STEPSOF BELILE;
rip    OTF  rrirE 
MAI    D
RATIONAL CHRtSTIANITY
AGAINST
ATHEISM, FREE RELIGION, AND
ROMANISM.
BY
JAMES FREEMAN
BOSTON:
AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION.
1870.
STEPS
CLARKE. 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by
THE AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
WEITE Welt und breites Leben,
Langer Jahre redlich Streben,
Stets geforscht und stets gegriindet,
Nie geschlossen, oft geriundet,
Aeltestes bewahrt mit Treue,
Freundlich aufgefasstes Neue,
Heitern Sinn und reine Zwecke;
Nun! man kommt wohl eine Strecke.
GOTHL
THIRD EDITION.
CAMBRIDGE:
PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON. 
TO
,tet:Btmor:y
OF
JOHN ALBION ANDREW,
THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED.
k
I 
r 
INTRODUCTION.
THE  substance of this volume was delivered
last winter, to the Church of the Disciples,
in Boston, as a course of Lectures.  Most of it
has been rewritten; but, doubtless, traces of the
original form will be detected by the discerning.
Such as it is, I inscribe this work with the name
* of one whose interest in these themes was never
weakened by the cares of private business, or
the responsibilities of public duty; whose in sight, courage, honesty, and kindness made him
dear to his friends;  and whose  great virtues
will always illustrate the power of unsectarian
and practical Christianity.  
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION................ V
gimrt it@.
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
CHAP.
I. How do we know that we have a Soul? or, Materi       alism and Immaterialism..........
II. Why do we believe in God? or, The Evidences of
Theism..................
III. The Atheist's Theory of the Universe.....
IV. Imperfect and Perfect Theism.......
.%conb Step.
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
I. The Historic Christ...........
II. Nothing unnatural in Christ or in Christianity. 
III. Christianity an advance on Theism..... 
5  IV. Some Objections to Christianity considered..
PAGE
3
29
52
73
97
II8
I38
i68 
CONTENTS.
cbitb %tep.
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
CHAP.                                                 PAGH
I. The Idea of Romanism and of Protestantism.. i197
II. The Doctrines of the Roman-Catholic Church.. 220
III. Priesthood and Ritual of the Roman-Catholic
Church............................ 241
IV. Results of this Discussion.........   259
.aurth Step.
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
I. Theology and Religion.......... 28i
II. The Creed of Christendom.........    296
viii
If 
FIRST STEP.
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
I 
"Deum sempiternum, omniscium, omnipotentem, i
tergo transeuntem, vidi et obstupui."
LINNiE~US, System of Nature.
t 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
CHAPTER I.
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A SOUL; OR, MATERIAL              ISM AND IMMATERIALISM.
CCORDING to the oldest and most general view
of human nature, man consists of two parts, -
soul and body; or of three parts, - spirit, soul, and
body. The soul, however, is himself: the body belongs to him. He is essentially soul: the body is his
box of tools. To soul belong conscience, will, reason,
love. As soul, he is free: as soul, dwelling in body,
he is limited. Body helps the soul and is its servant;
but, at the same time, holds it in and shuts it up. Soul
aspires upward to God and heaven: body draws it
down to earth and time. This has been the general
belief of Chinese, Persians, Hindoos, Greeks, Romans,
and Jews, - in ancient times and in modern times, -
of Christians and Mohammedans, of savages and civilized, of philosopher and peasant. Almost all believe
naturally that there is an immaterial principle in man,
-something which cannot be seen, touched, heard,
I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
something not to be perceived by the senses, but only
known by consciousness, -something which remains
when the material envelop is dissolved and separated,
which continues as a disembodied spirit when the
body has returned to the elements. One proof of this
wide-spread opinion is the general belief, in all ages
and all lands, among the common people, of the existence of ghosts. There never has been a nation or age
in which the ignorant have not believed, more or less,
in the possibility of ghosts. But if there is nothing in
man but body, nothing can possibly remain after the
body is dissolved. If one believes, therefore, that a
ghost is possible, though he may not believe that one
ever returned, he must believe in soul.   Hence  it
appears that a belief in soul has not prevailed among
the educated and learned alone, but seems to have
come to the ignorant and uneducated also, by a kind
of instinct. But the wisest of our race have also believed in soul, since they have believed in a continued
immortality after the dissolution of the body. Socrates
and Plato- the greatest thinkers of antiquity- teach
the existence of soul as independent of body, and perhaps as the source of body. The great religions of the
world have taught the same, -those of ancient Egypt,
Greece, Rome;  those of Zoroaster, Buddha,  Confucius, and  Mohammed.   All have agreed in the
doctrine that man consists of soul as well as of body.
They have taken different views of the nature of soul;
but, in some sense, all have accepted it.
4
I
I
I 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
The body itself is something more than matter.
Particles of matter, however united, do not by themselves, make a living body. Where there is life
and growth, making a living body, there must be a
living soul to give unity to these elements. The particles of matter in every human body come and go.
We have none of the material atoms in our body today which we had a few years since. From whence,
then, does the unity of the body come? What continually makes of these elements one and the same
body? Nothing which we see,- nothing which the
surgeon's knife, searching every organ, can discover,
-nothing which the finest chemical  analysis can
detect. Yet there must be some power there, gathering, moulding, changing, distributing the carbon,
oxygen, and lime; organizing them, and preserving,
year after year, one and the same organic form. Compelled by these facts, Aristotle says, that, while man
has a rational soul, every animal has a living soul,
and every plant a vegetative soul.   So the book of
Genesis (in chap. I., verse 20) says, in the Hebrew,
" Let the waters bring forth abundantly every moving
creature that has a soul." Our translators apparently
were afraid of the word, and said, " every thing that
hath life." Again, in the 3oth verse, the Hebrew reads:
" Every beast of the field, and fowl of the air, and
every thing that creepeth on the earth wherein there
is a living soul."   In the margin of our Bibles, the
word " soul" is given for the Hebrew word.  The Bible
5 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
was not afraid to give a soul to animals. Whether it
is an immortal soul or not, is another question. The
souls of animals may be immortal. But at any rate,
wherever there is life, there must be something more
than matter, - something which no mere analysis of
matter can reach.
The language ofJesus asserts the reality of the soul,
and its continued existence after death.   He  says,
"Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after
that have no more that they can do. But I will fore warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after
he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say
unto you, fear him."  The apostle speaks of "fleshly
lusts which war against the soul."   Christ is called
"the Shepherd of souls."  We are told "to possess our
souls in patience," and to "purify our souls by obeying the truth." Finally, Paul prays that our whole
"spirit, soul, and body may be kept blameless."  He
also makes a distinction between this present bodythe life of which comes from the soul- and the future
body, which shall be spiritual; that is, moulded by,
and subject to, the highest principle in man. Man is
a soul, according to the New Testament. His identity
and personality are in his soul.   His soul may be
drawn down by his body, and become a carnal or
merely animal soul; or it may be raised up by the
spiritual part into communion with God, devotion to
eternal truth, obedience to duty, and be inspired
through and through by faith, hope, and love. Then
6 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
it becomes a spiritual soul. Just so, the body may be
so depraved and stupefied as to have only a sort of
vegetable life, and the soul then becomes a kind of
vegetable soul; or it may be raised up until it becomes
a spiritual body, such as we hope to have in the other
world.  Such also we have seen glimpses of in this
world.   In the great inspired moments of life, the
spiritual body shines out even here; as it did when
they looked at Stephen, and " saw his face as it had
been the face of an angel."
I do not quote these passages from the New Testament as proofs of the existence of the soul. I only
refer to them as part of the history of opinion, to
illustrate the universal belief in an immaterial principle which informs and vitalizes the body. The most
obvious proof of its existence, and that which has
probably produced this wide-spread belief in the soul,
is the unity of all organized and living beings. In
such beings, all the parts are correlated, to use an
expression taken from Kant. This philosopher says,
that, in a living body, the cause of the mode of existence of each part is contained in the whole. Death
leaves each part free to pass through changes belonging to itself alone. Cuvier gives a similar definition
of the living body.  Every organized being, he says,
forms a whole; a close corporation in which every
part acts in relation to the action of the whole.  All
its organs are correlated to each other.   If it is a
carnivorous animal, its teeth,;ts claws, its organs of
7
I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
motion, its senses, its digestive organs, are adapted to
this end. A living body grows, not by juxtaposition
(as is the case with a stone), but by intra-susception,
t)r growth from within. Life is a power which resists
chemical laws, which begin to take effect on the body
as soon as death arrives. Even if life has a physical
basis, in a peculiarly organized substance, this does not
explain the unity of a living body. What carries on
that which may be called " the vital vortex," or perpetual exchange of particles; the old being taken
away, and new ones put in their place? There is a
unity to every organized and living body, which is not
in the separate parts, nor in the separate parts taken
together. It is nothing which the senses can perceive,
which chemistry can detect,- nothing possessing material properties. Then it is not any thing material.
It may be said that we find occasionally an apparent
unity in a physical body, in which the particles come
and go, but the same form remains; and yet where no
one suspects the existence of a soul.  For example, a
cloud sometimes remains stationary over the top of a
mountain, preserving the same form, while all the particles of aqueous vapor of which.it is composed are
rushing into it on one side, and out of it on the other.
So, there are found on the surface of a glacier, deep
wells called moulins, which always keep the same
position, though the particles of ice are moving steadily
on, day by day, at the rate of one or two feet every
twenty-four hours. But in these cases the unity comes
8
I
i 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
from external physical forces, which can be observed.
When the aqueous vapor, in an invisible state, is carried by the wind against the side of the mountain, it is
obliged to rise in order to pass over it. When it reaches
a certain height, the temperature is such that it is precipitated, and becomes visible. Passing on, it crosses
the summit, descends on the other side, and arrives at
a higher temperature as it descends the mountain side,
which causes it to evaporate, or become invisible.
External forces produce these results. But no external
forces create or preserve the unity of the living body.
That is something acting on it from within; and this
something escapes all the tests which detect physical
facts and laws.
Nevertheless, there has almost always been a minority which has taken a different view, and declared that
there was nothing in man but matter, and the results of
matter. The Sadducees among the Jews, the Epicureans among the Greeks and Romans, the Materialists
in modern times, have so thought. They argue in this
way; "We are certain of the existence of matter, but
not certain of the existence of any thing else. We
know that we have a body: we do not know that we
have a soul. The existence of soul is therefore an
hypothesis; and an unnecessary one, because all mental phenomena may be accounted for, as resulting from
matter. If biody can separate blood into bone and
muscle; if it can digest food, and make chemical
compounds of the air, - why can it not also produce
9 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
thought and feeling? If the liver can secrete bile, why
may not the brain secrete ideas?  Till we find out all
that body can do, and reach its limit, why think that
there is any thing more? Let us be contented with
one cause until more are found to be necessary."
Certain facts of experience seem also to confirm the
views of Materialists. For example, when the body is
well and strong, the thoughts and feelings are also
sound and healthy; when the body is sick and weak,
the mind is weakened too. When the body grows old
and feeble, the memory is impaired, the judgment is
less vigorous, the feelings grow torpid. When the
body dies, there is nothing more seen or known of the
man. " As far as we know, the man has also come to
an end," says the Materialist; denying, of course, all the
accounts of spiritual appearances. A stone falls on
your head, and a little bit of the skull presses on the
brain. All thought immediately stops, and remains
suspended, until the surgeon comes and trepans the
skull, and removes the pressure. Instantly thought,
feeling, will return.  "Does not this show that the soul
is the result of the body?" asks the Materialist.
"By  no means," replies the Immaterialist.  " It
only proves, that, while the soul is connected with the
body, it cannot do its work without it.. Deprive a
skilful carpenter of his tool-chest, and he becomes
helpless: he can do nothing. Does that prove that
the carpenter is the result of his tool-chest? The body
is the tool-chest which the soul uses; it is helpless
without it: but it does not follow from that that the
IO 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
soul is the result of the body. That the soul, in this
world, can do nothing without its body, no more proves
that the soul comes from the body, than the fact that
a surgeon cannot operate without his instruments,
proves the surgeon to be the result and growth of his
instruments. The soul is in full activity, - thinking,
feeling, acting. An extra drop of blood in the brain
stops all this thought in a moment.'True. And so, an
astronomer is making some great discovery through his
telescope. A film of mist comes over the object-glass.
His discovery stops in a moment: all his power comes
to an end. But you would not say that the astronomer
was the result of the telescope, because he cannot act
without his telescope. Why, then, argue that the soul
is the result of body, because it cannot act without the
the body? *
* It has been said that these analogies are inadequate, because we know the existence of the carpenter and surgeon,
but do not know the existence of soul. If the object of my
illustration was to prove the existence of soul, the objection
would be valid. But it is not: it is to answer the objection to
its existence drawn from the facts which show the dependence
of soul on body. The Materialist argues that because the
phenomena of thought, &c., depend on the condition of the
body, they must be the result of body. I reply that this
is not necessary, because, in other instances, certain manifestations depend on the condition of certain bodies; but
we know that they do not result from them. If you say that
A can never appear except under certain conditions of B,
and therefore A is a result or a property of B, I may answer
you by showing that C never appears except under certain
conditions of D, and yet it is certain that C is not the result
of D.
I I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
The soul is like a musician sitting at his organ, and
drawing from it delicate and delicious music. But
the instrument grows old,- the bellows refuse to supply the air to the pipes; the pipes crack; the keys are
out of joint. The musician no longer can play as before. As the organ gradually grows old, weak, dilapidated, out of tune, the power of the musician seems to
grow weak too. At last the organ refuses to give a
sound. It stops. The musical power stops too, at
the same time. Do you infer from that, that the
musician is dead, or that he is only a property of
the organ? No. Give him a new instrument, and
you will see that his power is as great as ever. So,
when the human body grows old, the brain becomes
feeble: and we cannot recollect as we once could; we
cannot think as we once could. That is because the
instrument of thought, love, memory, and imagination has decayed: that is all. Give the soul a new
instrument, a spiritual body; and it will be seen that
its power is the same as ever.
The Materialist says, "We are certain of the existence of matter, not of spirit. We know that we have
a body: we do not know that we have a soul." I
deny the fact. I assert that we are no more certain of
the existence of body, than we are of the existence of
soul. All we know of body is its properties, - that
it is hard or soft, square or round, sweet or bitter,
colored or colorless, fragrant or inodorous, having taste
or insipid. Just so we know the qualities of soul, -
I2 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
that it is something which thinks, remembers, hopes,
fears, loves and hates, chooses and refuses. I am just
as certain that I love, that I think, that I choose, - as
I am that I can touch, taste, and smell. I know my
thought as certainly as I know my sensations.
You say, we know what matter is, but do not
know what soul is. What, then, is matter? All you
can say is, that which we perceive through the senses,
that is matter. Matter is that which I can see with
my eyes, taste with my tongue, touch with my hands,
smell with my nose, hear with my ears. Very well.
But I cannot touch a thought, or taste a feeling, or
smell a resolution, or measure the size of my hope
and fear. Then these are not matter, but something
else. Then there is something else in the world besides matter; and something of whose existence we
are just as certain as we are of the existence of matter  But we must go further. I am more certain of soul
than I am of body.  Let me suppose that I have some
bodily substance before me, -say an apple. I perceive the apple; but what do I perceive? I perceive,
you say, something round, colored, fragrant, and with
taste. By no means. What I perceive is the sensation in myself of roundness, of color, of fragrance.
But the sensation is in my mind. How do I know
that there is something round and red and sweet outside of my organs of taste and smell and touch?  All
I perceive is the sensation. But the sensation is not in
the apple, is it? the sensation is in myself. How do I
I3 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
know that there is an apple outside of myself, - outside of my sensation? I admit that I do know it; but
how do I know it? I answer that I infer it, by an act
of reason. I reason spontaneously and instinctively
that there must be something outside of me to give me
these sensations, because I cannot create them in myself when I choose. So I call that which acts upon
me, through my senses, matter. But the sensation,
which is in my mind and is immaterial, is more certain than the inference from the sensation. I know
the sensation: I infer the existence of the apple.
No doubt, in all this, the mind acts irresistibly
and necessarily. When we perceive outward phenomena, through the senses, we are obliged to infer that
there is some substance in which they inhere. We call
that substance matter. Exactly in the same way,
when we perceive inward phenomena through consciousness; when we perceive in ourselves thoughts
and feelings, - we are obliged, by a law of our nature,
to infer that there is substance in which they inhere,
and we call it soul or spirit. And as all the phenomena or qualities of body are different from those of
mind, and as all we know of substances is through
their phenomena, we are obliged to infer that the substances are different; that is, that there are two substances, —body and soul.
Therefore, whenever any one asks me, " How do you
know that there is such a fact as soul?" I may immediately reply, " How do you know that there is such a
x4 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
fact as body? Tell me that, and I will tell you how I
know that there is soul." All that you know of body
are its qualities, properties, or phenomena; these
qualities are all sensible qualities, perceived through
the senses. As these qualities are all linked together
and co-ordinated, you are obliged to suppose something
which unites them, and you call that something matter.
Exactly in the same way, all I know of mind are its
qualities, properties, or phenomena; and I know all
of these through my consciousness. I do not see, smell,
or taste my thoughts; but I am conscious of my
thoughts. And as my thoughts and feelings and will
are all united together and co-ordinated, I am obliged
to suppose something which unites them, and I call
that something mind or soul or spirit.
We see, therefore, that we are just as sure of the
existence of the soul, as we are of the existence of
the body; and that no possible proof can be given of
the reality of the outward world, which cannot also be
given of the real existence of the soul. And I do not
think there is a child, capable of understanding any
thing, who may not understand this. But I wish to
make it a little plainer still.
If the conditions of the body affect the soul, the conditions of the soul also affect the body. A man is in
perfect bodily health. A letter is brought to him. He
opens it, reads it, and instantly faints away, falling on
the ground as if dead. The thought communicated to
the mind has acted instantly on the body, causing a
I5 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
reverse action of the heart, and drawing the blood
from the brain. No physical cause can account for
this result. Nothing has happened to his body, except
what came to it from the mind. Again, something is
said on the other side of the room, and it makes you
blush; that is, the thought communicated to your soul
acts on the blood, and causes it to mount into the
capillaries of the face. The soul acts on the body as
often as the body acts on the soul. Now if, because
the condition of the body affects the mind, you argue
that the mind is material, - then, when the condition
of the mind affects the body, you ought to argue that
the body is immaterial. If one class of facts proves
the soul to be a property of the body, the other class
of facts proves the body to be a property of the soul.
Accordingly, many persons do argue that there is only
one substance; but that this is not matter, but spirit.
This theory, which makes every thing spirit, is certainly more reasonable than that which makes every
thing matter. But neither is borne out by facts. The
facts go to show that there are two substances, - soul
and body; and that man is a soul, dwelling at present
in a body, which is the garment he wears, the house
he lives in, but which he is to lay aside for a house
not made with hands, for a heavenly garment to be
worn hereafter.*
* It may be said that, while Materialism assumes that
there is only one substance, namely, matter; and while Spiritualism also assumes only one substance, namely, spirit,
i6 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
We are conscious of ourselves as units; and there is
no higher evidence than consciousness. Matter is divisible and extended: every material substance may
be conceived of as having parts,- upper and lower,
inward and outward, right side and left side. But we
cannot conceive of ourselves in this way. We say " I
think, J feel, f wish, f dislike;" but we cannot conceive of this "," which loves and hates, as being long
or short, divisible, extended, having an upper and
under side to it.  Therefore, the "I"  of which we are
conscious is not a material butt an immaterial substance;
since it does not possess the properties essential to all
matter, which are extension and divisibility.
As long as the mind is united with the body, the
condition of the body affects it.  We are comfortable
there is a third alternative better still. This is to assume one
substance which manifests itself indifferently as either matter
or spirit, -the mysterious substratum, fountain, or cause
from which both proceed. No doubt God is one; and in him
is to be found the source of matter as well as of spirit. They
have their unity in him. To suppose otherwise, to treat
matter as an outlying substance, alien from God, a dark
mnaterial to be worked upon by his power, is to fall into a
false dualism. I grant this. But that must often be distinguished which cannot be divided. The human soul, no less
than matter, must rest ultimately in God. Neither is that
an outlying substance, independent of him. He is a perpetual
creator both of matter and souls. Still, we must no more
confound body with soul, than we must confound soul with
God. The distinction of matter and spirit is as important as
their unity; and, without the previous analysis, the ultimate
synthesis is impossible.
2
I7 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
or uncomfortable, according as the house we live in is
comfortable or uncomfortable. But if mind were the
result of body, as music is the result of a musical-box,
then the condition of the body would always and
regularly influence the mind. In that case, given the
condition of the body, and you could always infer the
condition of the soul. When I know the condition of
the barred, pins, and springs in the box, I can always
tell what kind of music it will make. But this is not
the case with the nature of man.   Let the soul be
inspired with profound convictions, by living ideas,
by large affections, and it rises superior to its body:
it "o'erinforms its tenement of clay."   The wife
and mother, feeble before, become strong and enduring, when they are called on to nurse a husband or a child. The soul compels the body to serve
it, and do its will; gives it a strength not its own;
enables it to bear long fatigue, watching, want of sleep,
want of food; reverses all the common hygienic laws.
How often a great mental excitement will at once cure
a bodily disease! One of these days we shall probably
have a mind-cure; and then we shall send sick people
to establishments where the body will be cured by
well-arranged and properly administered mental stimulants and mental food. People will be talked into
health, sung into health; and the wise physician, instead of potions and pills, will prescribe great thoughts
and beautiful ideas. I have known instances of persons given over by their physicians, who saved theit
I8 
FROM ATIIEISM TO THEISM.
lives by resolving not to die, putting forth such a vigor
of will as conquered and drove back the creeping approach of death. The mind sometimes grows young,
as the body grows old. As the poor house of clay
wears to pieces, the soul within spires upward in an
increasing flame of light and love. The body decays,
but the soul continues to go onward and upward, onward and upward, till the body drops from it, and
leaves it more alive than ever.
If the health of the soul depends on that of the body,
-as we are in the habit of saying so frequently, -it
is no less true that bodily health depends very much
on mental health. A conscience at ease; a mind
which trusts in Providence and is not anxious; a heart
which does not devour itself with jealousy, envy, and
hatred, but has a joyful sympathy with all around,
these keep the body well and young. Fear, anxiety,
gloom, bad-temper, make us prematurely old. If we
wish to be in good health, we ought, indeed, to have
well-ventilated apartments, to take enough exercise, be
careful of what we eat and drink; but chiefly we must
have courage, faith, hope, and love.
Perhaps you will say, "What is the use of all this
argument? Man is the same being, whatever theory
we take of his substance, - whether we call it matter,
or call it spirit." But this is no mere question of
words. It is a question whether we shall look down
or look up.   Whatever we believe ourselves to be,
we are likely to endeavor to do. If we say, "Man
I9 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
is only a higher animal; he grows as a vegetable
grows, -by force of the root and stalk, sun and rain;
he is made to eat and drink; digest; inhale and exhale the air; obey his appetites; gratify his passions;
then grow old, and fade away,"- if we say this and
believe this of ourselves, we shall do this and no more.
But if we believe there is something within us which
can react on matter; which can control and conquer
the appetites and senses; which can soar upward to
the seventh heaven of thought and love; which can
live according to conscience and reason; which can
adopt a plan, and adhere to it,- then we shall be
more likely to live that way, and become what we believe ourselves capable of becoming.
I reverence the magnificence of nature, and see God
present in it. Often, on a winter's night, when the sky
is sparkling with innumerable stars, I have gone out and
looked hour after hour through my telescope at the
majestic orbs, - the great double-stars, blue and yellow, orange and purple; the clustering brilliant constellations, blazing like a crown of diamonds in the sky,and have at last felt almost as if I had left this little
planet, and was roaming through the infinite universe
of God. I love the majesty of the mountains, rising
in solemn grandeur into the silent circumambient air;
great sentinels, keeping watch for thousands of years
above the homes of men. I can sit all day watching
the ocean, as it rolls, in never-ending harmonies of
sound, its incessant waves. I am at home in the
20 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
peaceful woods, when the flickering light falls amid
the numerous leaves, and every plant and bush has a
beauty all its own. But what are all these to the soul
of man, - to the majestic intellect which can mete out
the heavens with a span, and comprehend the dust of
the earth in a measure, and weigh the mountains in
scales? What is the glory of the midnight heavens to
that of a great spirit which rises to truth and God, and
lifts up nations with it, - the soul of a Zoroaster or a
Confucius, of a Socrates or a Paul? Such souls break
the chains of sense and selfishness for millions, and
make mankind free to follow the truth. " The glory
of the terrestrial is one: the glory of the celestial is
anothler."  What is the exquisite beauty of a flower to
the tender motherly love which beams on the little
infant, and radiates lilght and life into its breast?
A young man, nursed in affection; lapped in luxury;
fed on literature, art, and science; just entering life,
which opens its hospitable arms to welcome him to
fame, influence, and love,- hears the cry of his country
in her hour of danger, renounces all his cherished hopes
at that solemn call, and goes to die, torn by shot and
shell, amid the rage and curses of foes. So young
Shaw died on the parapets of Wagner, and a thousand
others elsewhere.  And while I marvel at this power
of spirit, my Materialist comes, and says, " Oh! it was
the action of some of the lobes of the brain. The gray
matter of the nervwous tissue secreted patriotism and
conscience, as the liver secretes bile." I cannot believe
21 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
him. " That which is born of flesh is flesh, but that
which is born of spirit is spirit."
More than twenty-three centuries have passed since
the son of Sophroniscus taught in the streets of Athens.
He might have lived a comfortable life; he might have
used his wonderful intellect in getting riches or power,
and died among troops of friends. No: he devoted himself to teaching the young men to be just, to be generous, to be lovers of truth and beauty, above all else.
He taught the grandeur of the soul; taught that the
body was not the man, but the soul was the man;
denounced all meanness; made enemies of the pow
erful; and, at last, where condemned to die, spent a
summer's day in discoursing on immortality with his
disciples. At the close of the conversation, when he
was about to drink the hemlock, one of his disciples
asked him how hle wished to be buried.  "Any way
you please," he replied, " if you can catch me to bury
me.  You seem to think, after all I have said, that this
body is Socrates."   The Materialist thinks so still,
and considers that wonderfiil truth, which uplifts us
and teaches us across all these centuries, was only the
secretion of a little gray pulp in the brain.
Body, make what you will of it, be it ever so subtle
and ethereal, can never be refined into soul. Body is
composed of parts, infinitely divisible; soul is a unit,
incapable of division.   If I am only body, then at
death, when the body is dissolved, I am dissolved; I
pass into the life of nature; I become a part of earth
22 
FROMI ATIIEISM TO THEISM.
and air and water. Faith in immortality disappears
with this doctrine.
I stand by the grave of a fiiend, a dear and noble
character, one whom  I love better than myself.   I
have seen him growing from good to better. I have
seen him conquering his passions; curbing his selfwill; accepting the great law of duty as the rule of
his life; trusting absolutely in God's providence amid
all disaster, disappointment, failure. I have seen himn
thus going forward, ever forward; becoming more
simple, more tender, more exquisitely conscious of
God's love, from year to year. His presence was a
blessing wherever he passed.   His words dropped
from his lips freighted with generous influence.  You
went from him better and happier. At last, in his
prime, in the midst of his great usefulness, he falls. I
come and look on that pale forehead for the last time.
I say: " We only seem the dead, who stay behind: he
has gone into fuller life."  " Pshaw!" says the Materialist, " that is very unscientific.   He has become
carbon and hydrogen.  He was only organized matter:
now he is disorganized and dissolved. Some one else
will take his place in the universe; but he is gone for
ever."
Of course, I do not say that all Materialists deny a
hereafter. But this is the natural tendency of Materialism.   Materialism  naturally tends  to deny  any
filture life. To realize immortality, we must believe
in a soul, which is our real self; which is a unit, in
23 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
divisible and indestructible; which gives unity to the
body while it is in it, and organizes continually all
particles of matter according to its own type.  We
must believe in a soul which is also capable of organizing ideas and thoughts; capable of free movement;
capable of deliberately choosing an end, according to
reason, and then going forward to it. We must believe in a soul, not the creature, but the creator, of
circumstances, with inexhaustible capacities of knowledge and love.  Only thus can we realize immortality.
But Materialism does more than this: it takes away
God.
If all that we know is matter,- if all that we call
thought is the result of matter, - then we know
nothing, and can know nothing, of God, the infinite
Spirit.   According to Materialism, matter develops
itself by laws of its own into mineral, vegetable, and
animal life; and then evolves out of these what we
call thought, love, and will.  Man is not created; he is
evolved: the world is not created; it develops itself.
God is dethroned by Materialism; and another deity,
the Law of Development, is placed in the temple to be
worshipped in his place.
The foundation of our knowledge of God is what
we learn of spirit in ourselves. We call God the
infinite Mind, adding the conception of the infinite to
the consciousness of our own reason. We call him
supreme goodness, holiness, freedom; but to attach
any meaning to these terms, we must study them in
24 
FROM ATIIEISM TO TI-IEISM.
ourselves. If we consider all that is spiritual in ourselves to be only highly developed matter, then we
shall be unable to believe in any other God than the
universe itself. The universe, then, is self-created; it
has no Creator: it is self-governed; it has no Ruler:
it rolls on its dark path to no foreseen and prepared
end, but only as blind chance and iron fate may determine. Materialism, carried out logically, ends in
atheism.
But, fortunately, man was not made to be satisfied
withl this barren doctrine. He was made to believe in
soutl as well as body, in unity no less than in variety,
in freedom as well as in law, in spirit as much as in
matter, in an immortal future as in a mortal present,
in God as in the world. Science means knowledge;
and we know soul, God, and eternity just as well, and
in exactly the same way, as we know body, the world,
and time. Only let tus cherish this higher knowledge.
Let us understand that our dignity, our freedom, our
nobleness, consist in looking at the spiritual and immortal side of our being, and rising evermore above
time and sense to that which transcends time and
sense, and remains when these leave us for ever, when
time shall be no longer, and the heavens shall depart
as a scroll that is rolled together. For such shall soul
be, even if all matter disappears and comes to an end.*
* It is sometimes said, that it is improper to argue from
the bad consequences of any theory to its untruth; and it may
be urged that I do this in the latter part of this chapter. I do
25 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
NOTE.
The scientific Materialism, so called, of the present day
comes from Germany, and seems a reaction against the extreme idealism of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. The chief
representative of this school of Materialism is Biichner,
author of the book called "Force and Matter" (Kraft und
Staff). In this book, Materialism finds a sort of pocketmanual. Its fundamental principle is thlis: "There is no
force without matter: there is no matter without force." The
theory is, that force is a property of matter; and matter therefore remains the only substance. Both matter and force have
always existed, and existed together. It is absurd to conceive
of a force outside of matter, or above it. Life is developed by
spontaneous generation firom the lowest germ; and, by transformation of species, man at last arrives. Of course, thought
indeed endeavor to show that Materialism tends to destroy
the generous and noble sentiments of the soul, to weaken our
faith in God, to quench our hope of immortality. But is this
an argumentum ad invidiam,? If I can prove that a certain
belief A, is inconsistent with other beliefs B, C, D, of which
other beliefs we have good evidence, is not that, so far, a reason for rejecting the belief A?
When Paul was contending against the general proposition
of certain Corinthians, - viz., that "there is no resurrection of
the dead," - he argued from the consequences of this proposition.  "If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ
not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching
vain, and your faith also is vain," &c. Is this an aigumentun
ad invidiam?  No.  Paul simply said, "If you accept this
proposition, you will be obliged, logically, to reject other beliefs which you have already received on good evidence. If
you have accepted those other propositions on good grounds,
then so far you have good grounds for rejecting this."
26 
FROM ATHEISM 1'TO T1IIEISM.
and will are products of matter.  Moleschott says, "Without
phosphorus, no thought," a proposition which the Spiritualist
will not care to deny.  But he also adds, "Thcught is a
movement of matter," a proposition much more doubtful.
Buiichner's work is written with power and clearness, and
has passed through many editions in England, France, and
Germany. He does not take the trouble to give a definition
of matter, but believes it to be infinitely divisible, in opposition to the atomic theory. This gives M. Paul Janet,* one
of his critics, occasion to remark that the very conception
of matter disappears if you conceive it to be infinitely divisible. For, says he, if we imagine a heap of sand, the only
reality in it consists in the particles of sand of which it is
composed.  Their composition in a heap is only the sum of
these particles, and is purely form, not substance. Now,
take one of these particles, and suppose it to be divided
It shows a want of intellectual acumen to accept a proposition on the basis of a certain argument, without first looking
to see whether it is coherent or incoherent with other propositions which are already a part of our intellectual system of
thought.
Wrong to look at consequences! Does not the man of
science look at consequences before accepting any new theory
in chemistry, geology, or astronomy? He says, " How is this
to be reconciled with what we know already? Is this consistent or otherwise with the ascertained facts and laws of
science?"  It would be childish not to put this test to every
hypothesis which asserts itself as truth. All truth is consistent with itself; and it is a sufficient argument against any
theory, that it calls upon us to reject what we have already
found to be true. That the tree is known by its fruits is not
yet a wholly antiquated maxim.
* Le Matedrialismne Contemttoraine, par Paul Janet. i864.
27 
STEPS OF BEI,LEF.
into a million parts,- the only reality will then consist in the
parts, and not in their composition. But each of these parts
is again divisible, and so the reality departs from it again into
the particles into which it is divided. Go on for ever in this
operation, and the reality perpetually disappears and becomes
something relative and provisional. It is not in the form or
heap, nor in the particles. It must, then, be subject to some
condition outside of itself. But this unknown condition or
principle, not being material, must be immaterial. Consequently, Buichner's doctrine of the infinite divisibility of
matter, leads through Materialism back to Idealism.
M. Biichner's critics find him equally weak when he considers the relation of matter to motion. They use against
him the scientific doctrine of inertia, accepted by most philosophers, from Newton to Laplace. This doctrine is that of
the indifference of matter as respects motion or rest. If put
in motion, it has no tendency to stop; if at rest, no tendency
to move. This is a fundamental law of science, without which
some sciences, astronomy for example, would be impossible;
for this tendency in matter to motion or rest would enter as
an unknown element into every calculation and derange its
results. Every astronomical verification, therefore, is a proof
of the doctrine of inertia, and so disproves the statement
that force is a property of matter. Force must be something
outside of matter, and is admitted (says Mr. Martineau) both
by Comte and Mill to be hyperphysical. Mr. Martineau
very clearly shows (in his article on "Nature and God "),
that all force is of one type, and that type mind. Thus we
have another confutation of Materialism, derived from one of
the fundamental laws of physical science.
28 
CHAPTER II.
WHY DO WE BELIEVE IN GOD? OR, THE EVIDENCES OF THEISM.
