the miraculous by substituting the far greater miracles of 
 Law ; and the growth of enlightened and humane sentiments is 
 slowly obliterating the grim features of Puritanism. 
 
 Rejection of belief in the miraculous nature of Jesus exposes 
 us now to being called hard names ; but I think that belief 
 must soon go where belief in the Virgin and the Saints has 
 already gone for all Protestants, and it will be found that all 
 real religious truth will only be the stronger. Protestants in 
 the time of Luther rejected the worship of Virgin and Saints ; 
 but did not then get beyond a superstitious reverence for the 
 Bible and a mythological view of a Christ. These, now, arc 
 
27 
 
 passing away, and I suppose we must pardon some bigotry and 
 some violence on the part of many who have been taught hon- 
 estly to believe that all religion is bound up in their creed. I 
 suppose the Spanish inquisitors were many of them sincere 
 enough in burning heretics at the stake, and there are plenty of 
 people nowadays who hardly understand the principles of toler- 
 ation any better. 
 
 But what to do ? In the first place I would have no fear. The 
 worst, as I think, that can be said of sectarianism is that it is too 
 often a system of terrorism. I would have the courage to think 
 for myself, and feel sure that with an earnest purpose you will 
 arrive at all the truth you need. Religion is not a matter of 
 belief in creeds, and no power of pope or priest or church has 
 any real right to come between you and your God. If you find 
 help and comfort in going to church, Pwould go; but if you can- 
 not believe the doctrine, and find the worship cold, and dead, 
 and formal, I would stay at home. Religion does not consist in 
 church-going, and Jesus never gave a better expression of real 
 religious feeling than when he told his followers to enter into 
 their closets when they prayed. I think there is a great deal of 
 deaduess and formality in all the churches, and a great deal of 
 mean and hypocritical conformity covering up real skepticism ; 
 but there are also sincere and earnest persons in and out of all 
 sects who never find any difficulty in understanding each other. 
 Formerly there were bigoted and liberal sects : now each sect 
 is split into a bigoted and a liberal party; and it is a sign to 
 me that the reign of sectarianism, or what I might call Protes- 
 tant Popery, is nearly at an end. You will find that the prin- 
 ciple of the exclusive Protestant is at bottom precisely the same 
 as the principle of the Roman Catholic. One sets up his infal- 
 lible Pope or Church: the other his infallible " Evangelical " in- 
 terpretation of the Bible ; and one is as angry and intolerant as 
 the other when his authority is denied. He cannot burn us now, 
 but he can and does call us hard names. 
 
 I have arrived at a linn faith by thinking for myself and try- 
 ing to do my duty ; and what I am not afraid of for myself I am 
 not afraid of for you. Did you ever read Wordsworth's Ode to 
 Duty and his character of a Happy Warrior? I am very sorry 
 that my course came to an end before I had an opportunity to 
 lecture on Wordsworth. He has been very much to me. But I 
 do not know that there is anything more beautiful in his poetry 
 than those verses of the Roman Catholic Father Newman, which, 
 perhaps, you remember my reading oucc in a lecture on poetry 
 
Illlllilllllllllllllllllll 
 019 757 104 
 
 28 
 
 beginning " Lead kindly Light." Thus we find the earnestness 
 of real religious aspiration breaking through the crust of all 
 creeds, even what seem to us the most superstitious. 
 
 I do not know that you will agree with me in all this, and it 
 is not at all necessary that you should. Doubtless my views on 
 many points are modified by personal peculiarities. Each 
 one at last has an individual belief, the growth of his own 
 character. Thus from having been much an invalid, and much 
 engaged with books, I very probably underrate the value of 
 social worship, even in its present form. Let each in such mat- 
 ters take the course which is best for him. Only lam very glad 
 that anything that I said gave you confidence enough in 
 me to ask for further explanation. 
 
 Affectionately, yours, 
 
 W. P. A.