HE  present chapter has two subjects: first, Why
do we believe in God? second, What are the
proofs of His existence?
These two questions are very different ones, and
may require very different answers. It is one thing to
believe a fact, another thing to prove it. A proof is
only one kind of evidence: it is evidence addressed to
the logical understanding.   But we believe a great
f
many facts, which we have never had proved to us,
and which we cannot prove to others. I believe my
own existence. I not only believe it, but I know it.
This is the most certain knowledge we have; for if
we doubt our own existence, the very doubt is evidence
that we exist. WVe could not doubt, unless we existed
to doubt. WVe are so certain of our existence, that we
cannot disbelieve it, if we try to do so. And yet,
though we know our own existence as an absolute
certainty, we cannot prove it logically, in any way, to
a disbeliever.   Suppose I should say: "Prove that
you exist.   I deny your existence; now prove it." 
STEPS OF BEIIEF.
You  reply perhaps:  "You  see me, you hear me
speak, I touch you with my hand; that is proof."
" No," I answer: "I seem to see you, I fancy that I
hear you speak, I appear to touch you with my hand.
But in dreams I see and hear people; and they talk to
me, and tell me what I did not know before. They
seem as real as you do.  How do I know that I am
not dreaming about you? Prove to me that you are a
substance outside of my mind, and not such substances
as dreams are made of."   You cannot do it.  No
man can do it. No one can prove his own existence
to another, nor to himself.  LHe is conscious of his
owvn existence, and so he knows it; that is all, but
that is enough.
In the same way, it is impossible to prove to a
doubter the existence of an outside world. If I doubt
the existence of an outside world, you cannot prove it
to me by any argument or chain of logic. You say to
me: " Do not you see it? do not you touch it? does it
not seem outside of yourself?"  " Certainly," I reply,
" it seems outside of myself; and so do the images in
my dreams seem outside of myself. I am only aware
of my own sensations: how do I know that there is
any thing real corresponding to them outside of me?"
You cannot get beyond this. If a man is not satisfied
with the evidence of consciousness, and wishes a
logical proof addressed to his understanding. of the
existence of an outside world, he cannot have it. We
can neither prove our own existence nor that of the
30 
FROM ATHIEISM TO TIIEISM.
world, to one who questions the evidence of consciousness. The two facts of which all mankind are certain
are incapable of proof.
And, if we could prove the existence of the outside
world by means of logical arguments, we should not
make it more certain, but less so. We should bring
it down from the sphere of knowledge to that of probability. An argument can only produce probability.
It can produce a very strong degree of belief, -a
belief so strong as to be almost as good as certainty
for all practical purposes; but it is not so certain as
experience. Wve believe, on the ground of argument,
that there is such a place as London, or that there
was such a man as Julius Cxsar;,nd our belief is
almost equal to certainty, but not quite. If we had
talked with Julius Caesar, if we had lived in London,
we should have been more certain. Intuition and
experience give a higher certainty than argument can
produce.
If a man has no ear for music, and does not know
the difference between two tunes, you may convince
him by argument that there is such a thing as music.
You can say:  "If music does not exist, is it likely
that men and women should spend so much time and
money in concerts, oratorios, and in taking musical
lessons; that they should make and buy pianos, flutes,
violins, trumpets, harps, and organs; that in all lands
and all times there should have been musical instruments, tunes, and songs? Is it probable that mankind
31 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
should have entered into this great conspiracy among
themselves to impose on each other? Is it not more
probable that music is a reality? " And the man, very
likely, would be entirely convinced by this argument.
But his belief in music, based on such an argument,
must evidently be very much less strong, than if he
himself had a sense of melody, harmony, tune, and
time, and thereby knew the reality of music.
Just so, you can convince a man born blind, by dint
of argument, that there is a visible world of color and
grace, of light and shade. Since all men, except a
very few, agree in this, you may argue that it is more
likely that the few should be deficient in the sense of
sight, than that the many should be mistaken in thinking that they see. Since, in all lands and all times
men have agreed in speaking of a visible universe, it
may be highly probable even to a blind man that there
is such a universe. But if he could see it, this probability would at once rise into knowledge.
In the same way, we can adduce evidence which
ought to convince the atheist, of the very high probability of God's existence. Perhaps, as some men are
color-blind and others are music-deaf, there may be
some persons blind and deaf toward God, whose
spiritual senses are dull and as yet undeveloped. We
may give such persons very good reasons for believing,
on grounds of argument, that God exists. Such reasons I will now proceed to give B3ut I wish it to be
understood that I am  only attempting  to make the
.
32 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
existence of God probable by means of proofs: by and
by, I shall show how it is that we can know God, by
a certainty above all argument, higher than all logic,
and more satisfactory than any process of reasoning
ever can be.
And. first, we may say to our atheist, - just as we
would say to our deaf man, or our blind man,- " Is it
probable that men, in all lands and times, should enter
into a conspiracy to make believe that there is a God?
Differing from each other in all possible ways as to
what sort of a being God is; fighting together and
murdering each other, about these differences, -the vast
mijority of mankind, in all ages, have yet believed in
Beings, or a Being, above this world, and higher than
man, - the Maker, Ruler, Law-giver of this universe.
Is this universal faith likely to be an invention or
a deception? Is it a tree without a root? Is it an
effect without a cause? Is it not far more likely that
man is naturally a religious being, that he has an
organ by which he can perceive the infinite, the
eternal the supernatural, as a reality? Unless there
is a supernatural world, unless there is a God, - a
God whom men perceive, faintly or clearly, - how
can you account for this universal faith of the human
race in the supernatural world and in God?"
The atheistic answer to this argument sometimes is,
that religion is the work of priests, who have invented
it, and who keep it up as a cheat, in order to get a
support out of men, by playing on their credulity and
3
3.") 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
their fear. You may weigh the force of this answer
by observing how it would sound in another case.
Suppose the man who had no ear for music should
say, "Oh yes! I know that men have always had
what they called music; but this has been an invention of the musicians. They have imposed on men
by making them believe there was such a thing as
music, merely to get a support out of them by selling
their organs and pianos. Music results from a conspiracy of the musical-instrument makers and mu
sicians."
A proof of the existence of God- usually called
the ontological proof- is to be found in the very idea
of God existing in the human mind. How did man
get the idea of an infinite and perfect Being? He does
not find any thing in himself infinite and perfect:
he is finite and imperfect. He does not find any thing
outside of himself infinite or perfect. The world of
nature is, as far as his organs of observation reach,
finite and imperfect. Did he invent this notion of an
infinite and perfect Being? But then he must have
invented it out of nothing; for there is nothing similar
to it in the universe. All that we perceive outside of
ourselves, all that we feel within ourselves, is finite.
Yet we all have a clear conception of an infinite, supreme, and perfect Being. Is it not probable that this
idea comes to us by means of a spiritual organ, the
object of which is the infinite and perfect Being? If
we did not find this idea in ourselves, if we did not
34 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
find it in the outward world, if we could not have
created it out of nothing, - how did we get it, except
by receiving it through our spiritual nature, or our
higher reason, -that is, by seeing the infinite and perfect Being, through the eye of the soul? An argument
something like this has seemed satisfactory to some of
the greatest minds the world has produced. It has
been declared a complete proof of the existence of
God, by Anselm, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz.  "For,"
say they, "we have the idea of a perfect Being in our
minds. But existence is a part of this idea, and a necessary part; for an imaginary being is less perfect than
a real being. Therefore, we are so made as necessarily
to believe in the existence of a perfect Being. Whenever we think of God, we are obliged to think of him
as existing. And we can have no higher proof of any
reality, than that we necessarily believe in its existence,
so soon as the idea of it arises ill our mind."
I showed in the first chapter why it is that we believe in the soul as a real substance. I said that we
believe in the soul for the same reason that we believe
in body or matter.   All that we perceive of matter
are its phenomena, which are known to us through the
senses; and we find all these sensible phenomena
going together, or correlated: hence we infer one
substance in which they inhere and call it matter.  Just
so we said, all that we perceive of mind are its p)hlenomena, which are known to us thrpugh consciousness.
We are conscious of thought, feeling, hope, fear, will,
35 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
effect; and we find them all also correlated, - all
belong together; hence we infer a substance in which
they inhere, and call it soul. But, now, all these phenomena are finite, changing, limited, imperfect. Yet
there are also certain infinite phenomena. We perceive
certairn phenomena as infinite.  We cannot limit space
or time; we cannot limit power or cause; we cannot
limit truth or goodness. Above all finite powers and
causes, above all finite laws, above all finite goodness,
we perceive infinite power, infinite wisdom, infinite
goodness.   And  as all these are correlated and go
together, we infer substance in which they all inhere,
and call it God. Just as we infer matter, as the necessary basis of sensible phenomena, we infer God as
the necessary basis of spiritual phenomena;  and this
by a spontaneous act of the reason in all these three
cases. We infer matter from material phenomena;
we infer mind from mental phenomena; and we infer
God from spiritual phenomena.
Then, after the ontological argument for the existence of God, comes what is called the cosmological
argument.
Where did the world come from?  It did not make
itself; and we did not make it. The modern answer
of some philosophers seems to be stolen from Topsy.
Topsy says, " I wasn't made, Missis:'spects I growed."
So these philosophers say, " The world grew: it was
developed." But let us not be cheated by words. An
advancing world needs an author, quite as much as a
36 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
world which stands still. A world which has the
power of unfolding itself out of chaos into perfect
order and beauty, demands a cause, even more than
an unchanging world.
Every thing we perceive in the outward universe is
dependent. The mineral kingdom is held fast by gravitation to its place, and is moved to and fro by force
outside of itself. The vegetable kingdom depends on
earth, air, water, for its life. The animal kingdom
depends on the vegetable kingdom and the mineral.
And the earth itself, with all on it, depends on the sun
for motion, light, heat, growth, life. These all depend on each other: none can stand alone or go
alone.* But on what do all depend? Whence comes
the order, the arrangement, the growth, the permanence of them all, fusing them into a whole, a Kosmos
of order and beauty? Every thing that we see, hear,
and know in the outward universe is dependent: on
what do all depend? What hand holds them all up?
Wvhat mind plans, every day, the events which are to
happen in the universe? This great world is only as a
little infant which cannot take. a single step alone.
What parent watches its tottering footsteps, and makes
provision for its ignorant future?
Development is a word very easy to say. But the
* Recent physical researches in solar astronomy show that
the sun depends on the planets, and is very sensitive to their
influence.
37 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
history of this earth shows crisis as well as development. I go out with my geological teacher for a
ramble. He shows me, under my feet, the traces of
awful convulsions, of times when the solid rocks rolled
in liquid fire; whlen the atmosphere, a hundred miles
high, was filled with gases no animal lungs could
breathe. He shows me other long periods in which an
immeasurable ocean rolled above our continents, depositing them in successive strata, through uncalculated myriads of years. Again, he shows me other
epochs during which fearful animals crawled amid the
slime of a half-dried earth, and devoured its gigantic
vegetation. Again, the scene shifts, and all this northern hemisphere is a mass of ice, upon which one long
snow-storm beats and drifts and falls, day and night,
during a hundred years. The storm at last ceases;
the snow melts; the icebergs and glaciers fall away:
new heavens and a new earth arrive, fit for the home
of man.* What mighty hand, what far-seeing mind,
guided our earth, a drifting ship, without compass,
* A work lately published, called "The Pre-Glacial Man,"
considers the glacial epochs on the surface of the earth to
result from the extreme elongation, at certain periods, of the
transverse axis of the terrestrial orbit. The last period of
this sort took place about 350,00oo0 years ago, and continued
about 270,0o00 years, ending 50,000 years ago. According to
Denison's astronomy, when the excentricity of the earth's
orbit was IO,500,000 miles, and winter in our hemisphere coincided with the earth's greatest distance from the sun, the
mean cold of winter was 73~ below its present temperature.
38 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
chart, or mariners, through these terrible dangers, and
brought it to its present port in safety? Did the great
God called Development do it; or shall we look
higher?
Terrific forces, capable of blowing the earth to pieces,
are now guided and restrained by the same great hand
of power. Under our feet, a few miles down, there
probably rolls an ocean of fire: above it, separated by
a thin crust, rests the weight of five oceans. Let a
crack occur, and an ocean pour down into this central furnace, and what could save us? Let the central
fire lift the oceans a few thousand feet, and another
universal deluge would come. Who sets a limit to
the extremes of cold in winter, and heat in summer;
so that the thermometer shall not fall to IO~ below
zero, or rise to 200oo above it, but only oscillate between
safe limits? We have a tornado occasionally, which
blows down a few houses and trees. Let its force be
but increased a little, and it would sweep away man
and human civilization from the face of nature. Who
says to the storm, to the sea, to the heat of summer, to
the cold of winter, to plague, to famine, to fire, to
pestilence, " Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further,
and here shall thy power be stayed "?
I go out into the woods in the fair October days.
Over a million flickering leaves, the innocent fires of
autumn pour their flaming glories. Every imperial
tint appears, - of scarlet and crimson, orange and
yellow. The climbing vines hang from the branches
39 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
their unbought draperies, more gorgeous than those
of kings' palaces.   The  oak-leaves run up through
their long gamut of browns.   Little mosses cluster
round the roots of the trees; a soft bed of tender green
and gray lichens variegates their trunks. The clouds
slide softly past the openings above; the brook circles
and sweeps through light and darkness below. Who
has bathed the world with this ineffable, indescribable
beauty? If you come home after a few weeks' absence,
and find your room arranged for you, - another picture on the walls, a new and pretty carpet under your
feet,-  you  bless in your heart the thoughtfijl love
which provided them. When we go out amid the
infinite beauty of the advancing or declining year, and
listen to the melodies of woods and winds and waters,
-all new every hour, every moment, - shall we think
they come by accident, or by some blind, cold law?
I had rather be
"A pagan suckled in a creed outworn,"
amid "the intelligible forms of ancient poets," and
"the fair humanities of old religion; " for the Greeks
saw something divine in nature,- caught glimpses of
naiads by the mountain streams, and of dryads hiding
in the summer woods. Their ignorance was wiser
than our cold reason, which disenchants nature of
love and life. But wiser still the conception which
finds God, the universal Father, above all, through all,
and in all. Then earth becomes again alive.; its soul
40 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
is no more wanting. Again the little hills clap their
hands; again the forests, lashing their branches in
the storm, and the sea, rolling its long waves up the
gleaming beach, call aloud upon God.
"God! let the torrents, like a voice of nations,
Answer; and let the ice-plains echo, God!
God! sing, ye meadow streams, with gladsome voice;
Ye pine groves, with your soft and soul-like sound;
Ye signs and wonders of the elements
Utter forth God, and fill the world with praise."
It is a law of nature, that, when we see adaptation,
we infer design. When the geologist picks up a stone
so smoothed and sharpened as to be adapted to do the
work of a hatchet, he infers that it was probably designed for that object.   But when he finds another
and another, tens and hundreds, and with them other
stones adapted for other human uses, his suspicion
passes into certainty.   But the world in which we
live is crowded in every part with adaptations. Air,
earth, sea, are adapted to furnish homes and food for
various vegetables and animals.   The lenses of the
eye, and the optic nerve behind them, are adapted to
the waves of light which roll from the sun, ninety
millions of miles away.   The eye is telescope and
microscope, altering its own focus to suit the distance
of the object.   How admirably is the hand adapted
to the work  it has to do!   It is a portable  toolchest, capable of the finest and the strongest work.
The optical-instrument maker can find no better in
41
I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
strument than his thumb with which to grind the
object-glass of a telescope. The blind man reads his
letters with the ends of his fingers. Merely to enumerate the adaptations of the human body would require
a work larger than that Chinese novel which, they say,
occupied its author sixty years in writing, and was
concluded in i62 folio volumes. The world is throughout woven into a great web of adaptations, dovetailed
together, part fitting into part without friction, without
jar. Did it come together thus without any foresight
or design, - the growth of blind law? Then we may
say that the roof which covers St. Peter's, with its
trusses, its beams, its rafters, its braces, might have
grown up by sore law of development; for, for every
mortise and every bearing in that roof, there are a
million adaptations in the world around us. I hold in
my hand, we will suppose, a volume. It is, let us say,
Gibbon's " Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
It narrates that vast transaction in a long, majestic
succession of chapters, each teeming with knowledge
and interest.  I ask my atheist whence the book came.
On his theory he might say: "It came by a chance
process, without design. The lead out of which the
types were made happened to get run into moulds,
and by accident letters came at the end of each type.
These types, whirled round in the vortex of circum stance, at last came together in a printing-office, and
got themselves arranged by good luck in a printer's
stick. Other materials, flowing together, developed
42 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
themselves into paper and a printing-press; and by
a natural law the letters were so arranged as to print
this  consecutive  history.   This,"  says my  atheist,
"is the philosophical explanation of the matter.  No
Faust invented printing; no great historian composed
the story: it is unphilosophic to assume design, when
development will explain  it sufficiently."   Is  the
atheist offended that I put such an absurd theory in
his mouth? But what reason have we to attribute the
mere record of Romnan history to design, when you
think no design apparent in Roman history itself, with
all other human history; when you think that the
wonderful story of earth and man drifted by a blind
accident upon the stage of being? *
* Mr. Darwin's theory of the formation of species by natural
selection is supposed, by some, to invalidate this whole argument for design.   This theory is not yet science, but an
hypothesis, which may or may not hereafter be accepted as
science.   But even though it should be proved altogether
sound, it would not touch the theistic argument, which proceeds from adaptation to design. Afew rudely formed stones,
picked up in a formation containing no other vestige of man's
presence, satisfy geologists of the past existence of mankind
in the corresponding epoch, - so rooted in the human mind
is the belief that adaptation proves design; for this is the only
reason for believing it.  The earth is a complete web of
adaptations of part to part, constituting at last an order, a
Kosmos, of beauty. Prove, if you can, that this has come by
means of natural law: the question then returns, Who arranged and adapted those laws to produce this result? Did
the laws of natural selection, and the struggle for existence,
come by accident? Do we say, because a piece of cloth is
43 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Such are the arguments by which the great thinkers
of antiquity, - Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, -and the
great thinkers of modern times, - Descartes, Leibnitz,
Newton, Malebranche,- have demonstrated the existence of the Deity. Because the idea of God is to be
found in the human mind as an inherited possession;
because, without this idea, the world is a chaos and
the universe has no order; because the human mind,
advancing inevitably from cause to cause, can only
stop when it reaches the uncaused Source of all things;
because the world itself, the more we study it, resolves
itself more and more into a majestic order and a
beauty inexplicable except on the assumption of a
creative and loving Mind, the beginning and end of all
things, - we find ourselves intellectually convinced of
made by a power-loom, that therefore it does not come by
design? If we saw a watch so made that it would produce
other watches, we should not think less skill shown in this
construction. but more.   Plutarch says (as quoted by Neander): "The ancients directed their attention simply to the
divine in phenomena, and overlooked natural causes. The
moderns turn away from that divine ground of things, and
explain all things by natural causes. Both these views are
partial, and the two ought to be combined." Because we can
explain the machinery by which the hands of a clock turn, it
does not follow that they are not designed to show t} e hiour.
If one accept the doctrine of the transmutation of species,
without connecting it with final causes, we return to a world
of chance, as absolutely empty of intelligence as that of Epicurus; and all that I have said above, in the illustration of
Gibbon's History, is then fully justified.
44 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
the existence of a perfect Being, sole fair and sole
true.
Yet, in reviewing these three main arguments for the
existence of a supreme and perfect Being, we find that
they all fail of producing fill conviction, because they
attempt to do by reasoning what reasoning is incompetent to perform; namely, to give us knowledge of
that which we do not already know. The truth is,
that we can only know God by revelation of himself
to us, in us, around us.  And these arguments have
force only so far as they call attention to the fact that
God comes and shows himself to us. We cannot, by
searching, find him; but he finds us by revealing
himself to us.  The ontological argument, for example, is really this, - that there is deposited in the
human mind, below all else, the conviction of the
existence of a perfect Being, which is God revealing
himself to us in the soul. The cosmological argument
means, that God, in showing us finite and dependent
existence, whispers to our thought that there is also
necessary and independent being. And the power of
the teleologic argument is, that it calls our attention to
the vast web of nature; showing how part co-operates
with part, and how a great universe of order and
beauty arises out of this multitude of atoms, each by
itself without power.
The doctrine of development, which has taken such
an impulse in modern times, has not in itself the least
atheistic tendency. Suppose the universe, at first, to
45 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
have been a nebula, and all the present Kosmos to
have come out of that nebula by the working of
natural laws. All this must have happened in time,
and had a beginning; for allowing millions and millions of years for each step, they, at last, carry us
back to the formless nebula. Now, is not as much
intelligence, as much power, as much love necessary
to make a world-creating nebula, as to make a
world? *
The argument resulting from all these arguments is
therefore this. There arise in the human mind, by
the necessity of its nature or condition, three ideas:
i. Of the Perfect. 2. Of the Necessary. 3. Of a
Designing Cause. These three ideas cannot be separated. The Perfect Being, the Necessary Being, and
the Designing Cause must be one. Consequently God
reveals himself to us as the perfect, intelligent Cause
of the universe. But this is a revelation, not a demonstration. Put into logical forms, as an argument, the
power of it to convince is much less than when looked
* Professor Huxley, - in an article in "The Academy," Oct.
9th, I869-takes a similar view. He says, "The teleological
and the mechanical views of nature are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the more purely a meclihanist the speculator, is, the more firmly does he assume a
primordial molecular arrangement, of which all the phenomena of the universe are consequences; and the more
completely is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist, who
can always defy him to disprove that this arrangement was
intended to evolve the phenomena of the universe."
46 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
at as a vision of the Almighty. For God does not
wish to convince the unwilling of his existence, by a
logical triumph over their reluctant understandings;
but rather to show himself to the pure in heart, who
desire to see him. He hides these truths from the wise
and prudent, and reveals them unto babes.
We have thus glanced at the arguments by which
the being of God is demonstrated. But now if you
ask, " Why men believe in God?" I must give a different answer. Men believe in God, because they are
made to believe in him, -because religion is natural
to men, - because to trust in a Higher Power is a need
of the human mind and heart. Men worship and
adore God because their heart and their flesh cry
out for him. Human nature has a craving for an
infinite Upholder and Friend. Men do not eat and
drink because books of physiology have taught them
that food is necessary to support life, and have explained how it is transformed by the digestive organs
into blood and flesh. They eat because they are hungry. So men do not worship because they have had
the existence of God satisfactorily proved to their intellect; but because they are hungry for some spiritual
and angelic food. No matter how low down men are,
they feel this appetite; no matter how high they go,
they do not outgrow it. They may sometimes fancy
that there is something wise and manly in dispensing
with religion.  They may, in certain states of civilization and manners, stand apart from religious insti
47 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
tutions. Some, like the great poet, Lucretius, may
confound religion with superstition, and so reject both.
But these are passing passions, eddies in the stream of
thought: the great human current sweeps as steadily
toward God, as the Amazon or Mississippi toward the
ocean. While man's intellect, lost in the boundless
varieties of things, seeks some unity, some central axis
of belief, it can only rest in the idea of the Supreme
Being. While man's will aspires upward, - ambitious
of progress, growth, accomplishment, -it must always
seek strength through faith in a Supreme Providence,
guiding all souls in their appointed path. While mani's
heart yearns for a love, which no earthly affection can
satisfy, it must turn to commune with the infinite
Father. While human life is full of sorrow, men
cannot dispense with that comfort which comes
from the consolation of the Holy Spirit. As long as
tyrants are to be resisted, slaves redeemed from their
chains, the power of the wicked opposed, and the
black depths of cruelty and selfishness uncovered to
the day, - the lonely reformer, with no earthly helper,
must trust in an infinite and almighty Justice. All
goodness longs for God;  all who love truth cry out
for the perfect Truth; every thing noble within us
ascends toward him. As we trust in the better and
higher part of our nature, we believe more and more
in God.  So it is that faith is the evidence of things
not seen, -so it is that the pure in heart at last see
God.
48 
FROM ATHEISM TO TIIEISM.
Yes! it is no misuse of language to say that we
can know God, as certainly as we know the outward
world, or our own soul. It is by experience that all
knowledge comes, not by reasoning. By repeated experience, through the senses, we know the world outside
of us; by repeated experience, through the consciousness, we know the faculties and powers of our own soul;
by repeated experience, through the reason, the conscience, and the spiritual nature, we come to know God.
Those who only look down never see the sky. The inward eye, which sees God, is darkened by worldliness
and sin. Until, we look up, in a disinterested love of
truth and goodness, God remains only a problem and a
possibility. The mere worship of form does not bring
Ius near to him, but only that worship which is in
spirit anid in truth. But loyalty to conscience, trust
in goodness, obedience to truth, - these unseal the eyes
of the soul, and bring us into permanent communion
with the Infinite and the Eternal.
We do not see God by merely opening our eyes:
we must also open our heart. Prayer, devotion, the
struggle for truth, the martyrdom  to duty, -these
bring us near to the Deity; these are the cherubic
wings by which we ascend, passing the flaming bounds
of space and time. To know God aright requires a
great energy of soul, or a great humbleness of heart.
Little children see God in their unsoiled simplicity and
purity; their angels do always behold the face of our
Father: and we must be converted from our worldliness,
4
49 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
and become as little children, in order to perceive that
infinite beauty. The greatest intellects have been most
awed before the idea of God. " To know God aright,"
says Plato, " is difficult: to speak of him aright to
others, almost impossible." " He veils himself behind
his works," says Schiller, " and allows the atheist to
deny his being by that very tolerance, showing his
majestic presence more fully, than if he had struck
him  dead with a thunderbolt."  "Who  shall name
him?" says Goethe.
"Who shall name him?
Who dare say
' I believe in him'?
Who can deny him, -
Who venture to affirm
' I believe in him not'?"
The grandest intellects have always bowed most
profoundly before that Infinite Presence.   But the
child-like breast says, Abba! Father! This word
"Abba," literally Papa, is in almost all languages
the same, and the first word spoken by the infant; and
so, in its highest signification, it is the first word
spoken when we become once more little children,
and enter the presence of the Heavenly Father. *
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. The
existence of God can never be proved satisfactorily to
* Paul did not translate the word, because he could not
translate the infinitely tender associations which lay around it.
5o 
FROM ATHEISM TO THIIEISM.
a doubting intellect; for the proof rests on spontaneous
insights.  But we come to know God by communion,
just as we come to know the outward world. Only
by acting on the outward world, and letting it react
on us, do we become sure of its substantial reality.
And so only by communion with God, speaking to
him, receiving his answer, talking with him, beholding
his face in righteousness, do we become at last as sure
of the real presence of God as we are of the reality of
the world.
5 I
la 
CHAPTER III.
THE ATHEIST'S THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE.
A THEISM, pure and simple, which denies God,
is a rare phenomenon, and always will be so.
But atheism, in that form which omits God in its view
of the world, is much more common. There are many
theories of the universe which omit God. In speaking
now of atheism, and its theory of the universe, I mean
that atheism which omits and ignores in its manner of
thougit, a supreme and perfect Being, infinitely wise,
holy, and good. It does not know any thing of a personal, self-conscious God, above all, through all, and
in all things, - a God neither arbitrary, vindictive,
cruel, nor indifferent to his creatures' welfare; but
loving all, good and bad, saint and sinner, wise and
foolish. The atheist must assume that the universe
has always existed. For either it was created by some
higher Being; or it made itself; or it has always existed. But the atheist denies that it was made by a
higher Being; therefore the first alternative is out of
the question. But it could not have made itself; because to make itself it must have existed: and, to be 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
made by itself, it must have been non-existent. This
theory, therefore, supposes that the world existed and
did not exist, at the same moment, which is a contradiction. There remains, therefore, the third alternative,
-that the world has existed always; and this all
atheists (so far as I know) believe. But let us see
what follows from that.
In speaking of the " atheist's theory of the utniverse," I wish to do the atheist perfect justice. I do
not propose to use any hard names concerning him,
or to try to make him odious or ridiculous, except so
far as his own theory makes him so.  I cannot undertake to defend him from any absurd consequences of
his own argument; and if the logic of his position is
weak, he must take the consequences.
The atheist, then, looks at the universe, and says,
" There is no God." There is no supreme power; no
universal presence; no infinite and perfect Being, intelligent, benevolent, conscious, and free. There are a
great many finite beings, but no infinite Being. There
is a vast swarm of imperfect creatures, but no perfection
anywhere. The world was not created: it has always
existed. God did not make it; and it could not have
made itself out of nothing. Therefore, it has always
been.  This is fundamental in the theory of Atheism.
Wre perceive changes going on in the universe. We
look at the earth, and find it is very different now from
what it was a million, or a hundred million, years ago.
There was a period when the continents were below
53 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
the ocean; other periods in which they were covered
with immense masses of ice; other periods, further
back, in which the globe was a molten sea of fire,
and a time, still more remote, when this mass of fiery
liquid was probably flaming gas, a thousand times as
vast. Now, if there is no God, what power has
brought the earth through these changes?
The atheist replies, "Nature." But nature is a
word;  what does it mean?   The  atheist answers
again, "The law of development. The earth has
developed by natural laws from a fiery gas to a molten
fluid; from a molten fluid to a body submerged by an
ocean of water; from this to frozen continents; and at
last, by various alternations, to what we now see,- animals, vegetables, and minerals; with climate, soil, air,
water, food, suited to growth. Development did it all,"
says the atheist.
The Psalmist asks, " He who planted the ear, shall
he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?
He that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know?"
" By no means, "replies the atheist. " In this instance,
the less has produced the greater; the cause here is
lower than the effect. The power which made man a
conscious and rational being, capable of knowledge,
itself knows nothing, but acts unconsciously and
blindly. The power which made man capable of
generosity, affection, courage, ideality, faith, and hope,
is itself incapable of even understanding these sentiments. The power which made man free, therefore
54 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
capable of virtue, is itself bound fast by natural laws,
and acts by a mechanical and chemical necessity, and
so is incapable of virtue or goodness." In other instances, the greater makes the smaller; but never the
smaller the greater. A man can make a machine to
sing like a bird; but a bird cannot make a machine to
speak like a man. Man can make a steam-hammerwhich
can strike a blow of twenty tons' weight, and can also give
a tap which will just crack a nut. But a steam-hammer
cannot make a man. "As to the ear being made to
hear, and the eye to see," says the atheist, " that is a
mistake. Each is a happy accident, resulting from
natural laws. Among a hundred million creatures,
one happened to be born with an optic nerve, sensitive
to light; and that gave him such an advantage in the
struggle for life, that the eyeless animals disappeared,
while he and his descendants remained. The ear is
also a piece of good fortune. The ear has its drum,
against which the waves of sound strike, making it
vibrate. Behind the drum are little bones, the hammerbone and the anvil-bone, and the stirrup-bone, through
which the vibrations pass to a labyrinth which winds
round and round in the bone, and is filled with a fluid
in which the nerves of hearing terminate, each in its
little sack.   Every different sound, every articulate
word, every varying note of the multitudinous sounds
in the summer air, causes a different vibration in the
fluid, and sends a different message to the brain; telling that it was the crow of a cock, the whistle of a
55 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
robin, the cry of a boy, on the right or left, near or far,
above or below. But this is all undesigned. If we
see an ear-trumpet, we know it was designed to help
the ear; but the ear itself was not designed for any
thing. It came. If we see a pair of spectacles, we
know they were designed to help the eyes: but the
eyes were not designed for any thing; they came
from the struggle for existence. When the Psalmist
talked about God's planting the ear, and forming the
eye, he had not read Darwin: if he had, he would
have known that the ear and eye were not made with
a purpose, but were developed accidentally."
Thus speaks our friend the atheist, uttering, as he
imagines, the last word of science. But, even if we
accept all of Mr. Darwin's theory, we do not in the
least supply the place of a Creator. Grant that eye,
ear, and hand, and all bodily organization, have been
developed out of one original cell, -who made the
cell, so that all these should be developed out of it?
Who put into the primeval nebula its law of evolution, so that it should develop necessarily this Kosmos of wonder, beauty, and power? No theory which
only shows how the world was made, can answer the
question, WVho made it? That remains to be solved the
same as before.
Development does not mean a power or cause: it is
only a process. We say that in a plant, the stalk is
unfolded or developed out of the seed, the leaves out
of the stalk, the flower out of the bud, the fruit out of
56 
FROM ATHEISM TO TIHEISM.
the flower. This is development, - the way in which
one part is unfolded out of another. But that is not a
cause: it is only a method, a process. After we have
said that the earth, as it now exists, was developed out
of gas, we have not stated the cause of this phenomenon: we have only described the process. An
immense, inscrutable Cause lies behind it.  Some
Power has done it all. WVhat is that Power? To say
nature or law or evolution, is merely describing
how it happened, but does not bring you a single step
nearer to the cause. When a man says that the earth
has become what it is by development, he speaks as
children do when they think they have explained the
movements of an automaton, or the tricks of a juggler,
by saying, " They are done by clock-work."
But let us grant (for the sake of argument), that
there is in the universe some mysterious power or
powers, hidden in matter, which have caused this development of fiery gas into an inhabited world. These
powers must always have existed; for, if there was a
time when there was no such power in matter, as there
was no power to create it, it must have created itself,
which is impossible. But it has not always existed,
for development, going on for ever, would have at last
produced an infinitely perfect Being, that is a God,
which is contrary to the atheist's hypothesis.  The
atheist is therefore held by this dilemma.   He must
either deny that this active principle of development
inheres in the material universe; or he must admit
57 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
that it has existed for ever in it: and, if active for ever,
it must, in infinite time, have developed an infinitely
perfect Being.   And so he must either give up his
theory of development, or admit the existence of
God.
No one will deny that intelligence is superior to
unintelligence. A conscious intelligent force, freely
choosing to create, is higher in the scale of existence
than a blind force, necessarily creating, with no plan,
and for no end. It would seem, therefore, that if the
laws of nature are laws of development, ever tending
upward, unfolding higher forms out of lower ones,
they would, in an infinite period, unfold a perfect
Being, - intelligent, conscious, and free. Those who
do not accept, with the theists, a personal conscious
God as the cause of creation, are bound to accept him
as the result of development. If God is not at the
beginning, he must arrive at the end. The theory of
Darwin is a perpetual progress. The law of natural
selection always chooses the better, and refuses the
worse. Its maxim is, "To him that hath shall be
given." But why should it stop with man? Why
terminate its career just at this point? Given an infinite period for its work, and why not produce a perfect Being; that is, God?
Mathematicians,  however, have  calculated,  from
laws governing the process of radiated heat, that the
earth can only have occupied a definite period in cool
58 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
ing down from a gas to its present state.* Thle atheist
may therefore say that time enough has not yet elapsed
to develop a perfect Being on the surface of the earth.
A God, however, it may be hoped, will arrive at last,
on this theory. No limit can be set to this principle
of evolution, which has already given us the mineral,
vegetable, and animal kingdoms; and in the last has
gone up through radiata, mollusca, articulata, to fishes
reptiles, birds, and mammalia, and so arrived at man.
During this finite period, it has produced the human
mind on this planet. But if, during a finite period,
matter has developed finite mind on this particular
planet, then, throughout the infinite universe, during
an infinite period, it ought to have developed infinite
mind. Thlerefore, if God did not create the universe,
the universe must have created God. In either case
God exists, and atheism is refuted.
The only escape from this reasoning which I can
discover, is the assumption that all things revolve in a
great circle. The atheist may say that just as the seed
is unfolded into a plant, and then produces flower and
* Professor Sir William Thomson has calculated the probable age of the crust of the earth to be about 98,00ooo,oo0o of
years; which must, therefore, comprehend the whole geological history of our planet. - Philosohiczal Magazine, I863.
From Professor Houghton's fourth lecture on geology, we
learn that it took the earth 350,ooo,00ooo years to cool from
2,oo000o to 200~ centigrade; and that to cool from 2120 Fahrenheit to 770, required 2,298,OOO,OOO of years.- Pre-Glacial
MaI.
59 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
fruit, which at last die, leaving only seed, to begin
again the same career, - so it is with the universe. A
nebula turns to a world; the world produces human
beings with minds, hearts, and souls,- with an infinite
hope and inexhaustible capacities,-these die, and the
world goes to gas and nebula again, and again passes
from nebula to another world.
It may be so: it is a supposable case that we journey through this dreary, empty, blind round,- coming
from nowhere, and going nowhere. This, I think,
must be the atheist's theory of the universe. Either
the universe has always been growing better, and then,
in an infinite series of years, it would have developed
perfection, - that is, God, - which the atheist denies;
or, secondly, it must have been always growing worse,
and then, in an infinite series of years, it would have
annihilated itself, which it has not done; or else, thirdly,
it has been going round and round, from better to worse,
and from worse to better again, for ever.
If this is the atheist's theory, he looks out into
an awful universe. It is black with a terrible fate,
which grinds blindly on and on, crushing human hope
under its merciless wheels. That is the peculiarity of
atheism, -that it is without hope. The Scripture,
with its wonderful power of condensing into a single
sentence whole volumes of philosophy and theology,
says (Eph. ii. io), "without hope in the world, and
atheists." That is the dreadful doom of the atheist, -
to lose hope. He does not lose pleasure: be retains
60 
FROM ATHIIEISM TO THEISM.
the power of enjoying the present moment. He does
not lose conscience: he may be a very conscientious
man, doing what he thinks is right, and having that
kind of satisfaction which always comes with right
doing. He may be a very benevolent mail; kindhearted to the sufferer, affectionate in his family, a good
neighbor. But he is a hopeless man.
No doubt there is an instinctive hope natural to men,
of which some have more and others less. This is a
part of their organization.  But hope, as a conviction,
as a habit of thought, comes only from faith in God,faith in a perfect Being. It is God, who carries to
perfection all that we see of good in man; the Supreme
Being, head of the universe, perfect in power, in wisdom, and in goodness. He is a Being who loves every
one of his creatures with a perfect love; a Providence
guiding the world, and leading it forward from bad to
good, from good to better. Only this faith in God creates
hope in man and in the world, as a living principle, as
a permanent conviction. Believing thus in God, we
believe in progress; believe that all things are growing better. \Ve believe that all that is dark will become clear, all that seems evil now will become good
hereafter; that life is good, and death is good; that
nature and man are both good; that evil is a disease
which must pass away. We believe that sin is to be
cured, and the sinner saved, and that heaven here is to
pass up into heaven hereafter. This is the great,
luminous, far-reaching hope which arises out of faith
6i 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
in God, and which nothing else can give. Science
cannot give it; because science only observes and
classifies present phenomena. Philosophy, separated
from spiritual insight, and judging only by sense, cannot give it; for philosophy can only see things as they
are, not as they are to be. But faith in God puts a
principle of progress into science and philosophy,feeds them both at their roots with a generous expectation. For neither science, art, philosophy, nor civilization can move forward or make progress without
hope. Therefore, where atheism or irreligion prevails, civilization stops, human progress is arrested,
science becomes languid, art dies.
When Christ came, hope lay dead in the hearts of
men. The world seemed to have come to an end.
Life was empty. All faith in the old gods had died,
and the Augurs and Chief Pontiffs argued against the
truth of their own religion.* The purest and best of
men were the most unhappy. Aurelius Antoninij's,
one of the noblest and most virtuous of mankind, was,
says Niebuhr, one of the gloomiest. It seemed no
* Cicero, in his dialogue "De  Natura Deorum," makes
Cotta, the Pontifex Maximus, while accepting the State religion in his quality of its Chief Priest, argue as a philosopher
against the reality of divination by the entrails of beasts, the
voice of crows, and the casting of lots. While professing to
believe in the gods as a good citizen, he denies the validity
of every argument for their existence, and ascribes the world
to nature as its cause.
62 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
longer worth while to live. Amid this utter hopelessness came the Christian faith, and its life was the light
of men. Listen to Paul, - a poor Jew, hated by his
own people, despised by the Gentiles, the object of
derision, persecution, abuse, wherever te went; but
full of the loftiest hope, and saying in tones which still
ring through the centuries like the blast of a trumpet,
" What shall separate us from the love of God? Tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or
nakedness, or peril, or sword? In all these things we
are more than conquerors, through him that loved us.
For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor powers; nor things present, nor things to come; nor height nor depth, nor
any other creature, shall be able to separate us firom
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
The atheist has no hope. He looks at the heavens.
He  sees a majestic order, -planets revolving round
suns, stars around other stars, all moving with perfect regularity along their prodigious pathways. But
he sees no mind creating and controlling this vast
order.   He  sees rules, but no Ruler; law, but no
Lawgiver.   Star-eyed science brings us from its vast
excursions only the tidings of despair. The universe
is a vacuum, empty of God; rolling on for ever
and ever, without reason, without meaning, without
purpose, without end.   The heavens do not declare
to him the glory of God, but only the glory of Sir
Isaac Newton or La Place. This is as if one should
63 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
open Homer or Shakespeare, not to be moved by the
genius of the author, but to wonder at the intelligence
of the pupils who have learned to spell "but" and
" and" out of the volume.
The atheistlooks at the earth. Everywhere he sees
adaptation; but he sees no design. Force and Matter, two blind Cyclops, have gone to work in a fit of
intoxication, and tossing things madly to and fro,
instead of destroying every thing, have created, in their
ignorant struggle, this beautiful world. What Force
and Matter have made, they will one day destroy
again.
The atheist goes with a great poet to visit the vale
of Chamouni. They stand together on the Flegere,
looking across the valley to watch the coming day.
They see the morning-star pausing over the "bald,
awful, sovereign front" of the mountain. They see
the mountain rising, dark and dread, silently out of its
silent sea of pines. They watch the rosy dawn creeping over the untouched snow of its summit. They
observe the granite obelisks around, piercing the dark
sky like wedges. They look at the light, as it creeps
down the vast fields of snow, crosses the deep ravines,
and lights up the five glaciers, " for ever shattered and
the same for ever." The poet, inspired by the sublime scene, sings his hymn of praise to the Maker of
the mountain, and that hymn becomes immortal. The
aflieist, who is a man of taste, admires the poem, and
sees in it the work of a creative mind. That could not
64 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
have come by chance. But Coleridge himself, and
the sublime scene which inspired him, these required
no creative mind to produce them. They were the
result of accident, or " natural selection."
The atheist sits before the Dresden Madonna. He
drinks in the tender beauties of the mother, - the
wonderful expression, depth below depth, in the eyes
of the child. Day after day he visits it, and finds its
mysterious charm ever more inexplicable and inexhaustible. In the genius of its author, he sees evidenceof almost prophetic wisdom, and a boundless power
of imagination. The work of Raphael, he knows,
could only come from a creative mind; but Raphael
himself, he thinks, came from no mind at all, -only
from force and matter, working by natural selection.
He knows that force and natural selection could never
have made the picture; but he thinks that they made
the painter of the picture.   Blind laws could not
even have made the brush, or ground the colors, or
stretched the canvas, - far less have created, touch
after touch, that divine beauty; but the soul which did
all this and more, - that was the work of accident,
force, or, if you prefer the phrase, development. This
is the theory of the atheist.
Alexander VI. sits at Rome, a monster of licentiousness, avarice, falsehood, and cruelty. He poisonis his
own cardinals, that he may seize their estates. He
excels his predecessors, Nero and Tiberius, in every
mad excess of wickedness, with which they had pol
5
65 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
luted  the palace and  throne.   Meantime,  by  his
orders, Savonarola, at Florence, - noble reformer, holy
prophet, purest of men, - is confined in prison, to be
executed in the morning.   The saint kneels on the
cold stone, and prays to God to support him; and God
sends hope and peace into his heart. But the atheist
looks into the cell, and says, "Fool! there is no God.
Matter and Force made the world; Matter and Force
rule it. There is no help in God. The only help is
in praying to the man- half beast, half devil - who
sits at Rome. Fall down and worship him, and save
your life; for if you die, that is the end of you. Pray
to Borgia; he can hear you: but do not pray to God;
for there is no God on earth or in heaven to listen to
the prayers of the just."
Uncle Tom, on the plantation of Legree, finds himself in a hell of torture. Torn from his home, sold to
a brute more cruel than the tigers (for they only kill
for food, and do not torture for pleasure), worn by toil
in the day, starved and frozen at night, -his only
comfort is that God, the righteous Judge, sees all and
rules all. He cries to him, lays all his grief before
that infinite pity, and finds peace in the all-embracing
Father's love. But the atheist comes and says: " Nonsense! you are talking to a deaf and cold universe, in
which there is no God. I have looked for him through
my eight-foot telescope, and did not find him among
the stars. I have looked for him with my powerful
Spencer's microscope, and do not find him in the
66 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
elemental matter.   Even  the spectral analysis does
not reveal him. He cannot help you. He has no ear
to pity, and no arm to save.   Flatter Legree, and
aid him in torturing other victims: that is your
only course.   He can hear you;  but God hears no
one."
Two young men go to the war, to fight for the Union
against the Rebellion. One goes from his happy home,
his delightful studies, his present full of joy, his future
full of promise; because the voice of Duty calls him
away.  His dying father puts his hand on his head, and
says, "Go, my son; do your duty; leave me here to die."
His mother, who cannot let the summer breeze visit him
too rudely, says, " Go, my boy, to the hardship of the
camp, the foot-sore, dusty march, the sickness, the
loneliness, the prison at Andersonville, the torturing
death on the field of battle. Go; for it is your duty."
And so he goes, with no light heart, but with a serious
purpose, and lies buried beneath an upturned sod in
the Virginia woods. The other goes too; but as a
politician, to get influence and office by and by; or he
goes as a speculation, -to make money. He gets the
easiest position, and seldom joins his regiment. He
cheats the soldiers of their pay, and their rations, and fills
his pockets with plunder. On the day of battle, he has
business at the rear, and keeps himself safe. He
comes home, gets himself made a Brigadier, and runs
for Congress.  The atheist says, "He is the wiser of
the two; for he, at any rate, has got something, and is
67 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
alive, but the other has become carbon and hydrogen,
and is gone for ever."
The husband lays in the earth the dear remains of
his best-beloved one. They have lived together a few
happy days: his heart has grown purer each hour in
her sweet society. All his earthly hope was in the joy
of her smile. And now she lies before him, pale and
cold, Decay's effacing fingers not yet having swept away
the lingering lines of beauty from her lip and brow.
In this hour of mortal anguish, his heart and his flesh
cry out for the living God. And God, hearing his
prayer, puts an immortal hope into his heart. The
heavens are opened, and he sees his darling alive, and
more alive than ever, in that infinite home. He feels
her presence near: he is overshadowed by her immortal love; and his agony changes to peace. Then
comes the atheist, and says, " What a fool to think she
is alive! She was a compound of hydrogen and carbon brought together, and organized by Matter and
Force, and created by a process of evolution. Now
she is carbon and hydrogen again in an unorganized
state. She has gone for ever. Eat and drink; for tomorrow you will die too. Do not pray to God: he is
nothing but the Kosmos itself. This is the religion of
all men of science."
The atheist looks at the fact of evil in the world, and
so denies the existence of a perfect God. " If a perfect God has made the world, how can the world be
imperfect?" he says: "how can perfection produce
68 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
imperfection?" and he chuckles over his triumphant
logic. According to our ideas, no doubt the world is
very imperfect.  So the fly, beating his head against a
glass window, might say," What an imperfect work of
art is this house! It ought to have had open windows
for me to fly out of!" So the new-fledged bird, picking
at an unripe berry, might say, "What an imperfect
world, in which the berries are made bitter!" The
countryman, going into the Gobelin factory, and seeing
the workmen spending years of labor on what seems
only a coarse and ragged figure in the tapestry, may
say," What imperfect and inferior work is this?" But
wait, little fly, till you can understand for what the
house was made; wait, little bird, till you can see
your berry ripen in the advancing summer; wait,
critic, till you behold the other side of the tapestry;
and wait, atheist, until you can comprehend the plans
of an infinite God. Thus much we can see, -that
evil is continually used, as a dark material, out of
which good is manufactured; that the mysteries of
life prove the greatness of the soul, by showing that it
can reach out to laws and facts, which it cannot yet
comprehend. To the theist, these mysteries, planted
in the mind, are a promise of immortality. For if
God has put into our very reason difficulties which
are insoluble here, is not this a promise that they shall
be solved hereafter? The human mind is so made,
that it must ask questions, to which it cannot find an
answer in this life: is there not then another, where
these problems will find their solution?
69 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
The atheist may say, " Suppose all you say is correct,
what then?  My theory of the universe may be discouraging; it may take away all hope, all consolation
in trouble, all support in bereavement: but what then?
Is it, or is it not true? that is the question."  I admit
that this is the question.   But I consider it a strong
argument against any theory, that it leads to despair.
The best proof of a theory is, that it harmonizes all
facts,-reconciles difficulties, and explains the universe
so as to leave the mind at peace. The theory which
satisfies the mind is most probably the true one; that
which leaves it dissatisfied is probably the false one.
Now, the belief in the perfect God leaves both the
mind and heart at peace. It produces activity of head
and hand, joy in existence here, hope as regards hereafter. It gives unity to the world, by filling it with
God. It gives a purpose to life, as leading us up to
him. The believer in God is happy, hopeful, and
strong. The tender and timid woman, inspired by
this faith, goes willingly to die. But who ever died a
martyr in the cause of atheism? Perhaps some may
have done so for the love of truth; and an honest belief may lead even an atheist to die for his convictions.
But what a terrible martyrdom, - to die in the cause
of Despair; to die as an apostle of Annihilation; to
die, in order to persuade men that there is no infinite
wisdom to guide us, no infinite power to protect us, no
infinite Father to love us, no perfect beauty and goodness for us to love! Once in a while, an exceptional
70 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
man, from simple conscience, may dare to die for this
dreary creed.   But. the noble army of martyrs always goes to death in the cause of faith, not of doubt;
of a glad hope and trust in that which is perfect and
divine. And the fact that a theory satisfies the soul is
a proof of its truth; for mental satisfaction is the natural result of seeing the truth. The best proof that
any theory of physiology is true, is that, when put
in practice, it leaves the body in health; without
sickness or pain, contented and satisfied. The best
proof that any intellectual theory is true, is that, in the
long run, it leaves the mind contented and satisfied,
and the heart at rest.
The atheist's theory of the universe leaves the soul
empty and the heart dead. It explains nothing: it
leaves us without hope.  But faith in an infinite and
perfect God tends to elevate and vitalize the soul, - to
make man  stronger, purer, and wiser.   It leads us
from the finite to the infinite. And so we end, with
the poet in saying: m
"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body nature is, and God the soul.
That, changed through all, and yet in all the same,
Great in the earth as in the starry frame,
Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze,
Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees,
Lives through all life, extends through all extent,
Spreads undivided, operates unspent.
To him, no high, no low, no great, no small;
He fills, he bounds, connects, and equals all.
7I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Safe in the hand of one disposing Power,
Or in the natal or the mortal hour,
All nature is but art unknown to thee;
All chance, direction which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony not understood:
All partial evil, universal good."*
* It has been objected to some of the illustrations in this
discourse, that they unfairly represent the atheist as incapable
of generous and disinterested actions.   I have conceded,
very willingly, that men may be found professing atheism
whose lives are magnanimous, conscientious, and good. But
it is not the tendency of doubt or denial of spiritual things to
elevate the soul or nerve it to great achievements. A few
knights-errant of atheism may do deeds of chivalric heroism;
but the noble army of martyrs never graduates from that
school.
72 
CHAPTER IV.
IMPERFECT AND PERFECT THEISM.
HE  subject of the present chapter is, Imperfect
and Perfect Theism.
Perfect theism is the belief in a perfect Being,
above all things, through all things, and in all things.
A perfect Being is one who unites in himself all the
good which belongs to finite beings, and carries that
good to perfection. Existence is a good belonging to
finite beings, without which no other good is possible.
But the existence of finite beings is contingent and
dependent.    Existence, made perfect, becomes necessary and independent.   God's being is therefore
necessary being, or, as we now say, He is the absolute
Being. Again, reason or intelligence is a good belonging to finite beings.   Carried  to perfection, it
becomes  infinite wisdom  or omniscience.   Again,
power is a good;  and this, carried to perfection, is
omnipotence. Once more, the finite being becomes
iinore perfect, as, by means of a higher organization
and finer senses, it comes more fully into communion
with  nature.   A  perfect  communion  with nature
I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
would be what we call omnipresence, or God all in
all. In the same way, a perfect Being must be perfect
in love, or an infinite Giver; perfectly free, or not
limited by an external or internal force stronger than
himself; and therefore perfectly self-conscious, or
entirely disengaged from blind impulses and instincts.
If this is perfect theism, it is easy to point out the
different varieties of imperfect theism. We shall proceed to do this. Any view of God which limits his
power, wisdom, goodness, freedom; or makes these
doubtful, - is, so far, an imperfect form of theism.
Of these varieties of imperfect theism, we will
specify the following: -
I. NATURE-WORSHIP.- Theism appears in this form
in many of the Hymns of the Vedas, and in the Gathas
of the Zend-Avesta. God is contemplated as immersed
in nature, - personified, but not personal,- as a presence in the sun, the winds, the fire, the water, the
clouds, the dawn,  the stars.   He  is thus a blind,
though often a beneficent, force. He is in nature, and
so far is truly conceived. But he is not above nature;
and therefore is neither intelligent, personal, nor free.
II. POLYTHEISM.- This is the first reaction against
naturalistic pantheism, and the first development of
personality. Will, choice, intelligence, benevolence,
- all may appear in this conception of Deity. But
unity, infinity, and universality are absent. The polytheistic view conceives of God correctly, as throztgz
all things; but not as above all things. A group of
74 
FROM ATHEISM TO TIIEISM.
finite deities, all imperfect, do not make an infinite
Deity. In the Greek mythology, -the highest form
of polytheism, - the gods are only larger, more beautiful, more intelligent, and more powerful men and
women. But all are limited by defects, weaknesses,
and imperfections.
III. IDOLATRY.- Polytheism almost always ultimates in idolatry. But idolatry, in its essence, often
appears in Christianity as well as in paganism.
In giving a bodily form to God, and locating hirr in
one place, idolatry limits his omnipresence.   Then
God acts through the visible idol, where that is, and
does not act elsewhere. And so when we speak of
the sabbath as a holy day, of the church as a holy
place, of the Bible as a holy book, we are in danger
of idolatry; just as Catholics are when they worship
the Virgin of Fourvieres at Lyons, San Gennaro at
Naples, or St. Lawrence at Genoa. Reverence for
what is good, true, and noble is not idolatry. To reverence the truth in the Bible, or to love the rest, peace, and
worship of the Lord's day, - is not idolatry. To reverence St. Francis of Assisi, or any other good man, is
not idolatry.   But we begin to idolize men, books,
creeds, churches, whenever we worship the body and
the outward form, instead of the spirit which it contains and conveys.   Therefore Jesus teaches his disciples to begin their prayer by saying, " Our Father,
who art in heaven;" therefore he tells the woman of
Samaria, " Neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jeru
75 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
salem, shall men worship the father."   Idolatrv is
worshipping the form instead of the spirit, the means
instead of the end, the body instead of the soul.
IV. PANTHEISM. -The  opposite error to that of
idolatry is pantheism, and this is also an imperfect
theism.   Idolatry confines God to places, times, and
forms: pantheism puts him in all things, which is
right; but goes further, and says that all things are
God, which is wrong. When we make all things
equally divine, we take away all moral character from
the Deity, and he becomes only the blind soul of nature.  Then we destroy also morality in man.  Right
and wrong become equally a part of God; and sin is
a divine manifestation, no less than goodness.
No doubt, true theism comes very close to pantheism. It grazes pantheism, but avoids it. Many
texts in the New Testament have an extremely pantheistic sound; but none express the fundamental idea
of pantheism. When Paul says of God, " From
whom, and through whom, and to whom are all
things;" when he teaches that God is "above all,
and through all, and in us all;" when he tells'the
Athenians that " in him we live and move and have
our being," -he teaches the truth in pantheism which
corrects the mechanical theory of the universe. God
is not like a mechanic, who makes the world out of
some foreign substance, and then sets it in motion, and
goes away and leaves it. He is the present, continued,
constant Creator.  The  mechanical view  implied in
76 
FROM ATHEISM TO THIEISM.
the account of creation of Genesis is corrected by
Jesus. The book of Genesis says that God "rested
on the seventh day." Jesus says (John v. I7), "My
Father worketh hitherto"  (act  /Qri, down  to this
time). God is the immanent, and not the transient,
cause of the universe. He creates it, not as one candle
is lighted from another, but as the image of the sun is
made on the surface of water. The candle lights the
other, and then is taken away. The sun continues to
create its image, without cessation. Hildebert, in his
hymn,       says of the Deity:
"Super cuncta, subter cuncta:
Extra cuncta, intra cuncta;
Intra cuncta, nec inclusus;
Extra cuncta, nec exclusus;
Super totus proesidendo,
Subter totus sustinendo;
Extra totus complectendo,
Intra totus in complendo," &c.
This is the true view of God in all things, and all
things in God. But when it is carried a single step
further, and we say that God is every thing, and that
every thing is God, we confound all distinctions.
Then right and wrong, good and evil, light and darkness, man and God, are fatally confused.   Then a
moral and spiritual death comes over the soul and
over society, as the history of Hindoo theism has shown.
V. NESCIENcE. - The  next  form  of  imperfect
theism is found in the metaphysical doctrine of nescience. This doctrine admits the existence of God,
77 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
but denies that we can know any thing about him.
This is the doctrine of such writers as Hamilton,
Mansel, and Herbert Spencer; the latter, a thinker
much admired, but who, though an acute metaphysician, seems to us to be a poor philosopher.   He
considers an "unknown God" as the highest attainment of theology and philosophy. He says: " The
deepest, widest, and most certain of all facts is that
the power which the universe manifests is wholly
inscrutable." It will be seen that this is using against
theology its own favorite doctrine of mystery. Theologians, when pressed with the absurdities of their
systems, and shown that their creeds contradict the
simplest laws of reason, nature, common sense, and
every instinct of the soul, have cried out, "It is
a mystery!  We  must believe  it; but we  cannot
understand it." And now Mr. Spencer and others
say, "Yes: all theology is a mystery. We can know
nothing about it. WVe must let it all alone, and devote
ourselves to practical matters, to things of this world.
God exists; but we know nothing about him. Therefore we have nothing to do with theology or religion,
and cannot believe any thing about either."   Thus
mystery, pushed too far, has destroyed belief.
The origin of this doctrine of nescience seems to be
a confusion between understanding a fact and comprehending it. We know a great many things which
we  cannot comprehend.   We  know  that space is
infinite;  but who  can comprehend infinity?  The
78 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
ideas of infinite space and infinite time are perfectly
simple and intelligible notions. We understand perfectly both ideas, but we comprehend neither. Our
mind, being finite, can by no possibility comprehend
the infinite.  That is, our knowledge  of it is correct in quality, but limited in quantity. We hold it
firnmly, but cannot grasp it all. A child knows his
father correctly; but how imperfectly does he comprelend him!  So I can know God truly; I can
understand truly what infinite wisdom, power, and
goodness mean;  but how little do I comprehend of
their vast range, of their immense plan, of their enormous depth, breadth, height!   "Who  by searching
can find out God? who can find out the Almighty lo
tperfection,? "
VI. LAW AND CAUSE.- The next imperfect theism
makes of the Deity a law, and not an intelligent
Cause. Natural science looks only at facts and laws,
and sometimes forgets that a law is only a method of
working, and that behind all law there must be power.
A legislature passes a law declaring that no intoxicating liquor shall be sold in any of the shops of the
State; and presently no liquor is sold in some places,
while it continues to be sold in other places. Behind
the law, in one place, is a power- namely, the power
of public opinion -which enforces the law. Behind
the law in another place is no such power, and therefore it is not enforced.
Natural science observes facts, and infers laws.  It
79
0 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
observes, for example, that the best organized plants
and animals live, while others die; that these best
organized plants, by an organic law, communicate
their qualities to their successors, and so form a permanent variety. Hence it infers the law of progress,.
by which the strongest creatures live and the weaker
die. Thus, all the varieties of plants and animals,
and all the progress of these from the lowest germ and
cell up to man, are accounted for by law. Be it so.
Theology has no quarrel at all with science, while
science shows how things come to exist.   But to
show how they come, is not to show why they come.
Law is not power; law is not intelligence; law is not
goodness.   Law  itself implies a law-maker and a
law-enforcer; and, if the law works for the general
good, that the law-maker and law-enforcer is also
beneficent. That is, the law implies wisdom, power,
and goodness behind it.
Science, therefore, produces imperfect theism, not
while it is genuine science, but when it goes out of its
province of observing facts and inferring laws, and
assumes that these facts and laws are sufficient to
account for the universe.
VII. POSITIVISM. - Another imperfect theism is
positivism. Positivism declares that we only know
what we get at through the senses; and as the senses
only perceive phenomena, that we can only know
phenomena.   It declares that there is nothing but
phenomena and their succession, of which we can
80 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
know any thing. Of causes we can know nothing,
but only of phenomena and their laws.
The fatal weakness of this system, wherever it comnes
to light, - whether as taught by Comte in its integrity,
or taught in a more diluted form by others, -is that
it assumes that there is only one way by which knowledge can enter the mind; namely, by the senses. It assumes it, but does not prove it, or seriously try to prove it.
The Bible says, and says correctly, that " spiritual
things are spiritually discerned."   Man  has various
organs by which he discerns various realities. Each
class of realities is discerned through its own organ.
In externals, we know this well enough. We never
expect to see with our hands, or to smell with our
ears.   We  know that we  cannot do a sum  in the
rule of three by our nose, or taste with our tongue
the proper translation of a Greek sentence. Visible
things, we know, are optically discerned, by the eyes;
audible things are discerned audibly, by the ears; tangible things are discerned by the touch; logical things
are detected by the reason; emotions of the soutl are
perceived by the consciousness; historical facts are
reported by the memory. We do not deny the existence of Julius Cesar, because we cannot touch him;
nor the fragrance of a rose, because we cannot hear it.
Nor do we deny the existence of hope and fear, love
and hatred, because these cannot be perceived by the
sense..  Why, then, doubt the reality of spiritual
things, because they must be spiritually discerned?
6
8i 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
VIII.  THEOLOGY OF WILL.- But there is yet another form of imperfect theism, which is more common. It is that popular theology which makes God
a tyrant, and man a slave; which divorces the divine
will from his justice and his love, and so makes it an
arbitrary and despotic will.  The powerful Augustinian theology, revived and renewed by Calvin, taught
that God from the beginning created some men to be
saved and some to be lost. Without any regard to
their goodness or their wickedness, he saves some, because he chooses to do so; without any regard to
their wickedness or their goodness, he damns others,
because he chooses to do so. This substitutes, in the
place of the infinite and perfect God, an arbitrary, imperfect, and wilful Power. Infinite will- divorced in
our thought from infinite justice, wisdom, and love- is
less perfect than infinite will allied to these. The God
of Calvin is therefore an imperfect God, unable or unwilling to save all his creatures; able and willing to
save only a part of them.
Calvinism, in its form of election and arbitrary decrees,
is fast passing away. It does not exist in the Episcopal or Methodist Churches, hardly among the Orthodox Congregationalists and New-School Presbyterians;
and holds its place with difficulty among the OldSchool Presbyterians in the South and South-west.
But one doctrine which deforms theology and dishonors God, still remains in all the orthodox churches.
It is the doctrine of everlasting punishment, in the
82 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
other world, for the sins committed in this life. No
church, claiming to be orthodox, has yet dared to re pudiate this awful doctrine, which is more injurious to
the character of the Almighty than all the blasphemies
of the impious, and all the denials of the atheist. For
what does it assert? That God keeps his children in
existence for ever, merely to torment them for ever;
inflicting on each one an amount of suffering infinitely
greater than all the pangs of the martyrs, and all
the agonies of the sufferers, who have been in the
world since the world began. Add together the tortures inflicted by the tyrants and despots in all time,
the auto-ea-fes of the Inquisitions, the cruel torments of every battle-field of history, the solitary
sufferings from disease, accident, moral and mental
anguish,    add them  together, and when  an equivalent to all has been suffered by one soul, his suffering
has only begun. All the sufferings of time added together, are finite; and if they end at last in universal
and infinite bliss, - no matter how far off that consummation may be, - they are mathematically and logically
nothing when compared with the succeeding joy. But
let one soul suffer to all eternity, and his solitary suffering infinitely outweighs the anguish borne in all
time in all the worlds of the universe. If suffering is
finite, and final bliss is universal and infinite, then suffering disappears, and is reduced to nothing. But if
suffering is infinite, then evil shares the throne of the
universe with God, then God is no longer universal
83 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
sovereign. " He wills to have all men saved," says the
Scripture. Is he unable to save them? Either hlie is
deficient in goodness, and so does not wish to save
them; or he is deficient in wisdom, and does not
know how to save them; or he is deficient in power,
and is not able to save them. In either case, he is not
a perfect Being. Thus the doctrine of everlasting punishment dethrones God, and leaves him the servant of
some dark fate outside of himself.
It is no answer to this, to say that God allows evil to
exist here in time. For we have seen that all the sufferings of time are mathematically nothing, compared
with the bliss of eternity. All finite suffering, however great, is as nothing when compared with everlasting happiness afterward.
We will close this chapter by giving a brief redsumd
of our argument thus far.
If we are asked, " Why do you believe in God?"
we may give the following answer: -
I believe in God, because I am made to believe in
him. If I became an atheist, I should be obliged to
silence the voice of my soul, the instincts of my higher
being, the voice of my reason, the dictates of nature,
the aspirations of the spirit rising above the finite to
the infinite, the longings of my heart for an almighty
and perfect Friend. I am so made that I have no peace,
no rest, no satisfaction in the present, no hope in the
future, but in the faith that - above all that is dark,
84 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
blind, and mechanical in the universe; behind all that
is mysterious and sad, -there sits supreme one infinite
Master, who is at the same timne an infinite Benefactor,
an endless Lover of his creatures.
Secondly, I believe in God because I see everywhere,
in nature and the outward world, the proofs of a
boundless intelligence. I see everywhere adaptation,
and infer design; everywhere order, law, beauty, harrmony. All Nature sings a song of praise to God.
Opening spring, which unbinds the pod, announces his
coming, with numerous flowers, birds, and returning
life. The long summer days, filled with joy, speak of
him. Him the abounding autumn, him the solemn winter, proclaim. His praise is sung by the winds, which
blow from four quarters of the heavens; and by the
majesty and terror of the storm. The mighty ocean
chants his praise in its tumultuous surges, and its immeasurable smile. The mountains, great sentinels of
nature, in their perpetual calm and snowy purity,
praise God with their sky-piercing peaks. Coming
day, and the rising sun, pouring light over the earth,
tell of his goodness; and night, with its solemn multitude of fires, shows to us his infinite power. I believe
in God, because nature is full of him; in all its order,
its beauty, its manifold variety, its infinite adaptation.
Again, I believe in God because the universal testimony of man, from the dawn of time, bears witness
to the divine reality.  Faintly or clearly, all people,
85 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
nations, and languages have seen the presence of God
in the world, - sometimes, as in a glass darkly, involved in superstition and error; sometimes in clearer
light and beauty. Polytheism and monotheism, Jew
and Gentile, Brahmin and Buddhist; the negro of
Africa with his Fetich; the Scandinavian with his
faith in Valhalla; the solemn mystery of the Egyptian
shrines with their long arcades of sphinxes and obelisks;
the Acropolis at Athens glittering in its snowy marble
beauty, its exquisite temples, its innumerable statues;
Rome with its altars; the isles of the ocean; the ancient worship of Mexico and Peru, and the Great
Spirit of the Indian, - all attest the fact, that wherever man has lived, he has looked out of time into
eternity, and has seen some gleams of a divine power
above and beyond the earth.
Once more, I believe in God, because the wisest and
best of the race have risen always out of superstition on the one side, and unbelief on the other, to
the sight of one infinite and perfect Being. The
Hymns of the Vedas, in their highest strains, announce
one supreme God. The great teacher of ancient Persia, Zoroaster, discloses the God of light and truth
and goodness, as the highest power. Greece, by the
voice of her best and greatest philosophers, announces
the same truth. No one in the Old World taught a
purer theism than Socrates; no one demonstrated the
purity and perfection of the Deity more plainly than
Aristotle.  Plato says, "Around the King of all, are
86 
FROM ATHEISM TO THEISM.
all things; and he is the cause of all good." Euripides
declares, " God sees all things, and is himself unseen."
The Pythagoreans said, "God is one.  He is not, as
some suppose, outside this frame of things, but within it. In all the entireness of his being, he is in the
whole circle of existence, surveying all nature, and
blending in harmonious union the whole; Giver of
light in heaven, and Father of all; the mind and life of
the whole world; Mover of all things."  Sophocles
says: -
"One in truth, one is God,
Who made both heaven and the far-reaching earth,
And ocean's blue wave and the mighty winds.
But many of us mortals, deceived in heart,
Have set up for ourselves, as a consolation in our affliction,
Images of the gods, of stone or wood or brass or gold or
ivory,
And worship these with vain sacrifices."
And Orpheus, as quoted by Clement of Alexandria,
says: " I shall utter to whom it is lawful; but let the
doors be closed against all the profane.   Walk in
the straight path to the immortal and only King of the
universe. For he is one, self-proceeding. From him
all things come: his power is in all. No mortal sees
him; but he sees all."
And so Cicero says of the Romans: "Some nations,
conscript fathers, excel us, -as do the Spaniards in
numbers, the Gauls in physical strength, the Carthaginians in cunning, the Greeks in art; but we, the
87 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Romans, surpass all others in piety, in religion, and
that one wisdom which sees that all things are governed and directed by the will of the immortal gods."
And from among all the great thinkers of modern
times, who have proclaimed a pure theism, - from
Erigena to Descartes, Newton, Leibnitz, Locke, let
me select one sentence from Lord Bacon. Lord Bacon
says: " I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this
universal frame is without a mind. It is true, that
a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism,
but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to
religion; for while the mind of man  looketh upon
second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them
and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of
them confederate and linked together, it must needs
fly to Providence and Deity."
Again, I believe in God because this faith is the
great spring of human progress. Faith in God gives
courage, hope, energy, to men; and the nearer the
faith approaches to true theism, the greater is its
power to carry men upward and onward. The slave,
in his chains, strengthened by this faith, is stronger
than his tyrant.   It nerves the arm of the patriot,
fighting the battles of freedom. When Paul crossed
the blue;gean, carrying faith in one living God to
Europe, he inspired a new life in the decaying mass
of the Roman empire, and founded modern civilization.
When Mohammed taught his wild Arab tribes to re
88 
FROM ATHEISM- TO THEISM.
nounce idolatry, and accept one God, he created the
seeds of a civilization which illuminated Europe for
many hundred years. When Luther defied Rome, in
the name of a faith purified from its corruptions, and
Gustavus Adolphus died fighting for freedom of spirit,
they planted the germs of modern art, science, literature. When the Puritans fought at Naseby, under
Cromwell, and when they founded New England, for
the sake of a reformed reformation, they gave a
stimulus to human civilization and human progress
which has not yet ceased to operate in Europe and
America. All nations which have made progress in
art, literature, science, or social life, have been inspired with a faith, more or less clear, in the invisible
and eternal. Let atheism, or semi-atheism, or a low,
superstitious theism prevail; and human life goes
backward.   Let faith revive; society becomes pure,
strong, and progressive.
And, lastly, I believe in God, because this faith is
needed for the peace, comfort, happiness of individual
man.  I received, not long ago, from some friend, a
pamphlet defending atheism and attacking religion
with a certain blind zeal, which is almost pathetic.
When I hear such words, I say, " Father, forgive
them: they know not what they do." The atheist
looks through the universe, and finds no God. He
searches the furthest nebula, and God is not there.
He examines the structure of the human body, and
finds no trace of the divine hand. He interrogates the
89 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
past, and it is silent; he demands of the future, and it
has no voice. The universe is a great dead machine,
clashing on and on; coming from nowhere, going
nowhere; made for no end, inspired by no wisdom,
filled with no love. Man is the child of chance and
clay, made of a few chemical elements, to be dissolved into them again.  I ask him, "What shall I live
for?"  He replies, "I do not know.  Live for what
you please. Eat, drink, and die." The oppressed cry
out to God to help them; but the atheist tells them,
there is no God to hear their cry. The poor, the sick,
the wretched, the lonely, are happy because they have
faith in God. The atheist takes away this last support of the miserable, this last restraint on the powerful, this foundation of justice between man and man,
this terror to evil-doers, this strength of the upright, -
he takes it away, and says, "Die like the brutes, in
your darkness and despair." But no: he cannot take
it away. Man is made to believe; and the belief in
God rests on surer grounds than logic or demonstration; namely, on human nature itself.   Some truths
are self-evident as soon as men look at them: they
need no argument, and cannot be demonstrated. So
Proclus says, "He who thinks that all things can be
demonstrated takes away demonstration itself;" and
Epictetus declares, that " Whoever denies self-evident
truths cannot be reasoned with, for he has no intellectual modesty."
9o 
FROM ATHEISM TO TIIEISM.
We have now come to the end of our brief survey
of the first division of our subject; namely, of the
questions between the atheists and the theists. We
have found that it is difficult if not impossible, to
demonstrate the existence of God; and as difficult,
if not impossible, not to believe in God. Ninety-nine
men out of a hundred, on the surface of the earth, believe in God or Gods, outside of the world and above
it, who are more powerful, and more wise than man.
Most of those who deny the existence of God, deny
the name rather than the thing. They substitute for
God Nature, or the Soul of the World, or the Nexus
of Laws by which the universe is governed. But they
are obliged to attribute to this Web of Laws, or to
Nature, the power of evolving, out of itself, order,
beauty, adaptation of parts to parts, life, growth, intellect, will. As nothing can come from nothing, all this
must have been present implicitly in the Kosmos, before it was  evolved explicitly.   Consequently, they
believe in an infinite Kosmos, containing all the intelligence, power, wisdom, law now extant, and capable
of producing it all; that is, they believe in an infinite
Creator. The only difference between such atheists
and theists is, that the atheist supposes his Supreme
Being to produce intelligent results without intelligence, and unconsciously; the theist believes him to
produce them intelligently and consciously.
The being of God cannot be demonstrated, because
the idea of God is the unity of all necessary ideas,
9I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
the coming together into one of the ideas of necessary
being, perfection, cause, intelligence, right, beauty, infinity, and personal will. Now, as each of these ideas
is a necessary idea, and cannot be explained out of
any thing more simple than itself (which is essential
to a proof), all of these taken together cannot be explained out of any thing more simple. Consequently,
God's existence cannot be proved, as against one disposed to deny it. But this is no misfortune; for in
this respect belief in God stands on the same basis as
belief in our own existence, and in that of the outward
universe. Neither of these can be proved. They are
not believed on the ground of argument, but are known
experimentally. I know my own existence, through
consciousness, by a mental experience. I know the
outward universe, through observation, by the experience of the senses. We commune with ourselves
through consciousness: we commune with nature,
through the senses. From this communion results our
knowledge of each. We know God in the same way,
just as far as we commune with him outwardly and
inwardly. When we look through nature, and see,
back of its changing events an unchanging Cause,
under its finite phenomena an infinite Substance, and
behind its manifold adaptations an intelligent design,- we come into communion with God through
nature. When we look within, and, behind our wrong
being and doing, find the conception of a perfect right;
behind our lukewarm affections, the idea of a perfect
92 
FROM ATHEISM TO TIIEISM.
love; and behind our sorrows and weakness, the undying hope of a perfect peace, - we commune with
God inwardly. All knowledge comes from communion
or intercourse; that is, action and reaction. We cannot know any thing passively. Knowledge arises from
life.  The  knowledge of the outward world comes
from sensible experience, or living contact of the
senses, by action and reaction. Knowledge of ourselves comes from conscious experience, by looking
in upon ourselves, and setting the soul into a living
activity. And so knowledge of God does not come
passively to any man; but only as he communes, by an
active spiritual experience, with God; or, as the Bible
says, " Spiritual things must be spiritually discerned."
93  
,,~4,
SECOND STEP.
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY. 
"In the guise of human natures,
Folded round his deep heart now,
Manhood gracious in his features,
Godhood glorious on his brow."
JULIA WARD HowL 
CHAPTER I.
THE HISTORIC CHRIST.
E  have taken the first step of belief, in rising
from atheism to theism. The second step is
firom theism to Christianity. And here we encounter
a new class of opponents.   Hitherto we have been
dealing with materialists and atheists, with those who
deny the spirituality of man, and who reduce God to
a force, tied to matter. But now we encounter those
who, believing firmly in spirit and in God, deny that
Christianity is any advance beyond theism.
This class of theists have, in this country, given the
name of "Free Religion" to their system of belief.
They constitute a body of able and earnest thinkers,
whose views Christian believers cannot afford to neglect. In this division of our argument we shall, first,
meet their critical objections against historic Christianity; secondly, their metaphysical objections against the
theory of Christianity; thirdly, we shall show wherein
Christianity is an advance on pure theism; and, lastly,
we will consider some special objections to Christian
facts or doctrines.
7 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Before proceeding to notice the objections brought
against Christianity by Free Religion, we may properly ask what are the ascertained facts concerning
Christ? WVhat historic certainties are there on which
we may base any after theories? What do we know
about Christ?
Str',ctly speaking, we cannot be said to know any
historic fact. We have seen, in a previous chapter,
that all history is made up of probabilities. But these
probabilities sometimes approach so near the limits of
certainty as to amount practically to knowledge. We
may, very properly, speak of knowing the fact of the
existence of Washington, Napoleon, or Julius Casar.
In this popular sense, therefore, we ask, What do we
know about Christ and Christianity?
First, we know that there is such a fact as Christianity.   Christianity is one  of the great religions
of the world.   It is the  religion of Europe  and
America; only slightly to be found in Asia or Africa.
It is the religion associated with the highest form
of human civilization, the most advanced and advancing culture, and the best mnorality. It is the religion
of the most enlightened and powerful nations. If
you wish to know the latest discoveries in chemistry,
astronomy, or geology, you do not go to Hindoo,
Chinese, or Mohammedan savans, but to the scholars
of Christendom. If you wish to see the best works of
art, either pictures or statues; or to read the best books,
the deepest philosophy, the noblest poetry, -you still
98 
FROM TIIEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
go to Christendom, not to the Mongols or the Arabs.
If you wish to know the history or geography of the
earth, you must have recourse to European libraries,
maps, and globes. The commerce of the globe is in
Christian hands; and the sails which whiten the five
oceans are surmounted by the flag of some Christian
nation. Christendom contains the power of the world.
Its armies, navies, science, literature, art, governments,
manufactures, mechanism, commerce, agriculture, are
incomparably before those of all the other races of
mankind; and Christendom is advancing, while they
are stationary or retrograde.
We do not say that the civilization of Christendom
is the result of Christianity alone. But that Christianity has something to do with it appears from the fact
of the close association of the religion and the civilization. There is some manifest affinity between the two.
A common civilization is found among the five Aryan
races who profess a common religion. The two Asiatic members of this family,.which are not Christian,
do not share in this civilization. It is not therefore the
result of race; for the Persians and Hindoos belong to
the same ethnological family with the Greeks, Latins,
Celts, Germans, and Slavi.   It is not the result of climate, soil, or other geographical conditions. These
were the same in Germany, Norway, England, and
Russia a thousand years ago as they are to-day; but
no civilization arose in those regions until their inhabitants were converted to Christianity'.
99 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Christianity has been the religion of Christendom
for at least fifteen centuries. Under Constantine, in the
year 325, it became the religion of Rome. It then
w,as so powerful a faith that it conquered the Roman
empire. Where did it come from? Such an effect
must have a cause. What was its cause? What created Christianity?
Go back another century,- a hundred years before
Constantine. We still find Christianity as a wide extended faith, in Europe, Asia, and Africa; with its
bishops, its theologians, its churches, its rites and ceremonies, its great writers, its numerous books. But
especially it had its Sacred Book; its New Testament,
containing the four Gospels, the Book of Acts, and the
Epistles, - nearly, if not quite, the same books which
we have now.  This New Testament we find in Asia,
Africa, and Europe. Irenmus- who lived in Gaul,
at Lyons, about A.D. ISo, and wrote before A.D. 200was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of
John. He quotes largely from Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John; calling the Gospels by these names. Away
in this western part of Europe, they then read the
same four Gospels which we read now. And about
the same time Tertullian in Carthage, in Western Africa,
was quoting the same books. And Clement in Alexandria was doing the same. And Origen, after him, did
the same. Therefore we find this story of Jesus Christ,
which we now read and believe, was read and believed
by Chis;ian churches in all parts of the civilized world
:-:'"-.:.: 
IOO 
FROMN THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
seventeen hundred years ago. Now go back two hundred years further, and what can we discover concerning Christianity? Nothing. There was no Christianity
in the world. The reign of Augustus has sent down
to us a great number of works by the best authors.
It was an era of intellectual light. If Christianity had
existed before or during that period, we should have
heard of it from Cicero, Horace, Virgil, Ovid, Sallust,
or Livy. There is no trace of it: it did not exist in
the age of Augustus; and one hundred and fifty
years later it is in every part of the Roman empire,
and all these churches point back to Judaea as the origin of their faith; all say it comes from Jesus of Nazareth. From all the churches of Gaul, Italy, Greece,
Carthage, Alexandria, Antioch, Asia, in the second
century, lines converge towards Galilee and Jerusalem
at the beginning of the first. It is as when you see
in the sky rays of light converging from every side
toward a dark cloud. You say, at once, that the sun
is behind the cloud at the point where they seem to
come together. By the same reasoning, we say Christianity must have begun in Galilee and Judea, toward
the beginning of the first century.
Christianity must have had its commencement and
its cause.  Its commencement, we have seen, must
have been, just about the time when the New Testament reports Jesus to have lived, and just in the
same place. All the churches, all Christendom, have
declared their faith to have come from him, and to be
IOI 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
contained in these books. This is the reason for believing in Jesus as the Founder of Christianity; and for
believing that his life and teachings are contained, substantially, in the four Gospels: we believe it for the
same reason that we believe any other fact of history, -
because all the testimony is that way. History rests
on faith in human testimony. Take away that faith,
and no history would be possible. Now we have seen,
that Christianity, as an immense phenomenon in human
history, must have had a cause; that it must have commenced in Judaa in the time of Jesus; that all the
testimony of all the Christian churches, is that Jesus
is its Founder; and that his life is in the New
Testament. If you do not accept such testimony,
you have no ground for believing in any historical fact
at all, and history ceases to exist.
Why, for example, do we believe in the existence
and wonderful career of Alexander the Great, who,
finding himself at the age of twenty, king of a small
country, marched to the conquest of Asia with 35,ooo
men, - about the number contained in one of our army
corps, - conquered Asia Minor; defeated half a million of Persian troops at Issus; took Tyre; conquered
Egypt; defeated another army of a million men at
Arbela; entered Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis; conquered all Persia; crossed the snow mountains into
Bactria; entered India, and defeated King Porus
there; and having established a mighty empire, and
altered permanently the course of human events, died
I02 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
at the age of thirty-two years? Why do we believe
such a marvellous story as this? We have no account
of his life from any contemporary writer: Arrian,
Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, and Quintus Curtius,his four Evangelists,-all lived three centuries after
him.  But his life and career stand solidly in history,
accepted by all. Why? Because the testimony we
have, is all that way; and because other events of the
age fit into it. For the same reason, we believe in the
life of Jesus,- only, in his case we have also the testimony of eye-witnesses and contemporaries.
Since Christianity began in Palestine, among the
Jews, and somewhere about the beginning of the first
century, it must have begun in one of two ways, -
either by the teaching of a single great prophet, or by
a gradual development out of previous religions. Religions have commenced in both ways. Some great
religions have no authors, but have grown up out of
the spirit of their nation and age. Such were Brahminism, and the religions of ancient Egypt, Greece,
Rome, and Scandinavia. But others have had single
great prophets for their founders; as those of Moses,
Confucius, Zoroaster, Mohammed, Buddha. The first
class of religions are developed very  slowly;  the
second class come suddenly, in a single generation.
Christianity arose suddenly, within a very short period;
therefore it must have belonged to the second class, and
have had a prophet for its author.
That the account of Jesus in the four Gospels is
v
103 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
substantially correct, appears from the nature of the
narrative and the narrators. A consistent picture of
his character rises in our minds as we read the Gospels, composed of the traits which they contain. But
these Gospels are put together without any method;
with no biographical art. The Evangelists simply
remember: they do not compose. They seem to
have made themselves into so many mirrors placed
around Jesus, to reflect his actions and words down
through the ages. If you place four mirrors around
a statue, each will contain something which the others
have, and something which they have not. So the
Evangelists, each adding some original traits to the
picture, contain also repetitions of each other's story.
It does not appear that they themselves understood the
character they are describing, or the motives of his
actions. They are evidently filled with awe, love, and
admiration for Jesus; but they never undertake to admire, or to describe his character. Still less do they
enter upon any critical investigation of his ideas, his
purpose, or the meaning of his career. They photograph his life as the sun photographs a picture. A
photograph may be imperfect, may be blotched and
obscure in this and that part; but it is faithful. Every
thing in it means something which was really in the
original. If the Evangelists had been asked to write a
biography of Jesus, in the style of Strauss, Renan, or
Neander, - defending this fact, accounting for that,
and explaining away the other, and so making a por
1o4 
FROM TIHEISM TO CIIRISTIANITY.
trait of Jesus according to their own philosophy,- they
could not have done it. They did not understand him
enough, to invent any part of the story. They can narrate honestly, simply, sometimes perhaps erroneously,
what they saw and heard: that is their whole power.
If they are inspired writers, their historic inspiration is
that which comes from love. They loved their Master
so, that all he said, and all he did, was precious to
their hearts. So a mother's love for her child leads
her to remember all his little speeches, all his little
ways. There is no memory like that of the lover, on
the living tablets of whose heart are imperishably
stamped all the looks, the smiles, the words of the
idol of his dreams. What Mary is reported to have
done, that the Evangelists did with their Master's life:
they " hid these things in their heart."
It is clear that such writers as these could never
have invented the character they have given us. How
could they have conceived a character which, it is
evident, they do not understand themselves in their
own report of it? And how could four writers conspire
to invent such a character, and then communicate it in
broken inartistic fragments, which must be carefully
arranged, and put together by successive generations
of critics, and from which, thus put together, there
finally emerges the greatest Personage of all time?
If, then, we find a unity in the character of Jesus.
thus represented, it is evidently human and historical.
It is because he really lived and moved before the
Io5 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
eyes of these inartistic, unpractised narrators. They
give us all they saw and all they heard, with no attempt at consistency, no explanation of any apparent
contradictions. They make themselves wholly into
eye, ear, and tongue. They see, hear, and tell: that
is all.
Do we then find a unity in the character so described? and, if so, what is it?
Jesus first appears as a Reformer of a very radical
character, and yet attaching himself firmly to the past,
- holding fast to its vital faith, but rejecting its traditions. In the sermon on the mount, in which are
brought together, apparently, his earliest discourses,
he gives a new interpretation to the Mosaic law; a
new view of the kingdom of heaven, or reign of the
Messiah; of alms-giving, prayer, and fasting; of the
providence of God; and of the essence of goodness.
And yet he declares, that he has not come to destroy
the law, that he has come to fulfil, not to destroy. To
fulfil, here means to carry forward to a fuller perfection. The letter shall not pass until its spirit is taken
up into a higher form. This is already something very
unusual. A prophet is commonly a one-sided man,
possessed by his idea, hurried away by his deep conviction of one truth, or his horror of one evil. He
does not stop to limit or qualify: if he did, his power
would be gone. He must commonly overstate and be
extravagant, or he does not say all he feels. But Jesus
never overstated, never was extravagant, and yet spoke
IO6 
FROM THEISM TO CHIRISTIANITY.
with overcoming authority. Jesus was radical and
conservative in one. Let us see the facts which show
this to be so.
From one point of view, we may say that Jesus was
the greatest Radical that ever lived. He set aside all
forms, not impatiently or violently, but as easily as a
grown man puts aside the foolish notions of a child.
The sabbath was only sacred to him as it helped man.
We are not as free to-day in our treatment of Sunday,
as he was in treating the sabbath of his time. He
healed the sick, took walks in the fields with his disciples, and did many things which it was not lawful
to do. In regard to clean and unclean meats, distinguished so painfully in the books of Moses, he said
that a man was not defiled by the meat which went
into his mouth, but by the words which came out of it.
People still call a church the "house of God," as
though God were in some way specially present in
it. But Jesus told the woman of Samaria, that not
this place nor that place is a place of worship; but
that the pure heart is the only house of God and gate
of heaven.
He had nothing of the conventional prophet about
him. He did not make himself a saint by living in a
cell eating roots, and wearing sackcloth. He came
eating and drinking like others; he went among all
sorts of people, -old men and little children, Samaritans and Phcenicians, Roman soldiers and the unpopular tax-gathlerers, the honest and pure, the soiled and
IO7 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
stained. All this was new and strange; but he does
not lay stress on it himself, or call attention to it, or
proclaim it as a discovery of his own. He does it as
simply and naturally as if there were nothing new in
it. But his ideas were more radical than his manners.
Judaism was a law, a system of rules; its God a Lawgiver and Law-avenger, Judge, and King. Jesus did
away with law and rule, writing the law in the heart.
To say your prayers, is not to pray; to repeat words,
is not to pray. He gives no command to pray at all;
but only says, "When  thou prayest," let it be in
secret, talking alone with God, without many words;
for God hears you before you begin; saying what you
really feel, not what you think you ought to feel; and
in faith, speaking to God, as sure that he hears you
and will help you as when you go to your neighbor's
house to ask him to help you lift a stone which is too
heavy for you to raise alone. To murder a man is
not merely to stab him with a knife, or beat him with
a club. It is to stab him with a bitter word, to bruise
his heart with an unkind suspicion. Licentiousness
is in the ungoverned desire, the indulged imagination,
the irregular thought.   To fast, is not to look sad,
and to make a merit of abstinence; it is not to parade
our sacrifices. But it is to give up what we like, and
say nothing about it; to make sacrifices, and be happy
in doing it, cheerful givers for the sake of God and
man.  Truth is not in keeping one's oath or promise:
truth is ill having our words in exact correspondence
To8 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
to our thought; without promising at all, to be simply
sincere. Goodness is not in loving and helping good
people and agreeable people; but in finding something good, something to love, in every one.
For God is not law and Law-giver, King and Judge,
chiefly; but Friend, blessed Friend, to all his creatures.
He does not love the good, and hate the evil: he
sends soft rain and heavenly sunlight to comfort the
sinner's heart. He is not above nature only, as an
awful power; but in every flower that blushes in its
beauty by the meadow stream, in every star that
flames on the midnight sky. Every little bird that
droops and dies in its nest falls as softly into God's
hand as do his saints and martyrs.   Little things
which we despise, God prizes, counting every hair of
our heads. Goodness is not in talk or profession, but in
action.  He does not follow me, says Jesus, who cries
Lord! Lord! the loudest; but he who does, not my
will, but my Father's will most truly. The man who
rudely and impiously says to God, "I will not obey,"
but then repents and obeys, is better than the man of
solemn piety, who says all holy things, and then forgets to do them.
How radical is all this! How this subsoil plough
goes under the roots of all popular, fashionable religion
in Christ's day, and perhaps in ours too. Is it not
curious that his rebuke seems to strike us as squarely
here in America now, as it did his neighbors in Nazareth and Cana then?
l09 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
The Judaism in which Jesus had been educated
was a law, a system of rules. He teaches that rules
are nothing, but the spirit every thing. Judaism was
the worship of an all-holy, all-powerful Judge and
King above the world; rewarding the good, punishing
the evil. Jesus taught a Father, who sees his prodigal
child a great way off; who sends blessings, not wrath,
on sinners; and is more glad when the naughty child
comes back, than he is because the good boys and girls
are behaving well. Judaism, finally, was an intense
nationality, a narrow bigoted belief in one people,
as the special faivorite of God. Jesus taught a kingdom of heaven to which the poor in spirit, and the
meek, and the pure of heart, should belong, all of right.
He said that many should come firom the east and
west and sit down with Abraham and Isaac, when the
Jews should be cast out; that God's house would be
filled by those taken from the by-ways and the hedges.
He taught that the heathen who had never heard of
Judaism or Christianity, would find at the last day that
they were Christians without knowing it, when they
fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the sick, and
were kind to the stranger. So independent was Jesus
of the Judaism around him; so radical in his reform
of its traditions!
And yet he could say, as we have seen, that he did
not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to
fulfil them. He did not break with the past: he recognized the law of growth by which the stalk comes
II0 
FROM TIHEISM TO CIIRISTIANITY.
from the seed, the blossom from the stalk, the fruit
from the blossom.  So he remained a Jew, went to the
Jewish feasts, worshipped in the Jewish Temple, and
accepted the part of the Jewish Messiah. He took
the old forms, and filled them full of a higher meaning.
Thus the boldest radicalism would have been the best
conservatism, had the Jewish people consented. Had
they taken him as their true King, he would have made
them the leaders of the human race. For he would
have preserved the whole spirit of Judaism, while
dropping its letter. Its forms, which separated them
from mankind, would have disappeared.  But the noble spirit of Judaism, - its faith in one supreme and
living God, making all men brethren, as the Jews were
brothers, - this would have been the atoning principle
to unite all men together.
This was the vast idea of Jesus. In this sense he
uinderstood himself to be the Messiah foreordained
from the foundation of the world. Before Abraham
was, he was the Christ of God; a King, born and sent
into the world to bear witness to the truth. In him
culminated the long preparations of history. He was
the Heir of all things; and in him, as the Centre
of humanity, all the races, religions, and civilizations of the earth were to be made one. This was
his great aim, — the highest object which the human
mind can conceive. The fact that he claimed to be
the Christ and Son of God; his including among his
subjects all who loved the truth, and obeyed it; and
I I I 
STEPS OF BELI,IEF.
his expectation that there should be but one fold and
one Shepherd,- these prove that the universal human
leadership of the race was the mission he had accepted as his own.
Thus far all is historical and all human. But now
we must take another step. To believe one's self the
leader of the human race, and to be so, are two different things. To be the leader of a single race, a
single nation, during a single period, - it is only necessary to be fully possessed with the ideas of that race,
nation, and period. But to lead the human race as its
religious Guide, it is necessary to be universal, to omit
nothing, to embody all the essential ideas of human
religion.  Did Jesus do this?  This is what Free Religion denies, and Christianity asserts. Free Religion
considers Jesus as one great Teacher, perhaps the
greatest; but to be passed by at last, and left behind;
possibly, already passed by. But Christianity accepts
Jesus as Son of God and Son of man; perfect man in
his character, fulfilling the idea of man; also perfect
manifestation of God, showing to men their Heavenly
Father perfectly, -"the image of the invisible God,"
and the First-born (or Chief) of the whole creation.
According to this view, he is never to be left behind,
but to grow more and more into the love and faith of
the world, until he has united the human race in one
brotherhood.   He is to reign till he has subdued all
enemies under him; and then he is to deliver up the
kingdom to God, even the Father.
I I2 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
Free Religion denies that any one man can be all
this; because to be this implies perfection of nature,
and all men are imperfect. But in denying that any
man can be perfect, Free Religion seems to be yet
lhamnpered by the fatal doctrine of hereditary and entire
depravity.  Why should not one man be perfect? Is
sin so natural to man, that perfection is unnatural?
Were we made to be sinners, made to be always
wrong? Many mciie have approached a spotless perfection; why should not one man have attained it?
We are, all of us, perfectly good at some moments
in our lives, when we submit wholly to truth and
love,- why should not one man have been always
in this state of entire submission and entire love? Jesus
had no such doubt. He did not believe that man was
necessarily imperfect: he became perfect, in order to
be the Author of the same perfection to all who obey
him. He said to the average men about him, neither
better nor worse than we are, "Be perfect, even as
your Father in heaven is perfect."
But when we claim perfection for Jesus, what do we
mean? Not divine perfection, but human. To be perfect, is to be entire and absolute in the human order as
God is in the divine order. When we say that Jesus
was the one perfect Being, we do not make of him a
faultless monster, nor take him out of the human and
historic order. What we say is, that he fulfilled the
intention of God concerning man, and became purely
and wholly a man; and thus showed to us that we can
8
113 
STEPS OF RELIEF.
do the same. He showed that sin is unnatural, not
natural; that we are not so tied and bound by weakness and evil, that we cannot love God and man.
Since Christ has succeeded in this, we can succeed
too. This subject we shall pursue in our next chapter.
The perfection of Jesus was moral perfection. It
consisted in this, that he lived always in communion
with God, as we live sometimes; that he lived always
in the spirit of unselfish love, as we live sometimes;
that his inspiration was constant, while ours is transient. So he, in the providence of God, was made
and became the Leader of the human race, the Inspirer
of faith in God, the Atonement to unite all in one.
The one great outward proof that Jesus was thus the
Christ of humanity, the ordained Leader of the human
race to God and to each other, is found in his resurrection.  This is the only miracle on which the apostles
lay stress as evidence of his mission. Paul does not
mention the other miracles in his speeches or letters,
but he dwells constantly on the resurrection of Jesus.
When Jesus appeared to die, he did not die: he remained alive.  When he seemed to go down, he did
not go down: he went up. When he seemed to go
away, he did not go away: he remained. The " power
of the resurrection" is, that it shows us a living, everpresent Christ, with his church, coming back to us,
coming to reign more and more.   The miracle of
the resurrection is not a violation of the laws of na ture, but an unveiling of the higher law of life. It
II4 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
showvs us in death a going up, not a going down; a
coming near, not a going away; a fulness of immor
tality.
The objections to this view are chiefly a priori and
metaphysical. Theodore Parker believes that Christ
was imperfect, - not that he sees any special imperfection in him, but becaluse all men are imperfect, and
must be so. All men, no doubt, are finite. No one
can have infinite perfection. But, unless we believe in
original sin, why shall not man attain to finite perfection,
to the perfection of human nature? Why may not
Jesus, in the providence of God, -prepared by organization, educated by the great history and traditions of
his people, - have reached this point, and become
the perfect man, who reconciles religion and morality,
faith and works, love to God and love to man, and is
filled with that divine life which will at last bring together all races and all religions into a perfect brotherhood? As far as I can see, the principal objection in
the way is the belief in natural depravity, - the belief
that ail men must be imperfect, and that therefore
Jesus must have been so.
Those who do not accept a necessary depravity
may believe in Jesus, not as one among many past
prophets and teachers, who did their work, and then
went to their graves; but as the ever-living, ever-present, inspiring, and saving Friend of man. We may believe in him, as the one who liveth and was dead, and
behold he is alive for evermore. His life, death, and
II5 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
resurrection are the hope and strength of the world.
He is and remains our King. Because he was faithful
in all things, he became perfect, and is able to make
us so. He is to reign till he subdues all things under
him, by the power of his truth and his love. All this
is a part of history. He is not the less human, as we
shall see in the next chapter, for being so perfect, but
the more so. For man was made to be perfect. Jesus,
our Brother, went before us, in the high providence Of
God, leading the way upward from earth to heaven.
The more we believe in him, the stronger and better
we are.
The power of Christ and of Christianity consists in
this immense hope for man. Jesus saw all the sin, all
the ignorance, all the weakness of man, and yet hloped
for him.  He foresaw the denial of Peter, the betrayal
of Judas, saw that all his disciples should forsake him
in his hour of trial; and yet he had no doubt that they
were all to be one with him, as he was one with God.
The divine character of the great prayer in the seventeenth chapter of John, is, that it is filled full of this
absolute, unwavering hope. About to die, forsaken
and alone, he yet says that God has given him power
over all flesh, to give them eternal life. He calls on
God to glorify him with the glory he had with him before the world was. He was so sure of the faith of
his disciples, that he prayed for them in the full conviction that they belonged to him and to God, and
were not of the world: he prayed that he and they
Ii6 
FROM THIEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
might be one in God.  He  told his disciples that he
was to return to them after death, and remain with
them; that he was " to be with them always, even to
the end of the world." He told them to go into all
the earth, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Filled with so great a faith in God and man, sure that
man was to become one with God, and that all dis
cord, sin, woe, wickedness, were to cease, - he went
to die, attended by this shining light, and left this great
hope as the inspiration for all time.
And now we ask, has Jesus been outgrown? In
these eighteen centuries, has he been left behind, in
any one particular, by the advancing race of man?
Is he not still our Leader, Chief, and Friend; the
best Friend we have, our Brother, Teacher, and Master? Without him, and his religion, what satisfaction
is there in life, what hope in death, what comfort in
sorrow, what strength in our weakness, what light in
our darkness?
1I7 
CHAPTER II.
NOTHING UNNATURAL IN CHRIST OR IN CHRISTIANITY.
HE  object of this chapter is to show that there is
nothing unnatural in Christianity. Christianity
has hitherto been opposed to rational theism by definitions which have given to it an unnatural character.
Christ has been assumed to stand outside of nature and
history. His religion has been called supernatural in
a sense which made it seem unnatural. In regard to
Jesus Christ himself, we find two distinct and seemingly opposite views prevailing at the present time.
The first is the traditional and general opinion that he
was not like other men in his person, his endowments,
his work, or his character; that his person was superhuman, his endowments supernatural, his work miraculous, and his character intellectually infallible and
morally impeccable; that he was a miraculous creation,
that he was divinely inspired and sent, that he did not
sin, did not err, will never be superseded, and is the
Master, Lord, King of the human race for ever. Hence
it is assumed that he was not a man only and purely,
but something more. 
FROM THIEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
The other view is that which has been becoming
more and more popular since the days of Theodore
Parker, not only in this country, but also in England,
France, and Germany. It is, that Jesus was a man
like all other men, born like other men, formed by circumstances as other men are formed, partaking of the
errors of his age, not supernatural, but wholly natural; working no miracles, not infallible, but falling
into errors; not perfect morally; capable of being superseded and outgrown; and, in short, purely a man,
like other men.
It will be observed that these two theories, so utterly opposite, nevertheless agree in one assumption.
Both assume that perfection is unnatural to man; that
man is necessarily imperfect, mentally and morally;
that to be sinless is unnatural; that to see truth so
clearly as to be certain of it and not liable to be mistaken, is unnatural: in other words, that it is not natural for man to be good, and that a perfectly good man
is necessarily a supernatural, or (what is thought the
same thing) an unnatural being.
The one class of thinkers say, "Jesus was sinless
and infallible, and worked miracles, therefore he was
superhuman." The others say, " He was human, and
therefore he could not work miracles or be perfect."
The first class, wishing to believe in the superiority of
Jesus, think it necessary to believe him superhuman;
the other class, not wishing to believe him superhuman, think it necessary to deny his superiority. Both
II9 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
classes agree that any such inward superiority as is ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament, implies a superhuman element. That is, again, both classes assume
the essential poverty of human nature.
But why may we not suppose that man's nature is
higher than either party believes? WVhat if man was
made to be all Jesus was; what if human nature is not
necessarily sinful, but otherwise; what if sin and error
are unnatural, not natural: then it may follow that
Jesus did all that he is claimed to have done in the
Gospels; that he is all that he is described to have
been, and yet instead of being at all unnatural, is a
truer and more perfectly natural man than any other
has been.  Perhaps the greatness of Jesus may have
been just here, -that he was the man of men, the
truest man, fuilfilling the type of humanity. Perhaps
the great lesson of his life is, that human nature is not
essentially evil, but good. Perhaps his mission was to
show us one perfect specimen of the human race; one
ideal pattern; one such as all are hereafter tQ become.
If this view be correct, then it may reconcile the
war between the Naturalists and Supernaturalists.
The Naturalists can then accept the leading facts in
the life of Jesus, and yet believe in him as a purely
human being.   The Supernaturalists can believe in
his perfect holiness, wisdom, and power, and yet not
deny his simple humanity. I propose, therefore, to
adduce some facts which show that there is nothing
I 20 
FROM TIhEISM TO CIRISTIANITY.
claimed in the Gospels for Christ which is inconsistent
with the assumption of his being made in all respects
like his brethren.
I do inot consider the question of his supernatural
birth; first, because it rests on a different kind of evidence from the other facts of the life of Jesus, of a
much more legendary character; secondly, because it
is difficult to know exactly what is intended by the
narrative; thirdly, because, whatever it may mean, it
cannot imply that Jesus was not a man, made in all respects like his brethren. I am willing, as a Supernaturalist, to consider this whole narration as legendary,
not having the historic stamp of the rest of the Gospels.
I will begin with Jesus on the purely human side;
claiming for him nothing exceptional in his nature or
birth. I will admit that his character resulted, like
that of all other men. from these three factors, - organization, education, and free choice.
How much of goodness, then, may he have inherited without being superhuman?
We see some children born good. They seem to
have escaped, to a very great degree, the innate tendencies to evil which others suffer from. A confluence
of compensating influences neutralizes the evil in their
organization. It may happen that opposite faults in
parents will result in a balanced, well-proportioned organization in the child. At all events we know it to
be a fact, that the child of parents who have grave
I2x 
STEPS OF BELIIEF.
faults of character is often born free from them all.
Can we not, therefore, believe that in occasional instances, there may be a child born in whom  all these
depraved tendencies neutralize each other, and allow
the infant to begin with a nature like that of the primal man, -liable indeed to sin, but capable of escaping sin. This is all that we need assume concerning
the birth of Jesus; and there is nothing in this which
is superhuman.
The second source of character is education; under
which term we include all influences, outward and inward. Now, we see many cases of children who grow
uLp under influences peculiarly favorable to goodness,
- influences which tend not to deprave, but to elevate.
We all know of homes, where the usual atmosphere is
pure, where life goes on temperately and serenely;
where conscience and truth are domesticated; where
love makes the heart happy, and warms the household
intercourse with its tender fire. It is only necessary to
suppose Jesus to have grown up in such a sphere as
this. The natural, simple piety of his Nazarene home,
the motherly love of Mary, the innocence of that country life, the influence of that beautiful natural scenery,
the teachings of great prophetic masters, whose works
made his library, the expectation of the Messiah, -
these were the natural, not supernatural, influences
which came to Jesus to make his education, and to a
genius like his they were sufficient.
Then there were also given divine influences, - in
I22 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
fluences which come to all, - to lift the soul of the child
into a higher insight. God is not far from any one of
us.  We all receive influences from him.  It is only
necessary to believe that Jesus received a higher measure of that Holy Spirit than most men; that the divine
Providence which gives to all men a special mission,
gave him his, and that he received a full and constant
current of inspiration into his soul. Consider the difference between the mathematical gifts of common men
and those of Sir Isaac Newton; between the organizing gifts of common men and those of a Hannibal or
a Napoleon; between the poetic gifts of common men
and those of a Dante or a Shakspeare; between the
artistic gifts of common men and those of a Mozart or
a Raftbelle. There is nothing superhuman in such
extraordinary endowments.   Why, then, doubt that
God may have conferred on Jesus a like moral and
spiritual superiority to all other men, making him the
spiritual Master of the race, as these are its masters
in science, poetry, war, and art.
But to satisfy the faith of the church, we must go
farther than this. We must accept the fact of the
moral integrity of Jesus; that Jesus was sinless; that
he was perfectly pure from evil from the first, and
all the way through. And this is said to be unnatural,-superhuman.  But why?  Was man made
to be a sinner, or to be free from sin? Did not God
intend us to be sinless?  Does not even orthodoxy
confess that God made man naturally good? Does
123 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
not our conscience condemn us for every act of sin?
And is not that a proof, in our very nature, that we are
not compelled to sin? Jesus himself does not consider his own perfection as exceptional, but calls on all
men to be like him in this matter: " Be ye therefore
perfect," he says, " as your Father in heaven is perfect."
Nevertheless, it may be said, it is not possible that
Jesus, or any one else, should be morally perfect,
since all experience shows that every one has his
faults and his moral defects. But does it follow that
because the great multitude of any class of beings ftil
to reach the perfection of their class, that no one shall
ever reach it? Is it not more probable that, amid this
universal aspiration and tendency, one may at last
succeed? Every plant has its typical form. Among
ten thousand plants, not one perhaps reaches it; but
may not one somewhere arrive?   The typical form
of an elm-tree is of a perfectly symmetrical series of
curves, in which every limb curves upward, and then
bends over, and then falls in a trailing sweep of innumerable lace-like threads of greenery.   Out of a
thousand elms,, not one attains this perfect symmetry.
Some few almost reach it; but do you say, because
you have never found a perfect elm, that it is unnatural
for an elm to be symmetrical? No, you say just otherwise. The true nature of the elm is to be found in
this tendency toward perfection; and if, at last, an
elm should be discovered with every limb, branch,
124 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
twig, and leaf in perfect proportion, you would not
call it unnatural, but the final attainment and fulfilment of its nature.   So, if somewhere in the long
reaches of human history, amid all its sin and shame,
its hard routine, its distortion, its bitterness, its falsehood, one man shall appear without stain; always
tender, always strong, giving his life for his race; full
of faith in God, full of hope for man; without disguise; without pretence; one on whose pure life the
attempt to find a spot results in a hypercriticism so
small as to be simply ridiculous,- then shall we say
that such a man is unnatural and superhuman, and not
rather that he is more human  than any one else;
the man God meant all men to be; the one who
reveals to us what our nature really is; what it is
really capable of; what it is one day to become?
" But," says the Naturalist, " are not all men fallible?
and if Jesus is only a mani, could he be infallible:
must he not have fallen into error?"   "To  err is
human;" therefore, if Jesus was humnan, must he not
have erred?
That the knowledge of Jesus was limited; that he
did not know all sciences and arts which are now
known, no one would think of denying. He was not
sent to teach astronomy or geology, and so he did not
know them. Ile even says, that, concerning the time
of his own triumphant coming, he is ignorant: " Of
that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Son,
but the Father only." But that he made mistakes in
I25 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
those things which he professed to know, is another
matter, and this I do not believe. In all his teaching
concerning God, man, duty, immortality, no mistake
has been, or is likely to be, pointed out; for here he
spoke from knowledge, not theory. These were the
things he saw by the intuition of his soul, so he knew
them. And in this also he was not superhuman; for
this is true of all men.  All men are certain of that
which they really know.   If there is such a thing as
knowledge, then, so far as it goes, it excludes the possibility of error. A mathematician is perfectly sure
of the laws of mathematics, so far as they have been
discovered and verified. An astronomer is sure of tihe
movements of the heavenly bodies, so far as they have
been ascertained and verified.  All modern  science
rests on this word "'verification." Whatever has been
verified has been made certain, beyond the possibility
of error.  Now the great teachings of Jesus, concerning God and man, have been verified by the experience of sixty generations of Christian men and women.
They have guided them to God; they have rescued
them from sin; they have created faith, hope, and love
in human hearts; they have conquered the fear of
death; they have consoled the sufferers under the
burdens of life. These are the spiritual verifications
which prove the insight of Jesus to be knowledge.
But the theory of the Supernaturalists goes further,
and declares that Jesus was divinely sent to be a
teacher of the race; that he had a divine mission.
126 
FROM TIIEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
Does not this make him unnatural, and separate him
from human nature? Only if we disbelieve in Providence.   If we have faith in a living God, a Father
and Friend of man, who does not only interpose once
in a while, but is present always in human affairs,
then every man is sent to do a work; every man has
a mission; a mission determined by his capacities and
opportunities; a mission which no one can fulfil but
himself, since every man has his proper gift from the
Lord. The mission of Jesus differed from that of other
men in these two points, -that it was the greatest
work ever given to man to do, and that he saw more
clearly what it was than other men see theirs.
But was the work of Wesley, for example, an accident? Was the work of Channing undesigned in the
providence of God? Did not Martin Luther have a
mission?  Are not such men sent?  Every prophet
who has been since the world began, has felt a call to
speak, and has gone to do his work often in the heat
and bitterness of his spirit, often unwillingly and
reluctantly. They hear the call of God in the depths
of their souls, and cannot escape. So Jesus heard his
call; only, - because his nature was so deep, his
spirit so lofty, his mind so clear, his heart so pure, 
lie heard his great call more distinctly, and knew that
God had chosen him among all men to be his true
Chlist. But neither in this was there any thing unnatural or superhuman.
And when men talk of Christ's work being super
127 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
seded, we must ask what it is that can be superseded
in his work? Can truth ever be superseded or outgrown?  Can the time come in which it will not be
true that "the pure in heart see God;" that "he
who humbles himself shall be exalted"?  Will the
parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan
ever be outgrown? Will the Lord's prayer be antiquated? Will the life ofJesus cease to be the illustration of love to God and love to man? What then is
to be superseded? Is Christianity to become larger,
deeper, purer, higher? Be it so. That is the very
event which Jesus predicted,- that the Spirit of
Truth should come and lead men into all truth. But
whatever higher form religion assumes, it will not
abolish Christianity, but only fulfil it, glorify it, and
make it more like the ideal in the mind of the Master.
But what shall we say concerning the miracles ascribed to Christ in the Gospels? Are not these, unnatural and superhuman facts false to experience, and
opposed to the laws of nature, and so essentially
incredible? If I believed these wonderful works of
Jesus to be unnatural, if I considered them as violations of law, then I should also say that they were
essentially incredible. But believing them, as I do,
to be in perfect harmony with law, I consider them
neither unnatural, nor opposed to the laws of nature.
The electric telegraph or the photograph would have
seemed unnatural a hundred years ago. There are
mysteries in nature, hidden from the foundation of the
x28 
FROM THEISM TO CHIIRISTIANITY.
world, which are to be revealed hereafter, which would
be to us as incredible as the miracles of Jesus seem now.
I believe that Jesus cured sickness with a word and
a touch. I believe that he raised the dead. I believe
that he rebuked the winds and waves, and fed five
thousand men with a few loaves and fishes. I believe
ill the majority of the wonderful effects upon outward
nature ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels, first,.because
of the historical credibility of these narratives; secondly, because they are simply called " wonderful
works," the Evangelists abstaining wholly from any
theory concerning their supernatural or other origin;
thirdly, because, as Mr. Furness has so well shlown,
they are the spontaneous outcome of the nature of
Jesus, and utterly refused by him when asked for as
" signs" or proofs of truth; and, fourthlly, because we
find analogous facts in human annals showing that
such a power is latent in the psychological nature of
man. Many have possessed the power of healing
diseases by the exercise of will; some have had an
instinctive prevision of coming events. Is it not to be
expected, then, that when the perfect man arrives, he
shall also possess in the most eminent  degree this
power by which the soul demonstrates its inherent
supremacy above the lower forces which govern in the
material sphere? These miracles of Jesus were therefore not violations of law, but anticipations of great
discoveries to come hereafter.  These wonders  may
appear natural in some future period.  A  thousand
9
I29 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
years hence, or ten thousand years hence, they may
seem to be as natural as the electric telegraph seems
to-day. Jesus did these things not because he was
superhuman, but because he was wholly and absolutely
human, -the ripe fruit of humanity, the fulness of
manhood; and so having his soul en rapport with the
laws of nature.
Now this view of Christ is the very view taken in
the New Testament. All the great qualities, powers,
and functions of Jesus are not treated as monopolies,
nor as his exclusive possession, but in so many words
are spoken of as gifts which he came to impart to
other men, therefore as essentially human. Indeed,
only thus can he be considered as a mediator.   For
what is a mediator? A mediator is not one who retains his special gifts, but who is a medium through
whom these gifts flow to others. That was the work
of Christ. All that he had, all that he was, he communicated to his disciples and through them to the
world. Did he work miracles? He says, " Greater
works than these shall ye do, because I go to my
Father." Was he one with God? He says of his
disciples, " That they may be one, even as we are one.
I in them, and thou in me." Had the Son of man
power on earth to forgive sin? He says to his disciples, " Whosesoever sins ye remit they shall be rernitted unto them."  Was he perfect? He says, " Be
ye perfect."  Was he sinless? The Apostle John says,
"He who is born of God cannot commit sin."  Was
11o 
FROM THEISM TO- CHRISTIANITY.
Christ sent to be Judge of the world? Paul says
that the saints shall judge the world, and men, and
angels.  Did Christ "know all things"? The Apostle
says, "Ye have an unction from the Holy Ghost, and
know all things."  Is it said, "In him dwelleth all the
fulness of the Godhead, bodily"?  The Apostle prays
for the Ephesians that ye "may know the love of
Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled
with all the fulness of God."  Is it said that "all men
shall honor the Son, even as they honor the Father"?
Jesus says to his disciples, " He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me;" and,
"the glory which thou gavest me I have given them."
Was Jesus "King and Priest"?  It is written that
"He hath made us kings and priests unto God." Did
he suffer and die for mankind, and so make atonement for them? The Apostle Paul distinctly says, that
he himself was "to fill up that which is behind of the
afflictions of Christ."  Finally, if Jesus was sent to be
a Saviour, in any special or peculiar sense, his disciples
are sent in the same way; for he says, " As my Father
hath sent me, even so send I you."  A careful examination of the New Testament will therefore show that
Jesus had nothing, and received nothing, which he did
not have and receive as a mediator, by communicating
all to his disciples, and through them to the human
race. WVe have referred above to passages of the New
Testament which declare, ipsissimis verbis, that he
meant his disciples to receive his power of working
I31 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
miracles, his oneness with God, his power of forgiving
sin, his perfectness of character, his office of Judge, his
omniscience, his divine fulness, his honor and glory, his
kingship and priesthood; and that they should share
with him in his atoning work.
It has been objected to Jesus that he taught the doctrine of a devil, and that of demoniacal influence, and
so encouraged superstition.
As regards the doctrine of a devil, Jesus speaks of
the devil (4t,c(o.o') five times, and of Satan (~0rzavcX)
six times. On one of these occasions he calls Peter
Satan, " Get thee behind me, Satan," because he had,
in kindness and with a good purpose, tempted him to
avoid going to Jerusalem to die. This shows that he
used the word to personify all temptation. On one occasion he uses the word devil (4t,'to)og) in the same
way, " Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you
is a devil?"  He says to the Jews, " Ye are of your
father, the devil," where, again, he certainly is not using
" devil" in any personal sense, but as meaning the
power of evil. It can hardly, therefore, be argued that
Jesus has taught the existence of Satan or the devil in
the sense since held, as an evil being, the incarnate
power of evil and sin, wholly given over to darkness.
He uses " devil" as the principle of temptation.
As regards demoniacal possession, I think that Jesus
believed in it, and that hle spoke to the evil spirits as
though they would hear him. A few years ago, I
thought that he shared a popular error in this, which
I32 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
this century has outgrown. But within a few yeiars I
have been led to believe in the reality of demoniacal
possession. I have myself known personally, or by
credible testimony, of at least half a dozen instances of
persons, who, after having allowed themselves to become spiritual mediums, seem at last to have been
taken possession of by a low and unclean order of
spirits. And the best way of rescuing them, when
they were too far gone to help themselves, was to have
some other person possessing greater spiritual force do
what Jesus did; namely, order the spirit to go away.
I believe that in certain places and periods, the nervous
condition of men is such, that the lower order of ghosts
may get a control over them, and that when Jesus
came, it was just such a time and place as this.
We began by the statement that both Naturalists and
Supernaturalists agree that if Christ did what he is reported to have done, and was what the Gospel describes
him to have been, he was not a man, but something
superhuman. The Naturalists deny that he could be
superhuman, and so deny that he did the works.  The
Supernaturalists, believing and asserting that he did
the works, think it necessary to assert also that he was
superhuman.
We have seen that we can differ from both, and
agree with both. WVe can agree with the Supernaturalists, that Christ was what the Gospels claim; and
agree with the Naturalists, that he was a pure man,
and not superhuman. We may differ from both by
I33 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
taking the position that in human nature there is place
and room for all the great qualities, powers, and gifts,
ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels.
And now, in what sense shall we call Jesus our
Lord and Master? Not in any sense which violates
the perfect freedom of our thought, and perfect conscientiousness of our actions. But he is our Lcrd and
Master, because " every one that is of the Truth heareth
his voice;" because he is the Good Shepherd who
goes before the flock, and they follow him; beeause he
is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and because
through him we come to the Father, and find God a
Father and a Friend. No man's conscience or freedom
is violated by taking a master, and receiving with trust
his advice and instruction. In fact, no progress is possible for men without such guides. Confidence in our
teacher's superior wisdom smooths the way, leads us
on, awakens the mind, and develops the soul. All
earnest souls seek and find their masters. One man
takes Parker, Emerson, and Carlyle, and sits at their
feet; another takes Herbert Spencer, Buckle, or Comte.
One set of artists never tire of studying the secret of
Titian's color, or Michael Angelo's forms. While one
class of students feed on Carlyle, he himself lives upon
Goethe. As long as Carlyle abode in Goethe, he produced much fruit; but when he left that master, ne
was cast forth as a branch and was withered. He then
"shot Niagara."  What would musicians do if they
had not their musical masters, - Mendelssohn, Beet
134 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
hloven, Mozart? One person devotes his life to discover " the secret of Hegel;" another to " the secret
of Swedenborg." And we may be sure of this, that
the only men who will discover and profit by the
genius of these masters, are those who study them with
faith.  Only faith leads to sight.  Those who look for
faults, find faults, and become fault-finders by profession; but those who look for truth and good, find
that. And if, among all these masters, there has been
sent one to be a master on the highest theme of all, a
teacher in the realm of our highest life, it seems to be
a grave mistake to assume toward him the attitude of
a critic rather than that of a disciple.
The unquestioned and unquestionable facts which
are to be explained, are these:  I. There is such a phenomenon as Christian faith,
which must have come from some source.
2. There are such books as those of the New Testament, which must have had writers.
3. There is such an institution as the Christian
Church, which must have had an origin.
That such a person as is described in the Gospels
really existed, is admitted by all whose opinions are
of any value; such a person in the main. It is admitted that he was a Galilean peasant, of wonderful
powers, spiritual, intellectual, and moral; that he was
able to rise to the highest point of spiritual and moral
insight which man has ever attained; that he went
beyond the limitations of Judaism, so as to put the
135 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
spirit above the letter, and find the essence of the law
in love to God and to man. And that his moral and
spiritual personality was so deep and high as to constitute the original fountain out of which what we call
Christianity took its rise. Other streams have since
flowed into the river, but the person of Jesus is its
source and origin.
If we deny the existence of such a person as Jesus,
we are obliged to assume that his character was an
invention by some unknown person or persons, in the
first or second century; that the four Gospels were
written by these persons, and this wonderful character
placed in them, and made to act and live and speak
as we find him; placed in connection with historical
persons and events and geographical localities; that
this invention, undetected, was admitted as a reality;
that Christianity sprang out of it; and that, by the
middle of the second century, churches were founded
on the firm belief in the existence of this person,
and contained those who pretended to have seen
and talked with his first disciples. And this would
have to be believed in order to disbelieve the origin of
Christianity from a person; when we know that the
great movements of history usually come from persons; that from the personalities of Confucius, Buddha,
Zoroaster, Mohammed, Augustine, Plato, Aristotle,
Luther, great moral and religious movements have
proceeded; and that this is the most usual and natural
source of such spiritual phenomena.
I36 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
Since all phenomena which begin in time must
have a cause, the three phenomena of Christian faith,
the Christian Church,  and the books of the  News
Testament, must have had a cause; and, among all
possible causes, none has any probability, or any evidence in its support, but the personal character of
Jesus Christ.
We have endeavored in this chapter to show that
there is nothing unnatural, and therefore incredible, in
the history of Christ in the New Testament. The facts
therein may be historically true, and yet not be opposed to the laws of nature. We will only add, that
it is wiser to believe in the possibilities of human
nature than to disbelieve in them.   It is wiser to
believe than to doubt the great concurrent facts of
human testimony. It is wise to believe that God's
Providence cares for the world, and sends its great
teachers and masters. Faith in greatness and goodness is the creative force in the moral world, the power
which makes and remakes civilization. It is the source
of progress, and so accredits itself as in accordance
with the divine laws. Belief in something great, in
the past and in the future, is the motive power which
carries the world forward, onward, upward.
I37 
CHAPTER III.
CHRISTIANITY AN ADVANCE ON THEISM.
N  maintaining that Christianity is an advance on
theism, we are obliged to meet the objections of
several very able antagonists, who contend, on their
side, that theism is an advance on Christianity. The
doctrine usually known as " Religious Radicalism," or
as " Free Religion," denies that Christianity is the absolute religion, and regards it as limited, and soon to
be superseded and left behind by a more catholic faith.
It holds that every thing true and good in Christianity
had already been taught by other religions. It asserts
that the time has come when Christianity is to be
rejected, and that a pure theism is to take its place
and do its work.
Some quotations from "The Radical" and "The
Index" -periodicals, which are published in the interest of "Free Religion" -will sufficiently establish
the correctness of these statements. The writers whom
we quote are careful and acute thinkers, and, though
differing on many points from each other, probably
agree in the above statements. 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
Thus (in "The Radical," January, i869) Mr. Samuel Johnson says that the declarations of Jesus concerning his own position show his exclusiveness and
limitation.  " Other teachers," he adds, " in that age,
and prophets, stirred by a pure spontaneity in earlier
ages, had trusted eternal truth to its own authority.
And it is for ever true that the noblest form of spiritual affirmation is not that in which the teacher puts
himself in the foreground, but that in which he hides
behind the divinity of his message."   The  earlier
teachers were, therefore, in this respect superior to
Jesus. Final unity, he argues, must come from passing from Christ and Christianity into a larger theism.
In   The  Radical" for August, i868, Mr. O. B.
Frothingham, in an article on the " Historical Position
of Jesus," objects to Theodore Parker's well-known
sonnet  to J     esus.  In this sonnet Mr. Parker says,
"Thy truth is still the light
Which guides the nations groping on their way,
Stumbling and falling in disastrous night,
Yet hoping ever for the perfect day.
Yes! thou art still the Life; thou art the Way
The holiest know; Light, Life, and Way of heaven!
And those who dearest hope and deepest pray
Toil by the Light, Life, Way, which thou hast given."
Mr. Frothingham declares that it was sentiment, not
science, which inspired this sonnet; and that it is a
mere delusion or deceit to offer this Jesus of conjecture
to mankind. Mr. Frothingham denies that Jesus was
the founder of a church; or author either of a re
I39 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
ligion; of authority in belief, or ethics; or authority in
faith. We know little or nothing about him; and,
personally, he is nothing to us,-thinks Mr. Frothingham.
The editor of "The Radical" (April, I868), in an
article called "Humanity versus Christianity," says,
"Humanity is universal.  It is equality, unity, liberty,
reason, progress, peace. Christianity is partial. It is
aristocratic, limited in its developmnent, slavish, at war
with the free expansion of the human mind."
Mr. Abbot, in " The Index," - published at Toledo,
in Ohio, -contrasts Christianity with Free Religion,
and says (in his "Fifty Affirmations"):
" 34. The completion of the religious protest against authority must be the extinction of Faith in the Christian
Confession.
"35. Free Religion is emancipation from the outward law,
and voluntary obedience to the inward law.
"50. Christianity is the faith of the soul's childhood; Free
Religion is the faith of the soul's manhood. In the gradual
growth of mankind out of Christianity into Free Religion,
lies the only hope of the spiritual perfection of the individual
and the spiritual unity of the race."
In our next chapter, we shall examine some of the
criticisms of these writers on Christianity, and their
objections to it. Our purpose now, in quoting them,
is merely to show that they regard pure theism (or
Free Religion) as an advance on Christianity: whereas
we believe, and are prepared to show, that Christianity
is an advance on theism.
140 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
But we must now ask, What is the distinction
betwveen them? Our answer is,- that Christianity
is an historic religion, with a Founder, a church or
communion, with its sacred books, its rites and ceremonies, its faith and its morality. These doctrines,
wcrship, books, church, and morals, all have the histoi ic person of Jesus for their centre and source.
Theism, or Free Religion, on the contrary, is a
system of belief and method of life which grows up
in the human mnind, independently of any such historic source, proceeding only from the soul itself.
We are happy to be able to accept here one of
Mr. Abbot's definitions. He says, - correctly as we
think, -
"Christianity is the historic religion, taught in the Christian Scriptures, and illustrated in the history of the Christian
Church."
Mr. Abbot gives us no definition of "Free Religion,"
except that he tells us that its ideal is self-development,
and that its corner-stone is faith in human nature.
But at all events, Free Religion rejects the authority
of all historic religion, and goes back to the instincts
of the individual as its origin and authority.
It has been usual for theologians to make other distinctions beside this. For example, they distinguish
between natural and revealed religions, rationalism
and supernaturalism, human and divine religions. We
do not accept these definitions, nor regard them as
strictly philosophical. All religions, which have any
1,1I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
truth in them, are revealed, supern~atural, and divine.
If man ever truly sees God, it is by God's revealing
himself. He reveals himself in the natural world, as
well as in the spiritual world. God reveals his majesty and his benignity in the law of gravitation no
less than in the life of Jesus. So, if " supernatural"
means a violation of law, no religion is supernatural;
if it means the manifestation of higher laws than those
which commonly appear, then every religion has its
supernatural side. In the same way, all religions are
natural, rational, and human, so far as they contain
truths and influences adapted to the needs of man.
Christianity is a religion of nature, inasmuch as it
meets the wants of human  nature, tends to unfold
human nature, and is in accord with human reason.
A truly divine religion must also be truly human,
rational, and natural. For this reason we set aside
the old definitions, and distinguish Christianity from
"theism" or " Free Religion," only as this definite,
positive, and historic religion is distinguished from
the religion of the individual reason, whose ideal is
self-development, and which identifies true. freedom
with a protest against all authority. Christianity is
a particular historic religion: Free Religion is the
effort of the solitary soul, seeking for truth, goodness,
and beauty, by its own independent efforts.
WVe will now attempt to show why Christian theism
lb an advance on any kind of theism outside of Christianity.
I42 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
Christianity, by its methods, goes down deeper, goes
up higher, goes out more widely, and goes on flirther,
than any other form of theism. It goes down deeper,
because its essence is life, not thought, and life is
deeper than thought. It goes up higher, because it
obeys the law of mediation, by which alone ascent to
the highest regions of divine truth and love becomes
possible. It goes out more widely, because its central
life, proceeding from Jesus, includes the germs of all
human tendencies and human effort, and so is able
to satisfy all wants. It goes on further, because its
method of progress is that of evolution; preserving
its spiritual identity, but advancing from form to form,
according to the needs of every age.
We have not, of course, space in which to do more
than indicate this argument. But we shall try to make
the substance of it plain.
I. Christianity goes deeper than any other religion
by its law of life.
It is easy to perceive that theism, wherever it has
appeared outside of Christianity, has been essentially
thought, while inside of Christianity it is essentially
life. Theism reasons about God: Christianity lives
from him and to him. Theism gives us speculations
and probabilities; Christianity, convictions and realities. Not that theism undervalues spiritual and moral
life, but that it seeks them by the path of thought, not
that of spiritual communion. Nor does Christianity
undervalue knowledge, but it seeks knowledge through
143 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
life. Theism says light is the life of men; Christianity
declares that life is the light of men. Now life can
produce light; but light can seldom produce life. A
living religion, even if it be narrow and shallow as
that of Mohammed, is sure to create a great intellectual activity, though perhaps only a transient illumination, as was that of the Arabian scholars in the eighth
century. Christianity-a life of faith, hope, and lovehas in all ages stimulated to thought, created great
scholars and writers, founded schools and colleges,
and diffused knowledge among the people. A stream
of spiritual and moral life always creates philosophy;
but when did speculation or philosophy create a stream
of life?
If philosophy could ever create life, it would have
come from the Neo-Platonism of Alexandria in the
second and third centuries after Christ. Some of the
greatest thinkers and purest men the world has known
then attempted to found a large unitary religion on
the basis of an integral philosophy.  Combining the
vast ideas of oriental thought with the Greek philosophy, men like Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, Synesius, aimed at the same result which is now
attempted by the writers in the "Radical" and the
" Index." They meant to replace Christianity by a
grand system of thought, which should contain also
the elements of religious life. But they made the
mistake of trying to get life out of thought, instead of
thought out of life; and so they failed.
I44 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
Christianity is essentially a stream of spiritual,
moral, and intellectual life, proceeding from Jesus of
Nazareth. He did not present it as an intellectual
system, but it overflowed from his lips in his dailv
intercourse with men. He did not speak from his
speculation, but from his knowledge. He spoke what
he knew, and testified what he had seen. This living
knowledge created like convictions in other minds.
The truth was its own evidence.
Man needs this knowledge. We need to know
God, not merely to think it probable that he exists.
We need to live in the light of his truth and his love.
We do not get this knowledge of God by reading
books of theology, but by communion with those who
have it. If we have any such faith in God, how did
we first obtain it? WVe caught it, as a blessed contagion, from the eyes and lips, the words freighted
with conviction, the actions inspired by its force, of
those who have been themselves filled with its power.
They too usually received it first from others; though
afterwards it may have been fed by direct communion
with God. It is a transmitted, as well as an inspired
life. It came from souls in whom God dwelt abundantly, and the fire of whose conviction kindled a
flame in other hearts. This flame is continually fed
anew by the great prophets of the race, whom God
raises up, and fills with a double portion of his Spirit.
And the deeper, purer, loftier they are, the more do
they love to trace back the great master-impulse to
I0
145 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Jesus of Nazareth.   "Of  his fillness have we  all
received," say they, " and grace upon grace." As we
see, in some families, the influence of a noble ancestor
prolonged through many generations, so we see the
life of Christ prolonged from century to century. To
him God, the Father and Friend of all, was a reality
and the greatest reality; the law of right as clear as
the laws of the material universe; immortality as
certain as the present life; and to him every man
seemed truly a brother. Nothing but a faith like this,
making inward realities as perfectly certain as outward
realities, can explain the effect of Christ on the world.
He lifted the human race to a higher plane where they
could see God, duty, and immortal life, face to face.
As the Nile flows thousands of miles through Africa,
carrying fertility on its ample bosom, -issuing from the
great basin and lakes around the Equator, -so, fiom
this source has flowed a stream of moral life down to
our day. Abandon this current of Christian civilization, and presently you find yourselves in a wilderness,
a barren desert of mere speculation.  God then becomes an opinion; duty, a social convenience; immor
tality, a perhaps.
We are so made that, while our opinions are sharpened and systematized by independent thought, our
convictions are fed by the contact of living souls.
This is the meaning of the Christian church. It is
not an organization, a form, a creed; but wherever
two or three really meet in the spirit of Jesus, there he
146 
FROM THEISM TO CIIRISTIANITY.
is present in the midst of them. Living souls create,
extend, re-create life in each other. When we reflect,
reason, speculate, we go alone; but when we need a new
power of faith and conviction, then we go to others.
WVe seek the humblest soul in which God dwells: we
gather new strength from communion with all believing hearts. We put ourselves into the great current
of a common faith; and drink out of it new power,
peace, and insight. WVe go to the people of God
wherever they are; and in their communion we are
fed. Now this need of the soul leads us back to Jesus,
as to that Vine in whom we are all branches. This
fact illustrates what has been called the solidarity of
the human race. The formula stated philosophically
is this, " Man thinks alone; but he lives in communion
with others." And in our Christian religion, this common life is the life coming from Jesus of Nazareth.
He says " Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch
cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine,
no more can ye except ye abide in me. I am the
vine: ye are the branches."
But this law of communion is not recognized by
the apostles of free religion. They take more pleasure in standing apart, to think; than in coming
together, to live.   They even prefer speculation to
knowledge. The highest of all virtues, with them, is
the love of truth. And they would not be far wrong,
were it not that they mistake, for the love of truth,
the love of seeking after truth.   And  the love for
147 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
seeking truth, rather than for finding  it, naturally
leads to another mistake. It makes them overvalue
new opinions, and undervalue old ones. The old
truths, already attained, do not give any opportunity
to these strenuous seekers; therefore they desire novelty, and call men " brave thinkers" in the exact proportion in which they disagree with the rest of the
world. Mr. Johnson (in his article on " The Fallacy
of Supernaturalism") quotes with  admiration the
famous sentence of Lessing:
"Not the truth which one possesses, or believes himself
to possess, but the honest striving after truth, is what makes
the worth of man. If God should hold all truth enclosed in
his right hand, and in his left only the ever-active impulse to
the pursuit of truth, although with the condition that I should
for ever err; and should say to me Choose! I should fall
with submission on his left hand, and say, Father, give!
Pure truth is for thee alone."
But, with all respect for Lessing, is it not apparent
that such a choice could not proceed from the love of
truth? Apply it to scientific truth. What should we
think of a chemist, a geologist, an astronomer, who
shlould prefer to be always in scientific error, - provided he went wrong in seeking truth himself, - rather
than to possess the truths of science, if he had to
accept them as discovered and taught by others! We
should not, I think, call him a strong lover of truth.
If thought could ever become a fountain of life, it
wotld have done so in the case of Socrates. No
x48 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
more sincere, pure, generous seeker for truth has
ever appeared on earth. He was, as Mr. Emerson
says of himself, "an endless seeker, with no past
behind him." But, though always seeking, he seldom
found. The net result of his speculation, as he himself declares, was only the knowledge of his ignorance
He opens questions, but leaves them unsettled. He is
a thinker, but not a teacher. He is a perfect illustration of the case supposed by Lessing, -of one to
whom God opened the left hand of seeking truth, but
not the right hand of truth itself. And what was the
result of the generous labors of this great soul? The
histories of Philosophy inform us that he founded no
school, nor continuous movement of thought; but that
his moral enthusiasm ended in the dogmatism of the
Cynics, and the happiness doctrine of Aristipputs;
while his keen analytic irony produced the scepticism
of Megaris and Elis.
The problem which Christianity solves, is the union
of individual life and common life. The solitary,
seeking God and truth, alone in his lonely hermitage,
loses his love, grows cold, hard, and selfish. The
philanthropist - always in the hurry of multifarious
duties, never going apart to think and pray alonebecomes at last superficial, shallow, empty. Christianity feeds the individual soul by prayer, and
communion withl God; and enlarges the heart, by
communion with Christian brethren and those human
sufferers for whom Christ died. As in a tree there
I49 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
are ten thousand buds, and each bud has, not merely
its own separate movement, but also partakes of the
common life of the whole tree, -so it is in Christianity. Love to God purifies the soul and elevates its
separate power: love to man warms it with human
sympathy, and the joyful sense of a common humann
nature.
Christianity establishes a communion, and it is
through such a communion that we receive moral
life. The law of this life, proceeding from Jesus,
consists in the alternation of interior solitary aspiration,
with outward receptivity and activity in social intercourse. It thus becomes a communion with God, with
Christ, and with the church. All prayer, worship,
service, implies this reciprocal activity. Each soul
has a life in itself, and a common life with others,
which, by mutual action and reaction, are more and
more unfolded.   In Christianity, more than in any
other religion, is the balance kept between the activity
of the private and that of the church. In Romanism,
the centripetal force, or church-life, predominates; in
Protestantism, the centrifugal force, or the life of the
individual, predominates: but in all parts of the church,
and in all its epochs, both are found, mutually regulating and renewing each other's power.
2. Christianity goes higher than any other form of
thieism, by means of its law of mediation.
"There is one God," says the apostle, "and one
Mediator between God and man, -the man Christ
I50 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
Jesus." Free Religion rejects, with indignation, the
idea of mediation. It declares itself unwilling to go
to God through any other soul. It declares that every
one ought to go directly to God. But Christianity, by
its law of mediation, takes a higher flight than theism
without it. By one man, in whom is the fulness of
the divine and human, it brings God to all the races,
classes, conditions, and characters of mankind. The
doctrine of incarnation means that a perfect man
becomes again, what Adam is reported to have been,
the image of God. So, those who see him, see his
Father. We look upon Christ, and in his life, words,
sorrows, death, resurrection, we see expressed, in living
symbols, the thoughts of the Almighty to his children.
Thus God, - who is afar off when seen in nature, who
is dimly manifested in the mysterious depths of the
soul,-when seen through this human medium, comes
near to his children as Father and Friend.
According to theism, every one must rise by personal struggle and solitary effort. But according to
Christianity man rises by joining with this effort the
readiness to receive and transmit the divine impulse
of which Christ is the Mediator.  Man does not make
any less effort on this account but more. By helping
others, he helps himself. By becoming a mediator
of this Christian life to other souls, he receives more in
his own. The law is, " Give, and it shall be given you."
The universe of spiritual existence, we must needs
believe, consists of a vast ascending order of moral,
I5 1 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
intellectual, and spiritual power. It is a hierarchy, ill
which are angels and archangels, thrones and dominions, rising above each other in a never-ending fligiit
toward God. If the law of progress was merely that
of self-culture, each one struggling to rise alone, higher
and higher, the result would be a selfish isolation.
But join to this the law of mediation, announced
and illustrated by Jesus, and then one great life will
flow down from God, along the whole series, to the
lowest moral being that exists.
All variety tends to separation. Therefore the very
effort of man to perfect himself (which Mr. Abbot
declares to be religion) would, the more it was successful, only alienate man the more from man. Diversities of gifts, of education, of knowledge, of fidelity,
enabie some men to succeed far better than others in
the effort to perfect themselves. One man has five
talents, and gains other five talents, and becomes ruler
over five cities. Another has only one, and loses even
that, by not improving it. If this law of retribution
were all of religion; if this natural law of consequences were the whole, - then, the more there was
of religion, the more there would be of divergence.
But this is compensated by the antagonist Christian
law of mediation, by which he who exalteth himself
is abased, and he who humbles himself is exalted.
All true elevation consists, not in getting power, goodness, knowledge for ourselves, but that we may mediate
these to others.  Christ became perfect, not by trying
15z 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
to perfect himself, but by trying to help others. Because
he came to seek and save the lost, because he humbled
himself to the death of a slave on the cross, God has
highly exalted him.  His greatness and glory consist
in mediating the infinite truth and love of God to his
disciples, who, in turn, mediate it to others. Thus,
the unity of the race, -lost irretrievably if Mr. Abbot's religion of " efbfort to perfect one's self" were all,
-being supplemented by the effort to save others, is
more than regained.   The divine love, incarnate in
Jesus, passes through him to his disciples, and to all
mankind.
The life of which Jesus is the Mediator, and which
flows through the communion of all who receive it, is
the life of God, incarnate ill man. The love and pity
of Jesus, the truth and holiness of Jesus, are all emanations from heaven, descending into our world, to unite
man with God, and man with man. But the divine
love and truth come according to an order. Some
receive them first, others later. It was ordained, in the
providence of God, that Jesus should be the Mediator
of the New Covenant. The Old Covenant is the religion of effort, which says," Struggle to perfect yourself, and you shall reap as you sow." The New
Covenant says to all, whether they are far or near,
good or bad, perfect or imperfect, saints or sinners,
" Receive God's love, flowing down from him, through
Christ. and so become one with God, and one with
each other."
I53 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
The substance of Christianity, we have seen, is not
thought, but life. But the essence of that life is the
sight of God's truth and love, revealed through the mediation of Christ and his disciples, to save the souls of
all mankind from sin and death. Therefore the doctrines of the incarnation and the atonement have always
been the pivots of Christian theology. The incarnation
means, God descending into the soul of one man to
make all humanity divine, to unite earth with heaven,
time with eternity, man with God. The elevation of
the human race, so justly dear to the modern theist,
is made possible by this great providential event in
human history.  By the law of mediated life, God is
lifting humanity to himself, and penetrating the boundless variety of his creation with as pervasive a unity.
When Jesus said, " I and my Father are one;" " he
that hath seen me, bath seen the Father;" and then
went on to declare that the glory God had given to
him, he had given to his disciples, that they might be
one, as he and his Father were one, " I in them, and
thou in me, that they may be made perfectly one," -
he taught those great vital truths which theologians
have poorly expressed by the doctrines of incarnation,
mediation, and atonement.
The doctrines have never yet been satisfactorily defined. But the facts, underlying these doctrines, have
always constituted the power of Christianity. The
Christian life of love to God and love to man is evermore renewed in the soul, by receiving God's redeem
I54 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
ing love, mediated through Christ, and uniting us with
God and man. There is no other force so vital, so
inexhaustible, as this.  It penetrates to the lowest
depths in every heart; it reaches the deepest experience of evil; it transmutes sin into penitent and
grateful love. There is no soul so high as to have outsoared this influence, none too low to be found by it.
By means of this law of mediation, Christianity
makes a great advance on every form of theism which
omits it. Theism, without this truth, can only tell
men to perfect themselves by their own efforts. This
may be enough for the strong and courageous. But it
does not meet the wants of the discouraged, the weak,
the sinfuil. These need more than the sight of law:
they need that experience of forgiving love, of which
Christ is the Mediator in this world. When we say
that Christ is the Mediator of God's forgiving love to
the sinner, we merely assert a fact: we do not state a
theory. That he is such a Mediator is no matter of
theory; for the whole experience of the Christian
church declares that Jesus has brought this priceless
boon to the human soul. Those who were afar off
are made nigh by the blood of Jesus. His death and
resurrection have set the seal on this great atoning
power, which is as effective now to create love to God
and to man as it was in the beginning.
We must distinguish between the facts of the incarnation and atonement, and the theories concerning
them.  The church doctrines of trinity, incarnation,
x55 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
and atonement, may be all wrong. The history of
doctrines seems to show that they have never as yet
received an adequate statement; since very opposite
views on these points have been regarded as orthodox
at different periods. But, though we may freely criticise the theology, let us beware lest we lose sight of
the facts behind and below the theology. The theology
has been only an imperfect language, by which the
human mind has feebly attempted to state its experiences. An imperfect language is better than none.
The popular heart has been willing to make use of
any theology which seemed to express its conviction,
that, somehow, God comes near to the soul in Jesus
Christ; that, somehow, through Jesus Christ our sense
of sin is taken away; that, through Christ, mortal
fears are replaced by an immortal hope. Enough.
Call it trinity, call it atonement, call it incarnation,
call it an expiatory sacrifice, call it a mediatorial
work,- the fact remains unaltered in all Christian
experience, that, when we look at the life, the death,
the work, the spirit of Jesus, we are brought into the
peace of God.  What is the chaff to the wheat?
Higher than this communion with God, no religion can
go. Other religions sometimes attain to it, but usually
by the special efforts of select souls. In Christianity
God comes to all, and comes always. " My Father and
I will come and make our abode with him."
3. Christianity goes out more widely in its sympathy with man than any other religion.
I56 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
By this we intend the universality of Christianity.
Theism accuses it of being narrow. Free Religion
declares that Christianity is limited by a creed, which
consists in professing faith in Jesus as the Christ. No
doubt if this be a creed, Christianity adheres to it, in
all sects and all denominations. To adhere to Jesus
as the Christ of God, is the very root of Christian
experience.
But does this make Christianity narrow? We think
there is no religion in the world which has such elements of catholicity, because there is no religion which
is inspired by so deep a life. All that is in Brahminism of truth, and all that is in Buddhism; all the good
that Socrates sought, Confucius declared, and Zoroaster saw, -all these are to be found, as essential and
vital elements of Christian life. Other religions are
the religions of races: Christianity, from the very
beginning, overleaped the barriers of nationality and of
race, and found its disciples in all lands and classes.
Christianity is, by its principles, as broad as human
nature. It knows no distinction of Brahmin and Sudra,
of initiated and uninitiated. It comes to all, high and
low, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female.
There is no other religion so catholic: its aim is
to be the religion of the human race. Therefore it has
always been a missionary religion, seeking to make
converts in heathen lands. Before the Goths conquered the Roman Empire, Christianity had conquered
them. It has never found a race which could not be
I57 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Christianized. The half-frozen Esquimaux in Greenland were converted by the Moravians, and the life
of Christ melted their rude hearts into gratitude. The
fierce Frank, hearing the story of the death of Jesus,
cried out in a passion of horror, " Why was not I there
with my brave Franks, to prevent it?" The Saxon
thanes came together in a great building, open on all
sides, to hear the Christian missionary tell his story.
They listened with attention, and, when he had finished, one of them rose and said, " Brother  thanes,
this man has come from far, to tell us of God and the
future. If he has any thing to tell us, let us hear him.
For to me it seems that our life is like the flight of
that little bird, which just flew into this hall, out of
the dark night, -flashed through, lighted for a moment by the blaze of our fire, and then out again into
darkness on the other side. We came out of darkness:
we go into darkness. If he can tell us any thing, let
Ius hear it."
When Father Marquette discovered the Upper Mississippi, he met tribes of Indians, at war with each
other, and each received him kindly, but told him that
the next tribe on the river would kill him. But he
went on, armed only with Christian faith and love;
and still found his way to their rude hearts, as he
followed the windings of the beautiful stream.
From the little child, who has just learned to say
"Our Father in heaven," to the great intellect of a
Shakspeare and a Milton; from the pure saint, giving
I55 
FROM THEISM TO CIHRISTIANITY.
all of life to charity and prayer, to the lost child of sin,
freezing in the streets of some roaring Babylon; from
the culture of Paris to the barbarism of Australia,Christianity goes and comes, and has a word of truth
and love for all. None are above the gospel, none
below it. It reaches down its beneficent hands to lift
the leper whom no one else will touch; to instruct the
Samaritan, outside of all healthy religious organizations; to comfort the publican and sinner; to enlighten the groping unbeliever. It has depths where
the elephant must swim, shallows where the child
can wade. It has mysteries which the angels desire
to look into, and simplicities which he who runs may
read. Herein consists the breadth of Christianity. It
has the power to reach all sorts of people, because it
has something for all. It offers forgiveness to the
sinner, peace to the troubled, comfort to the sorrowful,
immortal hope to the bereaved. It teaches the rich
how to use their riches, and the poor how to be contented without them. To the ignorant it brings light,
in its schools, its books, its teachers: to the learned, it
gives the key to deeper knowledge, and the means of
using their learning for good ends. By its variety of
sects, creeds, and ceremonies, it meets the various
tastes and tendencies of the soul.   To  those who
love form, it offers a gorgeous ritual; to those who
seek simplicity, it opens a QOiaker Meeting or a
Methodist Conference; to thinkers, it gives infinite
subject for speculation; to practical persons it offers
I59 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
works of charity and benevolence.  For those who
love beauty and art, it has its architecture; its majestic
cathedrals; its sublime music; its immortal paintings
of prophet and sibyl, holy martyr and tender Madonna. Thus it shows its breadth by harmonizing all
antagonisms in its large communion, its ample reconciliation; bringing so many varieties into unity;
making the cow and the bear feed together, and the
lion lie down with the lamb.
This is the work it is doing in the world. It has
not done it as yet: if it had, the millennium had arrived. But while, outside of Christendom, piety wars
with humanity, faith with works, ascetic religion with
earthly joy, order with freedom, law with liberty;
and so we have despotism with order here, anarchy
with liberty there; religion and gloom on one side,
joy and licentiousness on the other: within Christianity we find a principle at work which makes
it possible to be free yet obedient; humble, but hopeful; self-denying, but cheerful; pure, yet gay; holding
the love of God without asceticism, and the love of
man without atheism. It is broad as the nature of
man, and so meets it everywhere.
This is the breadth of Christianity. It is like that
of the ocean, everywhere embracing the land; thundering against the glaciers of Greenland, kissing the
sands of Florida; adapting itself to every form of
every coast; and rolling its tidal wave into every
gulf, sea, and estuary in all the zones, and around
every continent.
t60 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
No doubt Christianity has often been forced into a
creed, - a Roman-Catholic creed, or a Calvinistic
creed, -according to the small theory of some small
party or sect. But Christianity itself, unconscious of
these little limits, continually passes beyond them, and
outgrows them, leaving them all behind. So have we
seen little boys trying to dam up a running brook with
stones and sticks; but the brook undermines their
dike, and runs under it,- rises and overflows it, and
sweeps it away. No creed made by man has ever
been able to restrain the expansive force.of the gospel.
Its stream of life is like one of our New-England
rivers, barricaded by dikes and dams all the way.
Christianity has been compelled to turn the wheels
of innumerable sects, each manufacturing in its mill
some patent religion of its own. The patient river
turns them all, but moves on, and leaves them all
behind. All may use it; but not one can monopolize
it. Christianity is not a mill, grinding out special
opinions,- but an influence, creating innumerable
forms of thought, but not itself bound by any. Sometimes, in its affluence, it rises in a freshet of thought,
as in the Protestant Reformation, and sweeps the dams
and mills away. Christianity is not a creed, but a
life, proceeding from Jesus Christ.
4. Christianity is an advance on theism, because it
has a greater power of progress than any other religion.
There are two methods of human progress, which
II
i6i 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
may be designated as progress by revolution and progress by evolution.   The first is illustrated by the
movement of a body through space, the other by the
growth of a plant or of an animal. The comrnet, moving toward the sun, must quit one point entirely in
order to reach another: the tree, evolved from a seed,
takes its past with it as it goes. The human soul may
make progress by change or by growth. It will, in
the first case, move forward from a low position to a
higher one, leaving its past behind it for ever. To-day
forgets yesterday: to-morrow will forget to-day. Or
it may, without any quarrel with its previous life, and
holding all it has gained, continue to gain more.
Both methods of progress are good; but the last is
the best.
The intellect makes progress either by contending
against error, seeing mistakes and leaving them, being
converted from one view to the opposite; or else, by
calmly growing up from truth into larger truth, from
the insight of to-day into the deeper insight of tomorrow; enlarging past knowledge, not leaving it.
Society makes progress either by revolutions or by
reforms. The surest progress is always of the latter
sort: the best reform is not that which destroys and
annuls the past, but that which fulfils it.  Science,
to-day, has commonly accepted the idea of change by
development, for that of change by crisis.
Now, in the place of the Christian law of progress
by evolution, the teachers of free religion seem inclined
i 62, 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
to substitute an attempt at progress by revolution.
Instead of developing Christianity into some higher
Christianity, they desire to step outside of it altogether,
and begin a new movement on the tabula rasa of
simple human nature. They propose to drop Jesus
Christ, as something outgrown; to ignore all historic
Christianity as insignificant; to eliminate the marvellous element from the life of Jesus, as being no better
than old wives' fables, - and so to start fair with the
postulates of pure unembarrassed reason. But is this
really progress; or is it relapse?
It is true that Mr. Abbot, and other writers of his
school, speak of Free Religion as a growth from Christianity; and no doubt they may regard it as a natural
development. But in progress by evolution the identity is presetrved throughout.   The  Christianity of
Jesus, reaching backward, identified itself with the
oldest patriarchal religion, and declared that before
Abraham was, he was the Christ. It found itself in
the prophetic predictions, and saw that it grew naturally out of them. Therefore, both Catholics and
Protestants keep the patriarchal, levitical, and prophetic religious books as an essential part of their
own Sacred Scriptures. But Free Religion does not
identify itself with Christianity, nor with Judaism.
It steps out from the Christian church, sets aside the
Christian tradition, disclaims allegiance to the Christian Head, and becomes " an endless seeker, with no
past behind it."
t63 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Every Christian sect, even the most heretical, holds
to the root, clings to Jesus, and considers itself as the
ripe, consummate flower of that tree. Free Religion
differs from all Christian sects in this, - that it does
not profess to be true Christianity, according to the
mind of Jesus, but to be something better than Jesus
ever saw or intended. Its root is not in Christianity,
but in science and civilization. Its Bibles are the last
works on chemistry, geology, astronomy. Its prophets
are Huxley, Spencer, Mill, Tyndall, and Comte. It
sits at their feet, and hears their words, with an almost
implicit faith. It abhors every priesthood, save the
critical and scientific sacerdotalism. To that, it bows
down in mute and reverential awe. Though it may
honestly believe itself to be the natural outcome of
Christianity, it must be evident to itself, when it considers the matter, that it has lost its connection with
that root. It no longer abides in Christ, nor does it
desire to do so.
No doubt some existing religions are older than
Christianity. That of Confucius is older by five centuries. The Jews, in their synagogues, can go back
for their Passover to a law delivered to them at
least thirteen centuries before the birth of Jesus. The
sacred books of the Brahmins are perhaps older still.
But the question is not of duration, but of progress.
These three have long since ceased to make any progress. They live by their past. But Christianity is as
young as ever. It is in a constant process of develop
I64 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
ment. It came out of Judaism; it then developed out
of Jewish Christianity into the universalism of Paul;
and, lastly, out of Romanism into Protestantism. In
the early centuries came from its roots such shoots
as the great monastic orders, who did so much to
civilize Europe. From it, in later days, have come
Puritanism, Quakerism, Wesleyism, Unitarianism,
Universalism, Swedenborgianism. Foolish people are
afraid of these divisions, and think them a sign of
decay. But in truth they are tokens of perennial
growth. As the age advances, Christianity comes to
meet it, in some new form, putting the new wine into
new bottles.
Jesus foretold that a Christianity should come different from any he had been able to teach. He said
that the Spirit of truth should take of his truth, and
teach many things at some future time to those who
were not able to bear them then. The Divine Spirit
of truth has, during eighteen centuries, been teaching
to the church a deeper and a nobler Christianity than
it before knew. A great deal of Judaism and of
Paganism adhered to the early church. Much of
it has been outgrown: some of it remains. But the
Christian church has, in its moral nature, a vis medicatrix, by which it can cure its own diseases. It has
a power of growth, by which it can lift itself above
itself, and evolve a higher life from year to year.
There is no evidence that this process is approaching
its end. Christianity is as fresh and young as on the
i65 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
day of its creation. It is not likely to be superseded,
or to be passed by.
Thus, in all the dimensions of space, we find in
Christianity something in advance of theism. It is
deeper in its life, higher in its aspiration, broader in
its sweep, more far-reaching in its perpetual advance.
In one magnificent sentence, the apostle Paul has
summed up all our argument.   He tells the Ephesians that his prayer for them is, "That Christ
may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being
rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and
length, and depth, and height; and to know the love
of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might
be filled with all the fulness of God."   In this language, borrowed from the dimensions of space, he
already announces the imcomprehensible depth, exhaustless vitality, unlimited power of development
and expansion, and vast inclusiveness of the Christian
principle of love to Christ.  Love to Christ is the
method of progress, the law of freedom, the way to
knowledge, and the unchecked impulse to God.
At present, we do not see that Free Religion can
offer us any motive, insight, purity, or humanity, which
Christianity does not contain in a much fuller degree.
All its best ideas and noblest spirit it has received
fromn this great mother.   The parts of Christianity
which lie outside of its experience, it rejects as weak
and false: the parts which suit it, it reproduces as its
I66 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
own.   Some simple Christians, who have all their
lives been taught these same truths out of the Bible,
receive them as novelties when offered under the name
of Free Religion. They are like the philosopher in
Lowell's poem, who gratefuilly received as a present
the fruit stolen from his own garden.
"When they send him a dishful, and ask him to try'em,
He never suspects how the sly rogues came by'em;
He wonders why'tis there are none such his trees on,
And thinks them the best he has tasted this season."
But we see no reason for fearing that Christianity
is to be outgrown or passed by. It comes out of the
fore-ordination of God in the earliest past: it reaches
forward into the remotest future.  It sweeps together,
in its large embrace, all races, characters; intellects,
conditions.   Beings in heaven,  and on  earth, and
under  the  earth, bow  before  the  great name  of
Christ, and confess him to be Lord, to the glory
of God the Father. It sinks into the deepest depth
of human experience, and gives the practical solution of the problems of human destiny. It rises on
the wings of humility, fidelity, and love, to the highest heaven, to the living throne of God, around which
collect
"The spirits and intelligences fair,
And angels waiting by the Almighty's chair."
Such are the simplicities and infinities of the gospel;
simple as infancy, infinite as the universe of God.
I67 
CHAPTER IV.
SOME OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY CONSIDERED.
N all the centuries, since Christianity commenced
its great career, it has advanced in the face of
opposition, and this opposition has often come from
the highest intelligence of the age. No recent attacks
on the Gospels can be compared, in respect to their
power of insight, subtlety of logic, and weight of
reason, with those which proceeded from philosophers like Celsus in the second century, or Porphyry
in the third. At one time, during the eighteenth century, the best intelligence of the world seemed
banded to the overthrow of the Christian religion.
Tindal and Bolingbroke in England; Voltaire, Helvetius, and Diderot, in France; Lessing and Basedow, in Germany, - all contributed to a work which
many feared was to extinguish Christianity for ever.
Such assaults have, however, invariably resulted in
a new development of Christian life and thought.
The present attempt of many intelligent persons to
fuirnish an improvement on Christianity, under the
name  of "Free  Religion," will, no  doubt, share 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
the fate of previous move-nents in that direction.
Christianity is not a theory which may be destroyed
by criticism or new investigations.  It is a stream of
life pouring forth continually from its deep fountain,
and flowing on through heat and cold, sometimes in a
fuller or shallower current, but flowing on always,
"Volvitur et volvetur, in omne volubilis ovum."
One objection to Christianity is, that Jesus accepted
the office of the Jewish Christ, or Messiah.
This criticism, urged against Jesus by many of the
Radical writers, is thus condensed by Mr. Abbot in his
" Fifty Affirmations: "
RELATION OF JUDAISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
IO. The idea of a coming "kingdom of heaven" arose
naturally in the Hebrew mind after the decay of the Davidic
monarchy, and ripened under foreign oppression into a passionate longing and expectation.
II. The "kingdom of heaven" was to be a world-wide
empire on this earth, both temporal and spiritual, to be established on the ruins of the great empires of antiquity by the
miraculous intervention of Jehovah.
i2. The Messiah or Christ was to reign over the "kingdom
of heaven" as the visible deputy of Jehovah, who was considered the true sovereign of the Hebrew nation. He was to
be a Priest-King, -the supreme pontiff or high-priest of the
Hebrew church, and absolute monarch of the Hebrew state.
I3. The "apocalyptic literature" of the Jews exhibits the
gradual formation and growth of the idea of the Messianic
" kingdom of heaven."
I4. All the leading features of the gospel doctrine concerning the " kingdom of heaven," the "end of the world,"
the "great day of judgment," the "coming of the Christ in
I 69 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
the clouds of heaven," the "resurrection of the dead," the
"condemnation of the wicked and the exaltation of the
righteous," the "passing away of the heavens and the earth,"
and the appearance of a "new heaven and a new earth," were
definitely formed and firmly fixed in the Hebrew mind, in the
century before Jesus was born.
'5. John the Baptist came preaching that "the kingdom of
heaven is at hand." But he declared himself merely the forerunner of the Messiah.
i6. Jesus also came preaching that "the kingdom of heaven
is at hand," and announced himself as Messiah or Christ.
17. Jesus emphasized the spiritual aspect of the Messianic
kingdom; but, although he expected his throne to be established by the miraculous intervention of God, and therefore
refused to employ human means in establishing it, he nevertheless expected to discharge the political functions of his
office as King and Judge, when the fulness of time should
arrive.
I8. As a preacher of purely spiritual truth, Jesus probably
stands at the head of all the great religious teachers of the
past.
I9. As claimant of the Messianic crown, and founder of
Christianity as a distinct historical religion, Jesus shared the
spirit of an unenlightened age, and stands on the same level
with Gautama or Mohammed.
20. In the belief of his disciples, the death, resurrection,
and ascension of Jesus would not prevent the establishment
of the "kingdom of heaven." His throne was conceived to
be already established in the heavens; and the early church
impatiently awaited its establishment on earth at the "second
coming of the Christ."
21. Christianity thus appears as simply the complete development of Judaism,- the highest possible fulfilment of the
Messianic dreams based on the Hebrew conception of a
"chosen people."
170 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
The charge made against Jesus, in these paragraphs,
is, that he made a Jewish view of the Messiah his
own, and so accepted an error. But suppose the Jewish idea of the Messiah was, in its essence true,would it be error then in Jesus to accept it?
Mr. Abbot and his sympathizers assume, without
proving it, in a very unscientific way for the founders
of a "scientific theology," that whatever the Jews
believed must be erroneous. But is not the Jew a
man? Is not Judaism, according to their view, a
development of human nature? Has not a Jew eyes,
hands, organs, dimensions, like other men? If you
prick him, will he not bleed? How then does it
necessarily follow that because a Jew believed in the
"kingdom of heaven" as something to come upon
earth, it must therefore be an error, and Jesus also
in error in accepting it?
In the "1 ioth affirmation" (as quoted above), Mr.
Abbot tells us that the idea of the "'kingdom of
heaven' arose naturally in the Hebrew mind after
the decay of the Davidic monarchy." But Mr. Abbot's conception of true religion is, that it "arises
naturally" in the human soul, and is not sent supernaturally. If, then, this idea of the kingdom of
heaven "arose naturally," why is it to be assumed
to be false, before investigation?
Every great and commanding idea, essentially true,
is apt to gather around it secondary notions of an
erroneous and  mythical  character.   All births of
I7I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
time are subject to this law. But the real questions
to ask in this case are, " What is the essential meaning in the Messianic idea?" and, "Is this essential
meaning true or false?"
The " kingdom of heaven" means, simply, the reign
of God on earth. Is this expectation false? On the
contrary, is not the whole hope of humanity contained
in the view that a time is to come in which God's will
shall be done on earth, perfectly and entirely? The
triumph of right over wrong, of good over evil, of
truth over error, -this is the undying human hope.
And this also is the substance of the Messianic idea.
The original conception of the Messiah and of his
time, as it is found in the prophets, is, that an age shall
arrive when God's laws shall be universally obeyed.
The Messiah is to be both temporal and spiritual Ruler
of this kingdom under God, -temporal, because his
kingdom is to be a visible community, existing in
time, and localized on earth; spiritual, because it is
to be governed, not by force, but by truth and goodness. He is to be Priest and King (as Mr. Abbot
correctly says): Priest, by his inward religious influence on the individual; King, by his outward civilizing influence on society. The chief marks of the
Messiah's reign, according to the prophets, are these: -
I. The Messiah is to rule, not by force, but by the
power of truth and goodness. This appears from
such passages as these: " He  shall smite the earth
with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of
172 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
his lips shall he slay the wicked." (Isaiah xi: 4.)
"Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and
faithfulness the girdle of his reins." (Isaiah xi. 5.)
The idea of force is secondary and subsequent.
2. In the new kingdom, instead of the outward law
of Judaism, - the law of authority which governs
external actions, - there is to be a law of love, making men do right not from the compulsion of conscience, but from simple joy in doing right. This
is expressed in the passage in Jeremiah (xxxi. 3I),
" Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel...
will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in
their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be
my people. And they shall teach no more every man
his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know
the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least
of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord:
for I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember
their sin no more." This passage is quoted in the
New Testament (Heb. viii. 8; x. I6), and applied to
Christianity.
3. The dominion of the Messiah is not to be confined to the Jews, but is to extend over all other
nations. Numerous passages express this idea; for
example, the passage in Isaiah ii. 2-4, in which it is
not only said that " all nations" shall flow into the
house of Jehovah, but that the law shall "go  forth
from Zion," and that Jehovah shall become the Ruler
173 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
of the nations. In other places it is said that Jehovah
shall "sprinkle many nations" (or purify them); that
"the veil which is over all nations shall be destroyed;"
that he shall "gather all nations and tongues to see
his glory," &c.
4. In the days of this great kingdom of God, the
woes, wrongs, and sins of the world are to cease.
Notably, war is to cease, and a universal reconciliation
take place. The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the
cow and the bear feed together. The earth shall be
full of the knowledge of Jehovah. The desert shall
blossom as a rose. There shall, in sum, be a new
heavens and a new earth.
In the apocalyptic literature, these elements of the
Messianic age-viz., a moral power, extending over all
nations, substituting inward love for outward conformity, and so producing outwardly complete unity in all
spheres-were carried much further. At the same time
these noble ideas became mixed with lower conceptions. In the Sibylline writings, the book of Henoch,
the fourth book of Esdras, the book of Jubilees,
and the Targums, we find what a clear and strong
conception of the Messiah and his kingdom took form
ill the Jewish mind as early as B.C. i6o. God, say
the Sibylline oracles, shall send a king from the sun,
when the need of man is sorest, and wars are fiercest,
and he shall cause wars to cease, and cause all
men to recognize the immortal God. The book of
Henoch calls the Messiah always "the Son of man,'
174 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
and " the elect One," who shall open "a fountain of
righteousness," and " fountains of wisdom," where all
shall come and drink. Esdras describes the Messiah
as a man rising from the mysterious sea, and flying in
the clouds of heaven, and coming down and calling
together "a peaceable multitude."  At last, he says,
"Christ shall die, and all that have breath," and " the
earth return to its old silence." Then all souls shall
come to judgment, truth shall stand, and faith bud,
time end, and eternity begin.
In the midst of these ideas, Jesus was born and
brought up. It was, no doubt, in regard to these
opinions, that he talked to the wise men on that menmorable occasion, when, absorbed in the longing for
truth, he forgot father, mother, and home. He penetrated to the depth of this Messianic hope, until at
last it became clear to him that if a man could be
found, who should be both priest and king in the highest sense, he would be the Messiah of God. If he
could manifest the true God so fully that men should
see him as their father, and become his children,that would be the Priesthood. If he could bear witness to the truth with such commanding authority
that all well-disposed men, loving truth, should receive
it and obey it, then he would be King. This work
Jesus assumed and accomplished; he emancipated
Judaism from its forms, and it became, in the hands
of nis apostles, a universal religion. That this was
his intention appears from many passages, for example
175 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
when the request of the Greeks to see himn led him to
the thought that if he died, he should draw all men
unto him. He was to be King, as he tells Pilate, by
bearing witness to the truth. In his sermon on the
mount he fulfils the prophecy of changing the old
covenant into a new one, by writing the law in the
heart.
Mr. Abbot, and his associates, say that in claiming
the Messianic crown Jesus " shared the spirit of an unenlightened age." Is it sharing the spirit of an unenlightened age, to take men where they are, and lead
them on to the highest, deepest, and broadest truth.
If Jesus had not only met the Jews on their own
ground, but remained with them there, there would
be some foundation for the charge. But it was because
Jesus would not accept the low Jewish belief about
the Messiah, but insisted on giving them that higher
Jewish conception which was the step out of Judaism
into a universal religion, that he died.   He died a
martyr to his spiritual conception of the work of the
Messiah.   His life was a ransom paid to free his
nation from the slavery of the letter, and to restore
them to the freedom of the spirit, the glorious liberty
of the sons of God.
Mr. Abbot also informs us that Jesus "shared the
spirit of an unenlightened age," by founding Christianity as a distinct historic religion. There may be a difference of opinion as to the best way of teaching
religious truth. Some may believe the best way to sow
I76 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
seed to be to scatter it at random on the grass, rocks,
road, by the wayside, among thorns, and where there
is no depth of soil. Jesus thought otherwise. He
considered that it was necessary to plant it in good,
well-prepared ground, in order that it should bring
forth thirty, fifty, and a hundred fold.   He did not
accept the "wayside" plan of sowing seed.* He
planted his truth in the prepared soil of Judaism.
Though unacquainted with modern science, he held to
the law of evolution. He came not to destroy the
law, but to fulfil it, by carrying it to its ultimate results,
and causing it to be transfigured in a higher form.
This, according to Mr. Abbot, was "an unenlightened
method," nevertheless it resulted in making Christianity the religion of civilized man.
Mr. Abbot supposes that he has dealt a fatal blow
at Christianity in calling it " simply the complete development of Judaism." But suppose that the theory
should be finally accepted which regards man as simply the highest development of the monkey, would
that make humanity any less human than it is now?  If
the universal religion is grown out of previous religions,
is it any less universal because of that? If the " Messiallic dreams" are fulfilled in the manifestation of a
* Some of his followers, however, seemed to think he did.
There is a little hymn which exhorts us to " Fling, fling the
wayside seed," as though the object of the parable were to
recommend sowing at random.
12
177 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
King of truth and a Priest of love, is he any the less
the world's King and the world's Priest on that account?  If the Hebrew conception of "a chosen people" is at last found to signify that they are a people
chosen to be the soil from which grows up the religion
of human nature, shall the religion of human nature
be considered as damaged by that fact?
It is also objected by our radical friends, that if we
call Jesus "Lord and Master," this is a creed, and that
it limits our freedom and checks our progress. All, however, depends on what we mean by "Master."  There
are two kinds of masters. The one kind enslaves us: the
other sets us free. One master goes before the flock,
and the sheep follow him where they wish to go to
find pasture. Another goes behind the flock, and
drives the sheep where they do not wish to go. The
good master inspires us: the poor master merely orders
us.   The one acts upon us by reason and love; the
other by will, force, and fear. One is a friend, the other
a despot. The one makes us his disciples, the other
his slaves. It is a good thing to have a master of the
good kind; somne one who shall feed our soul, inspire
our mind, animate our life.
The mastership of Jesus is not that of constraint or
compulsion. He never meant it to be so. His disciples
have often made it so, - calling down fire from heaven
to destroy those who, they believe, are opposed to their
Master. But Jesus never sought to compel men to be
his disciples.  "All that the Father giveth me shall
I78 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
come to me," he says. He did not care to hear them
say, " Lord! Lord!"  He did not wish to arrest their
faith and fix it on his own person: he wished it to go
through him to God. He said, " He that believeth on
me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me; and
he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me." He would
not judge those who disbelieved him: he left it for the
truer to judge them.  " The good shepherd," he says,
" goes before his sheep, and they follow him, for they
know his voice." When his hearers could not under
stand him, he explained; when they objected, he gave
a reason. All the long series of exquisite illustrations,
which we call parables, were told to make his meaning clear when they could understand him; or to be
like little boxes, to keep it in their memory till they
were able to understand it. It seems to us, therefore,
a proof of extreme narrowness and prejudice that some
of the modern teachers of Free Religion should base on
this fact, that Jesus taught in stories, the charge that
he had a secret doctrine for his disciples differing from
the public doctrine which he communicated to the
people. It was because they had hardened their hearts
so as not to be able to take in his plain teaching of the
spiritual nature of the kingdom of the Messiah, as
given in the sermon on the mount, that he adopted the
plan of teaching by parables.*
* If Jesus taught an esoteric doctrine to his disciples which
he did not teach to the common people, what was it? What
was the distinction between the public and private doctrine
179 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
In whatever sense Jesus claimed to be Lord aind
Master, it was certainly not as demanding any blind
assent to his teaching. It was not because he wished
to hear the word " Lord" applied to him. It was not
that he would accept any man the sooner as a real
disciple, because he used the phrase " Master," or
would reject him because he did not use it. One
text is enough to prove this.  " Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord! Lord! shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of
my Father who is in heaven." He wishes our minds
to be active, not passive, in listening to him.
There are Christian teachers, I know, who claim a
different authority for Jesus than that reverence which
accumulates around a teacher whose words have fed.
with light and life, the intellect of nations and the
heart of mankind. They wish that, instead of looking
utp to him with expectation, we should bow down before him with awe, and blindly accept his words. I
of Jesus? Has any one of the thousand critics of the Gospels
pointed out such a distinction? If he distrusted the common
people, it was curious that they heard him gladly. The only
fact adduced in support of this statement is, that Jesus taught
in parables; that is, in allegories and stories. But the meaning of these is sufficiently transparent to those who are not
blinded by prejudice.  So far from wishing to conceal his
meaning in parables, Jesus was surprised to find that his disciples needed any explanation of them.  What are the mysteries in the parables of the Prodigal Son, the Good  Samaritan, the Talents?
I8O 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
shall show that this kind of authority he never asserted. He never asked for assent, but always sought
to produce conviction.
It is true that Jesus continually declared that he was
the door, the way, the truth, the life.  He  asked
men to come to him, to believe in him, to become one
with him. And this was not only his right, but his
duty, on the supposition that he knew that he saw
plainly God's everlasting truth.  It was God's truth
which he thus called them to see, in calling them to
himself. It was because God's truth was incarnate in
his life, that he said that he was the life. If this was
a mistake; if his truth was not the absolute, eternal
truth of God, -then he was wrong in this course.
But if, on the other hand, he did not merely speculate
and conjecture and reason, like Socrates, but saw and
knew the truth, then it was his duty and his right to
utter these great invitations.
There are three kinds of authority, - first, the authority of knowledge; second, of office; third, of
character or personality. The authority of knowledge
is that inexplicable power of utterance which belongs
to one who really knows what he is speaking of. It
gives clearness to his statements;  makes them lum:
nous, exhaustive, consistent; clothes them with the
picturesque garb of life; and fills them with weight
and substance. This was the authority which the
people recognized in the sermon on the mount;
for, at that time, Jesus was not known, and so had
I81 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
no personal authority;  had not claimed to be the
Messiah, and so had no official authority.
The authority of office, we all understand. This
only belonged to Jesus after he was recognized as
the Christ, and accepted as such, and only had weight
with those who thus accepted him.
But personal authority is that influence which gradually accumulates around one, whose wisdom, goodness, character, have created reverence. It is one of
the great educating influences in the world. When I
go to Plato, Dante, Shakspeare, I go with expectation
and faith.   I feel sure that what they say, though I
cannot at once understand it, has meaning and value.
That which, coming from an unknown source, I should
at once reject, coming from these mighty masters, I
ponder and endeavor to penetrate.   So, at last, I
come to see what I never saw before; to feel my
soul enlarged, deepened, and elevated. Thus personal
authority exercises over us an educating influence.
But because we attribute either of these varieties of
authority to a master, it does not follow that we are to
receive his dicta blindly. A blind and passive reception of truth, is equivalent to not receiving it at all.
The legitimate influence of authority is to inspire reverent, patient, expectant thought. It opens the mind
to truth, and prepares it to receive it. The illegitimate
influence of authority is to cause us to assent to the
letter, to receive passively the form, to acquiesce in
the conclusion, without really seeing or knowing the
truth.
I82 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
Now that Jesus always endeavored to produce conviction, and never cared for a mere external assent,
appears from such facts as these: —
(a) His habit of arguing by means of analogies
taken from common life and the laws of nature.
When he was asked why he mingled so familiarly
with publicans and sinners, and objections were made
to him on that account, on the principle noscitur a
sociis, -he did not reply merely by saying, "I am the
Son of God, and have official authority to do as I
please." No; but he used the familiar analogy of the
physician.  "You might as well"- I suppose him to
say -"find fault with a physician for going among
sick people, and accuse him of having a very morbid
taste, in so doing. Why does he always call on sick
people, never on well people?  My sick people are
these sinners."
When the authority of John the Baptist and of the
Pharisees was quoted against him, and it was intimated
that it might be well for him to conform to the custom
of fasting, and not run counter to public prejudice by
omitting this religious observance, he again replied,
not by saying, "I have as good a right as John the
Baptist to say what my disciples shall do." Instead
of this, he  gave the rationale of fasting.   It was
all expression of grief, of a sense of emptiness and
want. "My disciples do not experience this need
while I am with them.  You do not ask the guests at
a marriage to fast, and complain of them that they
183 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
look glad and not sad. That which is suitable at one
time is not suitable at another."
In teaching the providence of God, he does not
rest his argument on his own inspiration, but on the
analogies of nature.   "If God clothe the grass of
the field, shall he not much more clothe you?"
In showing that God will always answer the prayer
for spiritual blessings, he relies on the analogies of
human life. " What man who is a father would not
give bread to a hungry child?" He appeals to no
personal or official authority, but to the pure instincts
of human nature, in support of his teaching.
(b) His frequent practice of leading on the mind
of his hearers by questions, until he made them see
clearly what he wished them to believe.
Thus on the memorable occasion which resulted in
the story of the good Samaritan, we are told that a
teacher of the law came to test the knowledge of
Jesus. He probably had a plan laid to make the
Master contradict himself. The " lawyer" first asked
the apparently innocent question, " What shall I do to
inherit eternal life.?" Perhaps he expected that Jesus
would reply, " Believe in me and become my disciple."
Then he would have gone on and asked, " Why should
I believe in you?  Are you the Messiah?"  But whatever his plan may have been, Jesus turned his position
by simply asking him what he himself, as one skilled
in the law, would give as the answer to his own question. And when he replied, "Love God, and love
I84 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
my neighbor," " Yes," said the Master:  " you know
it; now do it." The man of theology, not well pleased
that his difficulty turned out to be no difficulty at
all, made a new puzzle about the extent of meaning involved in " neighbor."   Then Jesus tells the
parable, which has been the instruction of all time.
At its close the lawyer admitted that even the Samaritan and Jew might be neighbors; though he could
not make up his mind to say the word " Samaritan,"
and preferred to phrase it, " He that showed mercy
on him."
Thlus, at another time, when the woman came to
the house where Jesus was dining with Simon the
Pharisee, and Simon was scandalized at the Master's
allowing a sinful woman to touch him, -Jesus, by a
story, showed Simon how the consciousness of sin
might create a power of affection, deeper than could
grow up in the heart of self-satisfied virtue.
When fault was found with him for healing on the
sabbath, he put a question which silenced, if it did
not convince, the captious formalist. It silenced him,
and it may have convinced others. "You pull your
ox out of a pit on the Sabbath: may not I pull out
a man?"
Other cases of this kind will readily occur to the
reader, in which Jesus, by means of questions, either
made his meaning clear, silenced objection, or confuted his opponents by making them confute them
selves.
I85 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
(c) His evident aversion to verbal profession, and
too easy assent to his claims.
" Good Teacher," began one.  "Why do you call
me good?" he replied; " Is any finite, human goodness worth considering, in the presence of the infinite goodness? The little goodness we possess is not
ours:  it is God's."   So, at least, I interpret his
words.
" Why do you call me Lord, instead of doing the
things I teach?" said he, at another time. And yet
there are many to-day who think it wrong not to be
continually repeating the name of Christ, - at the end
of their prayers, and in all their sermons. A certain
divine found fault with the proclamation for thanksgiving of the great war-governor of Massachusetts,
because "Christ" was not verbally mentioned in it.
But God was mentioned repeatedly, and Christian
duties and Christian piety were mentioned. Is the
name of Christ to be regarded as a charm, or magical
formula, more valuable than his truth or his spirit?
Tesus did not think so.
In the days of Christ, as now, there was a class of
persons who believed too easily, and needed to be
made to see it.  They were ready to accept every
thing he said, at once, and praise it all. This sort
of ready verbal assent was by no means satisfactory
to hinm.
A woman once interrupted the course of his teaching
by uttering a hosannah to his mother, and saying what
i86 
FROM THEISM TO ChIRISTIANITY.
a happy woman she must be to have such a son. He
replied that he rather considered those happy who
listened to God's word, and then obeyed it. The
Roman-Catholic church has never learned that lesson;
but, to this hour, spends more time in chanting
"Blessed Virgin Mary!" than in hearing the truth
of Jesus and doing it.
On another occasion Jesus was advising his hearers,
when they gave a feast, to invite poor people and not
rich ones. (This passage seems to have been very
much overlooked by modern Christians, who invite to
their parties party-giving people; their object being to
get into society, or stay in it.) Some one in the crowd
probably thought the subject was not sufficiently religious, and had a tendency toward " mere morality."
So he called out, in the sonorous accent of self-satisfied piety, "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the
kingdom of God! " Whereupon Jesus told a story,
the point of which was that many persons who believed that they wished above all else to see the kingdom of heaven would not like it very much when it
came.
In like manner, he said to Nicodemus, "I am
afiaid you cannot see the kingdom of heaven, Nico(lemus: a man must be made over and become all
new, must be converted and be like a little child, to
see the real kingdom of heaven. Peter saw it in a
transient glimpse, a momentary vision; but I am
afraid you cannot." Nicodemus came to expound a
IS7 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
theory of the Messianic kingdom. He explained how
he could believe, on grounds of logic, that Jesus was
a divinely appointed teacher, because he worked miracles. But Jesus did not desire to have any one
believe in him on that ground, or in that way. What
he desired was that they should see and enter into the(
true kingdom of God. To do this, it was necessary
to be child-like, pure in heart, poor in spirit; in short,
to become new creatures, through and through, by
seeing all things in a new way.
Popularity did not deceive him. When multitudes
followed him, he turned and said, "If any man come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross."
When the multitudes were shouting hosannah, tears
came into his eyes at the sight of the city all of whose
tendencies were toward self-destruction.
So Jesus taught. He argued from the Old Testament, quoting the example of David to show that
the sabbath need not be kept as strictly as they believed. He quoted the example of Elisha to show
that he had a right to go to those outside the Jewish
pale. He refused to be umpire in matters not belonging to his mission.  "Who  made me a divider
over you?" said he.  So now, when we say, " Master,
speak to the geologists that they shall not set aside the
Mosaic account of the creation;" Jesus might reply,
" That does not concern me or my religion at all: that
belongs to science." Sometimes he taught by silence,
as when he looked down and wrote on the ground, not
I88 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
wishing to make it too hard for the accusers, by
looking at them while they went out. He left the
bridge standing, for the flying enemy to escape by.
To the captious Pharisee and Sadducee, he sometimes
refused to speak; but to the poor Samaritan woman
he taught the highest and holiest truths of the gospel.
He did not believe that she was too ignorant or too corrupt to understand the great doctrine of the spirituality
of God. To any open soul, he would teach any truth.
Another objection of the critics is, that Jesus was
not original.  He said what had been said before.  By
searching through all old religions and philosophies,
it has been found that Confucius taught something like
the Golden Rule; that in the Talmud are some sayings
like those of the sermon on the mount; that if we put
together what Pythagoras and Seneca, the Vedas and
Zoroaster, Plato and Socrates, Antoninus and Epictetus have said, we shall find very many of the teachings of Jesus anticipated, - some here, some there.
Granted. What then? Jesus did not profess to have
invented truth, I suppose. If, when you have gathered
all the wisest sayings of the wisest men, you find that
Jesus said the same things, it shows that his teachings
accord with human nature in its noblest aspirations.
But if it all had been taught before, how happens it
that it took such hold of the world when Jesus said
it? If it were an old story, how could it revolutionize
human history, and change the face of nations? Why
did it only create new thought in the minds of phi
I89 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
losophers when uttered by Plato, and create new life
in the hearts of mankind when coming from Jesus?
That is the question.   It was because it came as a
speculation in the one case, but as a reality in the
other.  It was because it was not from the surface
thought, but from the depth of the soul. The originality which is of consequence, does not consist in the
novelty of what is said, but in its vitality; and that
depends on the depth from which it springs. When
Jesus spoke, what he said came from those depths in
the soul, where man stands face to face with God,
with nature, with universal law, with the awful realities of time and eternity. It was no mere intellectual
novelty he produced, with which to amuse men's intellects; but immortal truths, to live and work for all
time. So he taught, as one having authority, and not
as the Scribes.
If it be objected to our faith in Jesus, that the criticisms of the present time have made his history uncertain, and shaken our confidence in the authenticity
of the Gospels, I reply that the truth of the gospel
history of Jesus does not rest on critical reasons, nor
can it be shaken by critical objections. It rests on the
harmony and consent of the various accounts of this
great person, from which evermore emerges that sublime figure, bearing all the authentic lineaments of reality. The human mind has the power of seeing what
is true to nature, even though it be above all nature
elsewhere observed.  You  might just as well look at
I9g 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTI ANITY.
the sun and doubt its reality, as read the story of Jesus
and question its historic truth.   All critical objections dissolve in air, before that divine face which
looks out upon us from these simple records, through
all the intervening centuries. It is the face of one
whom  we have learned to know  better than  oir
neighbors in the next street, better than the brother
who  sat with us by our father's fireside.  Notwitlhstanding the narrowness of his nation, the ignorance
of his biographers, the hardness of the age, the low
views of God and man prevailing around him, we
hear a voice which speaks with the astonishing authority of perfect insight, -a voice which creates a
new era, which pours light on time and eternity.
It is a voice so strong, yet so tender; so bold, yet so
careful; so unhesitating in its absolute assurance, yet
so condescending to all human weakness, ignorance,
and sin, - that it sinks into our soul, needing no other
proof of its reality than itself.   Some things prove
themselves to be true, and need no other evidence.
So it is with the character of Jesus.
And might we not expect, from the nature of God,
that he would give us such a revelation of his truth
and love, as we find in Jesus Christ? " What man is
there among you, being a father, who, when his son
asks for bread, will he give him a stone?"  For thousands of years, men's hearts have been feeling after
God, asking him for this living bread. They have
been looking for God in the magnificence of the rising
I9I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
sun; in the solemnity of the starry night; in the inscrutable beauty of air, fire, water; in the solitudes of
the forests, and the mysterious and inaccessible mountains. Will not the Father come to these children
who  are seeking for him  in all these ways?  He
comes; by the voices of sages, prophets, wise and
good teachers, in all lands and times. But at last a
Teacher arrives, who spake as man never spake, and
before whose voice all other voices are hushed and still.
He takes humanity by the hand, and leads it to an
Infinite Father, to a holy law of eternal right, to a
hope full of immortality. Does it not accord with the
providence of God, that just such a teacher should be
given to man? And shall we not say that he came,
not by the will of the flesh or the will of man, but by
the will of the loving Father of us all? The result has
been, that, wherever Christianity has gone, men have
become wiser, better, stronger. Christian nations are
not what they should be; but, led by Christ, they are
the leaders of the race. Is this an accident? Or is
it not a part of the great plan of history?  And do we
not see that God's providence is eminently present in
this greatest event of time,- the coming of Jesus of
Nazareth into the world; that this has given a unity to
all modern civilization; has made life everywhere new;
has created a new heaven and a new earth? Jesus is
to-day the Leader of the race. Is it reasonable or not,
to believe that God meant him so to be?
I outgrow many teachers, but I find that I have not
I92 
FROM THEISM TO CHRISTIANITY.
outgrown Christ. I come to see more and more of
truth in him every day. The words of his which I
could not understand, I now understand better. His
truth seems to me, every day, to be more deep, more
high, more all-embracing, more soul-satisfying. The
more we study and obey him, the more it becomes our
truth and life. If we do his will, we know of the doctrine whether it be of God.   So that Jesus is our
Master and Teacher, by the same law of our nature as
that by which others are; only fuilly, absolutely, and
constantly. Other teachers are exhausted: his words
are inexhaustible. The words of others at last grow
cold and empty: his are spirit and life, always vital in
every part. It is this which qualifies him to be the
Teacher of the human race for ever, and his religion to
be the universal religion of mankind. He asks us to
be his disciples, and take him for our Teacher. He
does not ask blind assent, but intelligent conviction.
Our faith leads to sight. He also asks us to be his
servants, and take him for Master. But he does not
demand slavish service, but willing obedience. His
service is perfect freedom. The condition of being
his disciples as of being scholars anywhere, is faith;
confidence in him as a good and wise teacher. This
confidence makes us docile, ductile; attentive to his
word; patient to wait, when we cannot immediately
comprehend him. It makes us expectant of truth,
with minds open to influence; receptive and not shut
up; not hardened in our own dogmas and prejudices,
13
I93 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
but seeking for truth evermore. So at last, and only
so, can we come to comprehend with all saints, what
is the length and breadth and depth and height of
this gospel of Jesus, and know the love of Christ,
which passethl knowledge.
And now that we have considered some of these
recent criticisms upon Christianity, what do they all
amount to? They arise from an ignorance of the
nature of Christianity, the nature of man, and the law
of historic progress. They assume that human nature
is naturally depraved, and incapable of rising to such a
height of sublime and perfect beauty as we find in
Jesus. They treat religion as though it were a speculation, set afloat by some human brain, and which can
be planted here or there by the will of man; not as
a grand providential upward movement, step by step,
of the human race. And they treat Christianity as
though it were the teaching of certain religious and
moral truths, and do not see that it is the life of Christ
himself, prolonged from age to age. They do not see
that Christ is with us always, even to the end of the
world; not as a speculation, but as a living influence;
and that the real Christian is not one who believes
a creed about Jesus, but one who receives his truth
with an open mind, obeys his law with a glad heart,
and is fed inwardly out of his life, evermore.
194 
THIRD STEP.
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM. 
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is
your Father, which is in heaven."-Matt. xxiii. 9.
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to
the face, because he was to be blamed." - Galatians ii. II. 
CHAPTER I.
THE IDEA OF ROMANISM AND OF PROTESTANTISM.
E  now begin a new series of questions.  We
have compared atheism with theism, and find
ourselves theists. This was our first step upward. We
have next compared theism outside of Christianity,
with Christian theism, and find the last an advance
on the other; so that, in the interest of human progress, we have accepted Christian theism as an advance
on deism. But now we see before us two forms of
Christianity. One is called Romanism, the other,
Protestantism.   The  first places supreme authority
in the church, in the outward organization; the other,
in the human soul. Which of these is an advance on
the other?
When we accept Christianity as our law of life, we
have certain intellectual questions to answer. Two of
these become of great importance. The first concerns
the source, the second the criterion of Christianity.
"Where shall I find Christianity?" " How  shall I
distinguish  the  true from the false Christianity?"
These are the questions which divide the Roman 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Catholic Church from all Protestant Churches, - divide them radically and fundamentally. Here is the
principle of divergence, the source of all other differences. We begin, therefore, by the consideration
of the respective principles of the two forms of Christianity.
When the question is asked, "Where shall I go to
find Christianity?" the Protestant Churches reply, " To
the Bible."  "This," they say, "is the only infallible
rule of faith and practice;" meaning, however, the
only infallible source of belief, theoretical and practical. The Roman Catholic replies, " To the Bible
and tradition." If I then ask, " Where shall I find
tradition?" he replies, " In the church and its decisions." Just as actual law consists, not merely of
statute law, but also of common law; not merely of
laws as passed by the legislature, but also as these
are interpreted by the decisions of successive courts
of justice, - so, according to the Catholics, Christianity is made up of the truths of the Bible, not as
we can take them from the Bible by personal study,
but as they are explained to us by the fathers, the
councils, and the popes. The other question concerns
the criterion of truth. In a case of doubt as to what
is Christian faith, who shall decide? The Catholic says, " The church shall decide for you." The
Protestant says, " You must decide for yourself."
The Romanist, being asked for the source of Christianity, replies, "The Scriptures and tradition:"  the
I98 
Fi,OM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   199
Protestant answers," The Scriptures only." The Romanist being asked for the criterion of Christianity, replies, "The church; " the Protestant answers, "Private
judgment."
This is the issue between the two bodies, as regards
their fundamental speculative principle.
The Roman-Catholic theory is, that when Jesus
completed the work of redemption by his death,
and had risen, he founded a church, or society of
believers, which was a regularly organized and corporate body, consisting of laity and clergy. The clergy,
again, consisted of three orders, - bishops, priests,
and deacons; and at the head of all, was placed Peter,
with supreme power, as chief bishop and president
of the whole body. To him and his successors Jesus
gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and made
him his vicar or viceroy, - king of the church below,
as Christ himself was King above. Outside of the
church, thus constituted, there is no salvation; because
this church alone has authority to teach the truth, and
administer the sacraments. Any one remaining in
communion with this church is safe from  eternal
punishment: any one outside of it is liable to eter
nal punishment.
To us, children of the Puritans, Protestants of the
Protestants; born under a system which teaches us
from childhood that it is a duty to seek the truth,
think for ourselves, and search the Scriptures independently,- it seems strange that such an enormous 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
claim should be allowed by any reasonable person.
We have been in the habit of thinking the RomanCatholic Church so opposed to the spirit of the
age, the progress of civilization, and the public
opinion of the world, that it must soon come to
an end. But, in saying this, we underrate the forces
which sustain this great institution. The RomanCatholic Church is still an immense power in the
world, for good or evil, probably for both. We shall
never conquer it by assuming that its time is past, or by
ignoring its power. It is stronger to-day than it was
in the sixteenth century. It makes more proselytes
from Protestantism by argument and direct influence,
than Protestantism from it. It concedes nothing, refuses all compromise, adds new dogmas to the old,
and replies to the public opinion of the world by calm
defiance.   Nearly a thousand bishops and prelates,
summoned from all parts of the world, are now in
Rome, by command of the Pope. No congress, parliament, or national assembly on earth, wields any
such power as is to-day in the hands of this great
council. If it declares the infallibility of the pope,
that doctrine must be accepted by nearly one hundred
and fifty millions of persons, or they must cease to be
Catholics. It is not merely among an ignorant people
that this church rules. Here, in America, it is steadily advancing. It has the largest churches, the most
imposing cathedrals, the best organized hospitals, growing up in every part of the country. In Boston and in
200 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   20t
Mdilwaukee, in San Francisco and New Orleans, it is
taking possession of the best situations, erecting the
noblest buildings, accumulating finds, making proselytes. While Protestant sects are contending with each
other, and disputing; working without concord, each
for itself,- this thoroughly organized body is doing
the same work in the Arctic Zone, and the tropics. It
is actuated by one idea,- that of conquering all opponents.  It boasts itself able to put down  our free
institutions, take possession of our public schools, and
re-establish on this continent the power it has been
losing in the old. It changes nothing, improves nothing.  It refuses to adopt any of the ideas of the
nineteenth century, or any of the discoveries of science
which may conflict with its past and present opinions.
It offers a frank defiance to the whole spirit of American institutions; to the free press, free schools, free
inquiry, free thought, freedom  of conscience.   The
pope, in his Syllabus, declares it a grave error to say
that the civil government ought not to put down heresy by force. If Rome gets the power in this country,
no reason can be given why she should not re-establish
the Inquisition, and burn heretics at the stake.  If she
thought it right to do this in the sixteenth century, as
she does not change her opinions, she must think it
right to do it in the nineteenth; whenever she has the
power and finds it expedient. She wishes to establish,
here in America, the system of monasteries and nunneries which many of the Catholic nations of Europe 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
have abolished. She will make use of our religious
freedom to build up her power; and then she will try
to destroy our religious freedom. That is her expectation, her determination, her purpose. I do not mean
to say that all Romnan Catholics are opposed to religious freedom, or in favor of persecution; but the
power which to-day governs the church,- the Company of Jesus, - has no reluctance, no hesitation, in
so determining. If this Society triumph at Rome, in
the Ecumenical Council, their power will be absolute
in the church, and no element there can resist them.
It is a mistake made, almost universally, by Protestants, to regard the declaration of papal infallibility
by the Vatican Council as a mere theoretical assertion
of impossible claims. Almost all Protestant writers
are amused by it, and consider it as simply ridiculous.
But we must not suppose that so sagacious a body as
the Roman Curia have no important practical object
in view in thus compelling the bishops to admit the
infallibility of the pope. It means a great deal practically. It is simply changing a constitutional monarchy
into an absolute despotism. The Company of Jesus
has always been such a despotism. Every member
of it has been a soldier, bound to obey every order of
his superiors without question. The present plan is to
virtually transform the whole Catholic Church into the
Company of Jesus. The motto of the whole Catholic
Church will then be "Perinde ac cadaver."  Every
bishop will be bound to control his diocese according
202 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
to directions from Rome. A papal brief will then
be like the order of the general of an army, to be
obeyed absolutely, without hesitation, by every good
Catholic.
"Not theirs to make reply,
Not theirs to reason why:
Theirs but to do or die."
The plan is, by this magnificent centralization, to
give to the whole Catholic Church the aggressive
power which has made the Company of Jesus such
splendid soldiers in the service of the pope. As a
nation, in its hour of peril from internal rebellion or
external foes, chooses a dictator, and puts the whole
power in his hands; so the Catholic Church, perceiving how it is endangered by the advance of science
and the spirit of the age, proposes to make the pope
an absolute dictator.
The object is a practical one, and perfectly logical.
The declaration of infallibility is placing a secure
theoretical foundation for the exercise of this absolute
power. When this has been once declared, the pope
may, for example, forbid any Catholic children to go
to schools, except such as are under the control of
ecclesiastics of their own church. Any parent who
disobeys, will then be liable to excommunication. He
can only choose between obedience and leaving the
church. And every Catholic knows that to leave the
church is to expose himself to an amount of social
203 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
abuse and persecution which very few are strong
enough to resist.
The plan, then, is a fine piece of strategic wisdom.
It is true that the bow may be so much bent as to
break. A very possible result of carrying out this
decree may be schism. It is quite possible, that it
may produce independent national churches in France,
Spain, Italy, Austria, or Germany. These bodies,
retaining their church buildings, priests, liturgies, as
at present, would by no means be objectionable to the
great mass of Catholics. To them the church means
their own priest, and their usual worship. So that with
out becoming Protestants, or perceiving any change,
they might become independent of Rome and of the
papacy.
But it is idle to disguise the fact, that there is a great
conflict before us in this country, -not with Roman
Catholics, nor with the Roman-Catholic Church considered as a religion, but with the power of that
organization, as wielded by the Jesuits. To this compact, determined, relentless power, we Protestants present a scattered crowd of unorganized sects, a divided
purpose, and an unsettled creed. Not a Protestant
Church is certain of its own opinions. In the sixteenth
century Protestants could oppose to the infallibility of
the church, the infallibility of the Bible. All Protestants believed in that then: how many believe in it
now? As the Macedonian phalanx marched straight
through the mob of Persian soldiers which called
204 
F1;O.M IOtO'MANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.          205
itself an army, so the Church of Rome, strong ill its
ntumbers and its union, laughs  in derision  at  the
divided sects of the Protestants, and anticipates a certain victory.
And its victory is certain, unless we have on Qtur
side one power which may essentially help us; and
that is, TRUTH.  In the sixteenth century, three Ihundred and fifty years ago, truth, without organization,
without numbers, with no prestige, no popularity,
-truth, uttered by the lips of a single man, Martin
Luther, - shook all of Christendom to its centre, and
overthrew Romanism through half of Europe. On
the side of Rome are numbers, prestige, organization,
union; on the other side, freedom and truth.  If the
claim of Rome is false, nothing can save it. When
the foundations of a building are giving  way, no
buttresses against the walls can keep it from coming
down.
The  Roman-Cathlolic  principle  of authority, on
which all else is founded, may be briefly summed up
in these three principles:  I. The Christian church is an outward, visible organization, founded by Christ, who made St. Peter its
head, who transmitted his authority to his successors,
the bishops of Rome.  The Christian church consists
of all those who are in communion with Rome  and
acknowledge the papal primacy, and of no others.
2. The Christian church, thus understood, is infit.llible, and protected against all errors by the Holy 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Spirit. Its voice, therefore, when uttered, is the voice
of God.
3. As no one can be saved except through Christ,
and as no one can commune with Christ except through
his church, it follows that outside of the church there
is no salvation.
What are the arguments used in support of this
immense assumption?  A few texts of Scripture, and
a few considerations taken from a presumed necessity
or expediency.  Christ said to Peter, "Upon this rock
I will build my church."  "And I will give unto thee
the keys of the-kingdom of heaven." He commanded
him to feed his sheep.  He  told his disciples that he
would be with them always, even to the end of the
world. But the Protestant answer to these texts is,
that the keys, as the expression of opening and shutting the gates of the kingdom, are also given to the
other apostles (Matt. xviii. I8) and the power of forgiving sin communicated to them all (John xx. 23).
It is also argued that the meaning of Jesus was that his
church was to be built on the confession of Peter,
not on Peter himself, since he presently calls Peter
"Satan; " since the church was actually built on the
confession, and was not built on Peter; and it is declared that no other foundation can be laid than that
which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (I Cor. iii. II).
Christians are said to be built upon the foulndation of
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the
chief corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20).  Peter, therefore,
206 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   207
was not the head of the church, nor even the foundation of the church in any exclusive sense. But on
account of his energy, and the personal conviction
which animated him in his confession of Christ, Peter
was made for the moment the representative of all the
apostles. But if Peter was distinguished by Christ as
a leader among his brethren, he received no authority
over them. For this Jesus nowhere has said; and
he surely would have declared it, if this had been as
essential a feature of Christianity as the Romnan-Catholic doctrine assumes.  He was once distinctly asked
by his disciples who would be the greatest in his kingdom. He does not tell them that Peter is to be the
greatest, but rebukes them for the very thought that
one should be superior to the other (Matt. xviii. I).
On another occasion, (Matt. xx. 2-28), he taught the
same lesson. There is no evidence in the Book of
Acts that Peter was regarded as superior in any sense
to the other apostles. But, admitting that Peter possessed any sutch primacy, there is nothing to show that
it was more than personal, depending on his individual
character, and incapable of being transmitted to any
successors. Admitting that it was capable of transmission, it has still to be proved that the bishops of
Rome are the successors of Peter. It is possible that
he may have been at Rome, though there is no evidence
to that effect in the New Testament. He was in Jerusalem as late as A.D. 52 (Acts xv.); then in Antioch (Gal. ii. i i); also in Babylon  (I Peter v. 13). 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Neither of his two epistles speak of any residence in
Rome. The Apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, does not salute Peter as bishop of that church,
nor even mention his name. Afterward, when Paul
goes to Rome (Acts xxviii.), he does not find Peter
there. An ancient tradition, indeed (Ignatius in Epist.
ad Romanos; Eusebius ii. 25; Irenoeus, Adv. Her. iii.
I, 3), mentions his martyrdom at Rome, A.D. 67.
That he was a bishop there, is first stated by Jerome.
Though Eusebius (iii. I, 2) mentions Peter's preaching
in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
lastly in Rome, where he was crucified, he says nothing
of his having been bishop there. He rather intimates
that Linus was the first bishop "after the martyrdom
of Paul and Peter." Irenaeus also says plainly that
the holy apostles Peter and Paul founded the Roman
church, and made Linus its bishop. The Apostolic
Constitutions (vii. 46) say that of the church of Rome
Linus was the first bishop, ordained by Paul; and
Clement, after Linus's death, ordained by Peter.
But though we grant that Peter was made head of
the church, that he was in Rome, and that he was
bishop there, this does not prove at all that the bishops
of Rome have inherited his primacy or his authority.
His authority was that of an inspired apostle, taught
by Jesus himself, and a witness of his resurrection.
The bishops of Rome, since the time of Peter, have
had none of these claims to respect.
And even if the bishops of Rome are successors of
2o8 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   209
Peter, this does not prove their infallibility, or the infallibility of the church.  Peter was not infallible himself; how could he transmit infallibility? He was
wrong in the course he took at Antioch, and gravely
erred, so as to be rebuked by Paul, and charged with
dissimulation  (Gal.  ii.  I I.)   The  result was  the
same, whether his error here was intellectual or
moral: his conduct gave a false impression of
Christianity. He taught dangerous error by his actions. If he was intellectually infallible, such infallibility was of no use, since it did not prevent him from
teaching false doctrine by his conduct.
The principal arguments, however, relied upon to
prove the infallibility of the church, are derived from
the desirableness, advantage, or necessity of such a
power. In this way Moehler (Symbolism, ~ xxxvii.)
argues that the church is infallible, because it ought to
be so.  "Every believer," he says, "must bestow his
whole confidence upon her; and she must therefore
merit the same. Giving himself up to her guidance,
he ought, in consequence, to be secured against delusion: she must be inerrable." In like manner, Mr.
O. A. Brownson has argued that the true church of
Christ is, and must be, an authoritative and infallible
body of pastors and teachers. His reasons are, that
to be saved one must be a Christian; to be a Christian,
one must believe in Christianity; that this belief must
be verbal, having for its object distinct propositions;
14 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
that these may be misunderstood, and so need an infallible interpreter to explain them.
The Protestant answer to this train of argument is
as follows:  If human salvation depends on belonging to any
particular outward organization, this would certainly
be distinctly stated in the New Testament. Jesus nowhere tells us that his church is that which is to be in
communion with Peter and his successors,  that this
church will be endowed with infallibility, or that outside of it there is no salvation.
On the contrary, all that Jesus says, in regard to
human salvation, indicates that it is personal and not
organic, - mediated indeed, as we have seen, through
other lives, but not bound up with any external corporation, organization, mode of worship, or church
connection. The Samaritan woman raised the question which was the true church, that of the Jews, or
that of the Samaritans. Jesus replied that neither was
the true church, as far as true worship was concerned;
that true worship was worshipping in spirit and in truth,
not according to the Jewish or the Samaritan ritual.
He knew nothing, taught nothing, of worship localized
at Jerusalem or at Rome. He does not say, " He that
communes with me through Peter and his successors, he
it is that loveth me;" but, " He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me."
He does not say, " This is life eternal, to receive the
sacraments at the hands of the true priesthood;" but,
210 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   211 I
" This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the
only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
He does not say, " Blessed are those who belong to the
true church;" but, "Blessed are the pure in heart."
Now, if Jesus knew and intended that salvation was
only possible by means of union with a certain outward organization, can it be that he should nevet
once have mentioned that fact? This, of itself, is
sufficient to refute the audacious claim of any visible
church to be the only avenue to Christ and to heaven.
Again: if our salvation depends on our belonging
to the true church, our salvation depends on our
ability to discover it. Amid the conflict of sects and
parties, we must be able to find our way through the
intricacies of controversy, the plausibility of opposing
arguments, and the difficulty of learned investigation.
Mr. Brownson, in the fervor of his conversion to the
Roman-Catholic Church, published an argument in its
behalf; reduced, as he believed, to its simplest form.
This argument occupied sixty pages of his review, and
consisted of a chain of propositions, any one of which
failing, the whole would go to the ground. Is it possible that God has made the salvation of his creatures
depend upon the possession of such a logical acumen,
and trained intellect, as shall enable them properly to
weigh such arguments as these? Is this the gospel
which is hidden from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes?
I have before me a volume called, " Evidence for the 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Papacy," by the Hon. Colin Lindsay, published ip
I87O. It contains, "the grounds which led to his
conversion to the Catholic Church." The author says
he devoted more than six months' incessant study to
the question, before he was brought to the conclusion
that he ought to become a Roman Catholic. He was
an intelligent and educated man, who had already
studied the history of Christianity, and had some
leanings toward Rome. Now if it takes six months
of conscientious study, to enable such a man to see
clearly the argument in favor of the Roman Church,
how is it possible for the great mass of men ever to
become Catholics, honestly and from clear conviction?
But if they do not become so, they are outside of
Christianity, and outside of the way of salvation.
It is argued that an infallible guide is necessary, in
order to prevent men from going astray, and that, therefore, Jesus established the Roman-Catholic Church as
such a guide. This argument assumes that the New
Testament is so obscure a book, that we cannot learn
from it the way to God and heaven, unless we have
an infallible guide to show us how to interpret it. But
Jesus did not represent the way to heaven as so mysterious as this. On one occasion he was asked this
very question, "Master, what shall I do to inherit
eternal life?"  He made the inquirer answer his own
question, Love God, and love your neighbor. This
Jesus declared to be the right answer. But if it is
true that, in order to love God and our neighbor, we
212 
FROMI ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
must belong to the true church; and that to find out
which is the true church, we must be able to study ecclesiastical history and sift a complicated argument, -
then the lawyer's answer was not the right one. What
he had to do to inherit eternal life, was, in the first place
to join the true church, and become one of Christ's
disciples.
One argument, often dwelt upon, to show the necessity of an infallible church, is, that we need some
certain assurance of truth.  We  need an infallible
authority to lean upon, in order to be at rest from
doubt and uncertainty in matters of religion.  But this
argument would seem to show that we ought also to
have an infallible guide to show us the way into the
infallible church. For whether is it easier to understand the words of Jesus, or to understand the arguments in behalf of the Church of Rome? If we cannot
understand the sermon on the mount, or the parable
of the Good Samaritan, without an infallible church to
explain them to us, still less can we find our way
through the tangled thicket of the Roman-Catholic
and Protestant argument without some infallible guide
to show us which is right. This simple consideration,
we are bold to say, is a sufficient answer to the whole
argument for the necessity of an infallible church.  If
all infallible church is necessary, an infallible guide
to the infallible church is still more necessary. Nor
does the difficulty stop here. We shall also need an
infallible witness to the infallible guide. We shall then
213 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
need an infallible proof of the infallibility of the witness to the infallible guide into the infallible church.
There is plainly no end to this chain of necessities.
Every argument which goes to show the necessity of
an infallible church, shows also the necessity of an
infinite succession of infallibilities to direct us to it.
But suppose this difficulty somehow obviated, and
that we are at last safely arrived within the infallible
church. We have now a living witness to explain the
truth to us, and make us understand what it is. But
here comes a new difficulty. In receiving this truth,
is our mind to be active or passive? Is it to consider
it, understand it, express it in forms adapted to its own
habits of thought; or is it merely to receive it passively,
without thinking about it at all? In other words, are we
to try to see the truth of the proposition; or are we to
assent to its terms, even though they seem to us to be
false? If the first, if the mind is to be active, then
it is plain that the infallibility instantly disappears.
Infallible truth falling into a fallible mind, and arranged, according to its own fallible judgment, in
fallible human language, loses its infallible character.
This, the Roman Church sees so clearly, that it does
not require conviction, but only assent. It does not
wish active thought, but only passive submission. It
knows well that we cannot believe by being told to
believe.   It therefore only requires that we  should
assent to the truth of what is told us. But if what
is told us seems to us to be false, then to assent to its
2I4 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   215
truth is equivalent to telling a falsehood. In requiring
assent to its doctrines, the Church of Rome deliberately
places a lie at the foundation of its whole system. The
first duty of a man, in order to go to heaven, is to tell
a lie. It is to say that he believes what he does not
believe; to give assent where there is no conviction;
to promise to seem to accept what in his soul he
denies: in short, to believe with his will, and not with
his intellect. This is the root-falsehood in the RomanCatholic system, which poisons it all the way through.
This takes out of it simple honesty, truthfulness, solid
conviction, and vitiates the whole system. And in
thus demanding assent instead of conviction, it is
curious and tragic to see that it contradicts the fundamental text on which its whole system rests. When
Jesus told Peter that he would build his church on
" this rock," it was because, in his declaration of faith
in Christ, he had not said what " flesh and blood had
revealed" unto him, but what his Heavenly Father had
shown. That is, the conviction which made Peter a
rock was his own interior sight of the truth, and not
a mere outward assent to the statement of another.
It was not a hearsay belief, which flesh and blood had
revealed, but a sight of truth which God revealed to
him. Those who call themselves Peter's successors
reverse Peter's method, and( ask us to believe in " flesh
and blood" communications, and not the inspirations
of the Spirit in our own souls.
See, then, to what a curious result we have arrived. 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
The ecclesia docens, or teaching church, does not,
as it seems, teach at all. It merely commands. " Sic
volo, sic jubeo; stat pro ratione voluntas." An infallible  church  might,  one  would  suppose,  teach
infallibly. It ought to convince the understanding,
clear away difficulties, remove doubts, pour a flood
of light into the intellect, and make, not obedient servants, but clear-sighted friends.  So did Jesus teach,
as we have seen in the previous chapters. He said,
"Henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant
knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you
friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father
I have made known unto you." Nor did the apostles
ask for any blind submission, though clothed with
apostolic authority. They told their disciples to prove
all things, to retain what was good; to abstain from
whatever appeared to be evil; not to believe every
spirit, but to try the spirits.  They let their light
shine. When Paul found those at Corinth who did
not believe in the resurrection of the dead, he did
not order them to retract their opinion and submit to
his authority, but argued with them, in order to convince them.
For such reasons as these, we, as Protestants, reject
the fundamental principle of the Roman-Catholic
Church. We do not find any such authority conferred by Christ. We do not find any such church
established in the New Testament. WVe do not perceive its necessity, its advantage, or its expediency.
2i6 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
On the contrary, it seems to us at war with the principles of the gospel, and the nature of the human mind.
It enslaves the soul, and teaches it to falsify its own
instincts. It teaches that God is better pleased with
insincere conformity, than with honest dissent; that
he prefers passive submission to active and growing
conviction.
No doubt much of this evil principle still remains in
the Protestant Churches.  As Milton says, "This iron
yoke of outward conformity hath left a slavish print
upon our necks: the ghost of a linen decency still
haunts us." Protestants also are satisfied if men will
assent to an orthodox creed: whether they believe it
or not, is of much smaller consequence. But, in this,
Protestants are inconsistent with their fundamental
principle of private judgment. The logic of that
principle, therefore, will gradually but surely lead them
to perfect freedom of thought. But the Church of
Rome has based itself upon the opposite principle.
Its method is to repress inquiry, chain thought, and
substitute everywhere assertion for honest inquiry. It
holds itself justified in denying the plainest facts of
history when they seem injurious to the church. Pious
falsehoods have long been favorite weapons in its
armory. Many Catholic writers are indeed pure from
this stain. But the tendency in the church is not to
throw it off, but to retain it, and to intensify it. So
long as the Jesuits rule in Rome, so long will Jesuitism
pervade the church with its detestable spirit.
217 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
The magnificent success of Protestantism in the
sixteenth century was checked in the seventeenth.
It was then arrested, and never renewed. This was
perhaps owing to two  errors.   The  first error of
Protestantism consisted in making the Scripture the
only source of faith and practice. It did this because
it wanted an infallible standard of faith to oppose to
the infallibility of the Roman Church. It adopted this
doctrine as a matter of expediency, as a war-cry; and
also, because the heart of man cries out for something
outwardly solid to stand on. It could not have an
infallible church, so it took an infallible Bible. This
wvas well as long as men believed the Bible to be infallible. But the conscientious study of the Scripture
revealed in it contradictions and difficulties: nothing
then seemed to remain firm. Protestantism ought to
hlave said: " There is no infallible source of Christiall
knowledge; no outward infallibility possible or desirable. The Bible, human history, the soul itself,
Christian experience, reason, - all are sources of
Christian knowledge, but none are infallible, nor
were meant to be."
The other mistake, more important still in its consequences than the first, was the actual abandonment
of the second principle of Protestantism; viz., the
Right of Private Judgment. The Protestant Church,
having taken the ground of Private Judgment, ought
to have encouraged men to judge for themselves, no
matter what results they arrived at. They ought not
218 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
to say, "Judge, but come to our conclusions, else we
shall exclude you." This showed a want of trust in
Christianity itself.  They should have said, "Let men
go to Christ, and then all will be safe."
Whenever Protestantism does this, becoming true to
its own principle, it will once more go forward. Then
it will again become a mighty advancing Power, with
"many members, but one body."  Then it will have a
variety in unity, and a unity in variety. It will then
accept all the good in the Roman-Catholic Church;
all the truth in all heresies; all the good outside of
Christianity, in heathen religions. It will become
large, deep, high, and advancing, as it was in the beginning.
The day is to come in which there is to be a truly
Catholic Church, which shall include Roman organization and Protestant freedom,- shall include all who
call themselves Christians and who love the Lord
Jesus Christ in sincerity.   This will be the true
Coming of Christ. When this great day arrives, all
the ancient prophecies will be fulfilled. Then wrong
will cease, the sword be beaten into a plotlghshare,
the cow and the bear feed together, and a little child
lead them. Then the world will be converted to
Christianity; and Christians, loving each other, will
be able to make the world believe that God has sent
their Master to be its leader and its guide to Him.
2I9 
CHAPTER II.
THE DOCTRINES OF THE ROMAN-CATHOLIC CHURCH.
N  our last chapter we  criticised the fundamental
idea of the Roman-Catholic Church. We shall next
consider the doctrinal systems of Romanism and Protestantism. We first examined the sources and tests
of truth, or the authority of the church and of reason.
We have now to look at the two methods of salvation as indicated by the two systems respectively.
The great question of practical religion is this:
How shall a man be just before God? or, to use a
more modern phraseology, How does goodness come?
And there are two answers. The first is, Let a man
do good, and he will become good. Let him begin by
doing all the good he can, and he will be able to do
more. Goodness will work in from the surface to the
centre. Good actions will produce good motives. He
that is faithful in the least will, by and by, become
faithful in much. He who employs well his single
talent will, by and by, have more. Faithfulness will
lead to faith: good conduct will at last create a good
heart. And hence the formula of the Apostle James:
" Man is justified by works, and not by faith only." 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.    22 
The other answer is exactly opposite. It says,'If
one wishes to do good, he must first become good.
Out of the heart are the issues of life. It takes a good
tree to bring forth good fruit. Until the heart is right,
it is impossible to do any thing really right; when the
heart is right, it is impossible to do any thing really
wrong. He that is born of God does not commit sin.
Goodness works out from the centre to the circunmference: the soul makes the body, not the body the
soul. Good motives will produce good actions. Faith
results in fidelity: a good heart creates a good life.
And hence the formula of the Apostle Paul: "We
conclude that man is justified by faith, without the
deeds of the law."
Which of these methods is the true one?  The answer of common sense, and of experience, is that both
are true. Every time one does a good action it makes
him a better man.  Every thing which purifies the
heart leads to better actions. And therefore, at first,
both methods prevailed in the Christian Church.
Faith and works were accounted the two wings with
which the soul flies upward to God. But with the
division of the church in the sixteenth century, each
section adopted and intensified one of these principles.
Protestant theology said we are saved by faith only.
Catholic theology said we are saved by sacraments.
And this constitutes the vital, fundamental distinction
between the doctrinal systems of the two churches.
Orthodox Protestant theology declares that until a 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
man is inwardly converted and changed all his best
acts are odious in the sight of God. His noblest vir tues are splendid vices. To try to make himself better
by doing his duties, or by practising works of charity,
is to deceive himself. To such extremes, and to
such fatal antinomianism has Protestant theology often
gone, wholly misunderstanding and exaggerating Paul's
doctrine.
Meantime, the Roman-Catholic Church has gone to
the opposite extreme, and has taught that we are saved
by outward sacraments. These sacraments are seven:
baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme
unction, holy orders, and matrimony.   By each of
these a supernatural grace is infused into the soul.
When the outward action is performed in the right
way, the inward result follows of necessity. The only
condition is that the priest shall intend to perform it
aright. Thus in the time of Pope Nicholas I., a Jew
baptized the Bulgarians for money; and the pope
declared their baptism valid. In the time of Pope
Innocent IX., some Saracens, who did not even know
what the Christian Church was, performed baptism,
and the pope declared that also to be valid baptism.
The whole virtue lay in the external act, apart from
the motives of those concerned.*
The theory of the Catholic Church is that by baptism original sin is removed and spiritual life is com
* Hase, Handbuch der Protestantischen Polemik, p. 377.
222 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.    223
municated to the soul.*  He who dies without being
baptized goes to hell: he who is baptized, and then
dies, goes to heaven. Thus the mercy of God is made
to depend on the carelessness or thoughtfulness of a
nurse, or a mother. If the mother forgets the baptism, or puts off the baptism, and the child falls sick
and dies, God is unable to save it; if the mother re
* Thomas Aquinas has four questions upon baptism, each
containing several sections.   The first question concerns
the form; the second, Who ought to administer it? the third,
Who ought to receive it? the fourth, What are the effects?
Under the last, he says that all sins are removed by ba)ptism, and all guilt before God, proceeding from original
sin. By baptism he teaches that one is delivered from eternal punishment, and obtains the beatific vision, but is not
delivered from the temporal punishment due to sin. The
Council of Trent anathematized those who said that baptism
was not necessary to salvation.  The Roman Catechism declares that the faithful must be taught that all men are born
subject to eternal misery, from which they can only be saved
by being baptized. It also declares that there is no way of
safety for children except through baptism. Bellarmine asserts that the church has always believed that infants, departing from this life without being baptized, must perish.
Moehler says that, according to Catholic doctrine, original
sin in children, in adults original sin together with actual
sins, is by the due reception of baptism removed. See Thom.
Aq. Summa, P. iii. qu. 66, &c. Canons and decrees of the
Council of Trent, can. 3, 4, 5. Catechismnus Romanus, ii. 2,
34. Moehler, Symbolism, chaps. 28, 32. Roman theologians
usually place the substance of baptism in the application of
water, the use of the baptismal formula, and the intention to
baptize by him who administers it. 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
members and has the child baptized, God is obliged to
save it. Thus baptism is turned into a charm, a piece
of magic, by which a power is exercised over the
Deity, without any relation to morality or piety. Two
missionaries, we will suppose, go into the heart of
India or China.   One  devotes himself to teaching
Christianity, and possibly succeeds in convincing a
hundred persons of the truth of Christianity, but baptizes none of them. The other does not teach Christianity at all, but persuades a thousand mothers to let
him baptize their children. They do not know what
it means, but think it a pretty thing to have it done.
According to the Roman-Catholic doctrine, the first
missionary, who preaches the gospel, has not saved a
single soul from hell; but the other, who merely baptized without teaching any thing, has saved a thousand.
This, as I said, is certainly making of baptism a
magic ceremony. But this principle has been carried
very far by Roman-Catholic missionaries. Xavier, the
apostle to the Hindoos, baptized in one month ten
thousand Indians at Travancore. It is evident that he
could not have given them much knowledge of Christianity. The Jesuits sometimes baptized the Chinese
secretly behind their backs; and one missionary himself says, that he carried with him always two bottles,
one containing holy water, and the other a sweetscented water. When the mothers brought him their
sick children, he would put some of the fragrant fluid
224 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   225
upon them to please the mothers, and then baptize
them secretly with the other. All this is consistent
with the theory that the child is saved by the outward
act. But it is not very consistent with the Apostle
Paul's saying: "I thank God I baptized none of you,
except Crispus and Gaius, and perhaps the family
of Stephen, and I think no others; for Christ sent me
not to baptize, but to preach the gospel."
One result of making the value of Christianity depend on an outward act is to make all its details of
great importance. If being baptized makes the difference between heaven and hell, it is very important
to know exactly what baptism is. Accordingly, it has
been carefully defined by Roman-Catholic theologians.
It consists in three parts, (I) application of water, (2)
repeating the formula, " I baptize thee," &c., (3) the
intention to baptize, on the part of the person who
performs it.
The question at one time arose (and very naturally)
in the Catholic Church, How much water is necessary
for valid baptism? For if an infant's salvation depends
on its receiving Christian baptism, and if baptism is
invalid which is wanting in either of the three constitutients above mentioned, it is certainly highly important to know exactly how much water is necessary.
It has always been the doctrine of Catholics that total
in mersion is not essential. How li/ttle water, then, is
sufficient? Is the quantity of moisture which always
adheres to the ends of the fingers enough?   This,
Is 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
it is agreed, is not enough. Finally, it has been
decided by the theologians that the smallest quantity
sufficient for baptism is a drop of water which will
run upon the face.   Hence the difference between
the salvation and everlasting damnation of an infant is
the difference between a drop of water which will run,
and a drop which will not. If, when the child was
baptized, there was a drop applied to its face which
ran, and the child dies, he is safe, and goes to heaven.
If it did not run, and the child dies, he goes to hell.
Such views degrade the character of God to the
level of the pagan deities, or Eastern genii, who can
be controlled by the correct application of a charm.
Religion and its sacraments are reduced to magical
incantations.   The  soul is fed with external ceremonies instead of spiritual food. The tendency of
such a sacramental salvation is to cause men to make
clean the outside of the cup and the platter only.
Another important sacrament, in the Church of
Rome, is that of penance. It consists of three parts:
penitence, confession, and satisfaction.
All sins are either mortal or venial. A mortal sin
is that which destroys in the soul the principle of life
imparted by baptism, and leaves him who commits it
again exposed to eternal damnation. The sacrament
of penance then comes in, to restore the lost grace,
and to renew the life of God in the soul. The first
part of penance is sorrow for sin, and its consequences.
But this sorrow (according to the Council of Trent,
226 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.    227
Sess. xiv. Pcenit. c. 4) need not proceed from the love
of God, but only from fear of hell. The second part
of penance is confession, including absolution.  Ac
cording to the Decrees of Trent, confession must be
made to a priest, at least once a year. The power
of the priest to forgive sin is founded on the passages
of Scripture (John xx. 22; Matt. xviii. I8), in which
Jesus says to his disciples, "Receive the Holy Ghost.
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them,
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven." But the Roman Church assumes, without proof, that Jesus gave his disciples this power
as priests, and not as Christians. According to the
Protestant view, every true Christian, just as far as he
possesses genuine Christian experience, has the same
power of binding and loosing which the apostles had.
Every one who is in the spirit of truth and love can
remit or retain sin. His words do not merely announce an official and formal forgiveness, but convey
the essence of forgiveness to the soul. He speaks to
the conscience and heart, as God speaks to them, because speaking from God's spirit in his own soul.
When the weight of sin has been taken off our own
soul by the spirit of God, we can take it from the soul
of another.  "He who is spiritual judgeth all things,"
says the apostle. The Roman Church, in limiting
this power of forgiving sin to the priesthood, changes
it from a sp:ritual power into an official act. 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
The power of absolution was not ascribed to the
priesthood until the time of Thomas Aquinas. Till
then the formula commonly used by the priest was,
"I pray God to absolve thee;" afterward it became,
"I absolve thee."* The Scripture says, "Confess
your faults one to another;" t it does not say, "Confess to the priest." In the early church, confession of
sin was made to the whole church, and auricular confession came afterward. Gieseler says + that, until the
twelfth century, the confession of private sins had not
been considered an indispensable condition of forgiveness, and it was allowable to confess to a layman. It
was first made obligatory to confess to a priest, once
a year, by the Lateran Council, A.D. I2I5.
No doubt there are advantages in auricular confession. It tends to prevent crime in those who still
believe in the necessity of confessing, yet such persons
are not those who usually commit crime. It frequently
causes atonement, or restitution, to be made. It enables
the priest to retain control over the rude masses; and
this last is its chief advantage.
The Council of Trent declares that only mortal sins
* Thomas, Summa III., qu. 84, art. 3. "In quibusdam
absolutionibus, absolvens non utitur oratione indiciiva, Ego
te absolvo! sed oratione deprecazva, Misereatur vestri omnipotens Deus! vel Absolutionem tribuat vobis Omnipotens!"
t James v. I6.
: Vol. ii. p. 349 (Am. ed. Cunningham's translation).
228 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
need to be confessed. But as few Catholics know precisely the difference between mortal and venial sin, it
is deemed safer to confess every thing.
The evils of auricular confession are so great, thlit
they outweigh, by far, its advantages. It gives too
much power to the priesthood, and maintains the
baneful distinction between priest and people. It is
used as the means of carrying out the arbitrary purposes of the Roman Curia. Thus, priests may be told
not to give absolution to those parents who send their
children to Protestant or secular schools.
One of the worst evils of auricular confession is
the corruption of mind often produced by the priest's
questions. Thoughts of evil, which never before existed in the soul, are conveyed there, unintentionally,
by the confessor. The confessor studies the treatises
put into his hands in the seminary, in which all sorts
of sins are minutely described; and he is told that it is
his duty to find out whether any of these have been
committed. Fancy an innocent girl questioned as to
every detail of her private life according to these
manuals, so full of the filth gathered from the most
corrupt practices of the foulest times! *
* In such a manual, not published in the Middle Ages, but
in i868, - not in Latin, but in French; not in Mexico, but in
Paris,- we find all the details of lasciviousness carefully described, and directions like the following for the guidance of
the confessor: "The confessor should appear, at first, mild
and benevolent. He must persuade the young persons to
tell with simplicity all they know on the point in question.
229 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
According to the Roman theology, venial sins need
not be confessed, but are atoned for by various re
He must not seem moved or astonished by any thing he hears,
and he must not appear to listen with much curiosity or
interest: he ought, in fact, to seem rather indifferent to the
charges the penitents make against themselves. He may say
that he has heard more on such subjects than they can tell
him.  In putting questions, he must be very careful to touch
this dangerous subject lightly, and to use much prudence
and reserve, so as not, by his very questions, to teach the
penitents the evils which perhaps they are fortunately ignorant of."
"To detect bad habits, you must not seem to doubt their
existence. Do not inquire concerning the essential fact, but
concerning the accessory circumstances. Instead of asking
if they have committed such or such a sin, which you fear
they are concealing from you, you must make them say hozw
many times they have committed it. If they hesitate to reply,
name a large number, far beyond what is likely, so as to
embolden them to confess a smaller number.  In general,
before they have finished speaking, begin to excuse them,
throwing the blame on their accomplices, and saying that
they probably would not have committed such improper acts
if some corrupt companions had not taught them how, against
their own wishes," &c.
"' There is another important point. In speaking to females,
married or otherwise, about this class of sins, the confessor
should mention that he has obtained his information from
medical books, &c. Otherwise they may suspect the priest
of personal impurity, and such suspicions have been known
to give rise to indecent, improper, and dangerous suggestions
on the part of the penitents." - Moechialogie: Traitd des
Pdchds contre les Sixieme et Neuvieme Commandements du
Decalogue, et de Toutes les Questions Matrimoniales, par le
Pere Debreyne. Quatrieme edition. Paris: i868.
230
. 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   231
ligious practices, such as repeating the Lord's Prayer,
the use of holy water, manducation (that is, eating
bread which has been blessed), being present at the
mass, listening with reverence to the preaching, repeating the confession in the service, giving alms, and
receiving the benediction of the priest. It will be
seen that these are all quasi sacramental acts, and do
not include any process of self-correction.
It is, however, also taught distinctly by the church
of Rome, that, outside of its communion, there is no
remission, either of original, mortal, or venial sin;
for even to be forgiven venial sin, one must be in a
state of grace.
The satisfaction contained in penance consists in the
performance of such practices as may be commanded
by the priest as a condition of absolution. In the
Catholic Bible, Dotlay version, it is said (Matt. iv. i7;
Luke xxiv. 47), "Do penance, for the kingdom of
God is at hand;" "That penance and remission of
sins should be preached in his name." * So also, in
Acts ii. 38, Peter says, " Do penance." The penances enjoined as conditions of absolution are chiefly
alms-giving, fasting, and prayer.
Indulgences mean (I) the substitution of something
* The Holy Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate; the
Old Testament first published by the English College at
Douay, A.D. I609; and the New Testament first published
by the English College at Rheims, A.D. I582. 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
else in the place of penance; and (2) the removal of
temporal punishments in this life or the next. For,
according to the Roman-Catholic doctrine, all sins incur a double penalty, eternal and temporal. Eternal
punishment is separation from God, and loss of the
beatific vision. This is removed by the atonement of
Christ; and his atonement is received by penitence
and faith, through baptism. But the temporal consequences of sin remain, and are to be endured in this
world, and the other. Temporal punishment in the
other world is purgatory. The church claims the
power of remitting this by indulgences. But, down
to the time of St. Thomas, opinions differed in the
church as to their value. Much opposition existed
against selling indulgences for money; but this was
too profitable to be given up. Sextus VI., in 1477,
first applied indulgences to the relief of souls in purgatory; before him, it had been confined to church
punishments in the present life.* Much objection was
made to this doctrine by Catholic theologians. One
argument being, that if the pope possessed this power,
he ought at once to relieve all souls from purgatory.
At present, however, indulgences are given on various
grounds.   In I86o, the present pope offered an indulgence of one hundred years to every one who would
fight against Victor  Emnanuel.   In  some  Italian
* Hase, Handbuch der Protestantischen Polemik. Gieseler,
2; cccxxv.
232 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   233
churches you see the notice: " Every mass performed in this church delivers a soul from purgatory."
In the church of S. Pudienza at Rome, it is declared,
" Every person visiting this church obtains for every
(lay an indulgence of three thousand years." In the
church of S. Lorenzo before the Walls, " Forgiveness
of all sins " is offered to every one worshipping thereill.
It is one of the impenetrable mysteries of RomanCatholic belief, that a man should take the trouble of
going to one church for the pitiful indulgence of three
thousand years, when by visiting another he can obtain remission for all his sins. Perrone, the modern
Roman-Catholic controversialist, exultingly declares
that scarcely any one can be found so destitute of
the means of grace as not to be able to obtain an
indulgence somehow.
The sacraments of the church are indeed admirably
adapted to all parts of human life. The infant enters the kingdom of heaven by baptism. The youth
receives new grace by confirmation. The sacrament
of penance removes the effect of mortal sins, and
places one again in a state of grace.   The sacrament of orders gives the priest the power of applying the other sacraments. The sacrament of the
eucharist, or mass, brings God visibly before the eyes
of the congregation. In it the God-Man is sacrificed
anew, day by day, for human sin. The faithful who
partake of it, receive new life in their souls, by feeding
on the body and blood of Christ. Matrimony is elevated 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
to a sacrament, and made indissoluble. Its essence,
however, consists, according to the Roman Catholics,
in the consent of the two parties, and the presence of
a priest. If, therefore, two young people, to whose
marriage the parents refuse their consent, and whom
the priest refuses to marry, lie in wait for him in his
walk, and spring out from the trees and say, " We take
each other in marriage," this is a legitimate union.
No Catholic marriage can be dissolved; but the
church may declare that if certain impediments existed,
it never really was a marriage, which comes to very
much the same thing. Fifteen such impediments are
mentioned by Romish theologians; suchl as a mistake
as to the person intended, a vow of celibacy, affinity,
compulsion, difference of worship.
Extreme unction is founded on the saying of James,
"If any among you be sick, call the elders of the
church, and let them pray over him, anointing him
with oil in the name of Christ; and the prayer of faith
shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up."
But this can hardly apply to the Roman-Catholic sacrament of extreme unction, which is only given to dying
persons, and with no expectation of curing them.
The doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that in
the Lord's Supper, when the priest utters the words,
"This is my body, and this is my blood," the bread
and wine are changed, as to their substance, into the
body and blood, soul and spirit, of Christ; while their
accidents remain the same as before. This doctrine is
234
I 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
based on the philosophy of Aristotle, in which every
thing is either substance or accident. Accidents are
all that can be perceived by the senses, as color, shape,
weight, perfume, flavor, &c., - in short, all outward
phenomena.   Substance is that which stands under
them, and supports them; that in which these qualities inhere.
By means of this doctrine, a mysterious influence is
no doubt conveyed to the believers, which touches the
imagination, and produces awe.
But the evil is, that, like other sacraments, it becomes
a charm.  Over some altars it is written, "Every mass
performed at this altar delivers a soul from purgatory."
The mass works its effect whether any are present
to receive an influence or not; consequently masses
are often offered when no one is present, or only a few.
No doubt good is done by the sacraments. A good
priest puts his soul and heart into them, and so they
become full of soul and heart. There is also something touching and tender in the thought of the church
walking with its children through life, reaching its
hand to them all the way; taking the infant, and baptizing it into the kingdom of heaven; calling together
the young, and in their white confirmation robes leading them up to become the servants of Christ; relieving the sense of sin by hearing its confession, and absolving the penitent; bringing down God into the
church day by day in the awful mystery of the tremendous eucharist; making a sacred body apart from
235 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
the world, in its priesthood, standing separate from
life, outside of the world, to move it, not to be moved
by it; sanctifying the joy of marriage with a holier
bliss; and touching the brow of the dying with a passport into eternal rest. As an ideal, it is all very
graceful and pleasant. But is it true? Does it on
the whole do good?   These are the questions ultimately to be asked of all human institutions.
Is this sacramental system true Christianity? Did
Jesus teach any such system? Is there any thing like
it in the New Testament? Where, in the four Gospels,
do we find the priesthood, the system of confession
and absolution, the doctrine of grace given through
external acts and ceremonies? Is not this a revival of
that temple worship and those ritual observances which
Jesus himself opposed most strongly? Would any
one, in reading the four Gospels, imagine that Christ
ever meant to establish such a ritual system as this?
This is the real difficulty with Romanism. It is not
by a few texts, taken here and there, that we can
decide the point; but by seeing if the general teaching
of Jesus inculcated that by belonging to a church and
partaking of its sacraments men were to be saved. On
the contrary, he taught continually, that we are saved
by our faith in God, our love to man, our fidelity in
duty, our willingness to follow him in his piety and
humanity. The sermon on the mount and the parables
have not a word about sacraments in them. All there
is faith, hope, love, and obedience.
7,36 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
The Protestant Church, following the Apostle Paul,
says we are justified by faith, and not by ceremonial
or sacramental works.  Christianity does not consist
in assisting at the mass, or in confessing to the priest,
but in trusting in God and his love; in having faith in
that divine pity which came to us eminently in Christ.
It is a state of the heart, not the performance of ceremonies. To be justified by faith does not mean that
we are saved by believing this or that opinion; but
that we are saved by confidence ill God's love, and by
having a childlike reliance on his fatherly goodness.
If you wish to have your son safe amid the temptations
of life, teach him to confide in you; make him understand that he can always come to you in his difficulties; that he can find no better friend than his father
and mother. As long as you retain his confidence, he
is safe. As long as he tells you every thing, he is in
no danger. And so God wishes us to tell him every
thiing, to bring all our troubles to him, and feel that he
is the best friend we have. M. Renan, in his Life of
Paul, says of the doctrine of justification by faith:
"This doctrine of Paul, opposed apparently to common
sense, has been really salutary and conducive to human freedom. It has separated Christianity from Judaism, and Protestantism from Catholicism. There is a twofold evil in the belief
that the performance of religious actions procures forgiveness
and salvation. First, it destroys morality by persuading the
devotee that he can enter heaven in spite of God. The most
hard-hearted Jews, and the most selfish and cruel usurers,
237 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
have imagined that by carefully keeping the ceremonial law
they would compel God to save them. The Catholic, in the
time of Louis XI., fancied he could defend himself against
the Almighty as by the technicalities of a legal process; and
that, assisted by a sufficient number of masses, any scoundrel
most odious to the Deity could, accordirng to the most regular
methods, enter heaven, and force God to receive him into his
society. To this impiety, to which Judaism had been brought
by Talmudism, and to which Christianity has been brought
by Medieval Catholicism, Paul has applied the most vigorous
remedy, declaring that man is not justified by any works of
the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. This is why this
doctrine, apparently so illiberal, has been the text of all
reformers, the lever by which Wickliff, Huss, Luther, Calvin,
and St. Cyran have resisted the old traditions of routine, of
idle trust in a priest, and in a kind of external goodness, quite
independent of any change of heart.
"The other objection to these outside observances is that
they create incessant scruples. Being considered to have a
value in themselves, ex opere oiPerato, apart from the state
of mind of him who performs them, they open the way to
all the subtilties of a minute casuistry. The legal work becomes a receipt, the success of which depends on its precise
and exact performance. In this point, also, the Talmud and
Catholicism have come upon common ground."
The essential doctrinal antagonism of Romanism and
Protestantism has its root in the answer to this question:
"Are we  saved by faith or by sacraments?"  The
other doctrines of theology, such as the deity of Christ,
the trinity, total depravity, the atonement, are not
peculiar to Romanism or Protestantism, but were inherited by both, from the church of the Middle Ages.
The early Greek Church invented the doctrine of the
238 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
trinity. The Latin Church afterward developed that
of total depravity and the atonement.
But there is no doubt, if we are to take Christianity
from the teaching of Jesus and Paul, that the doctrine
of salvation by sacraments is false. It is not by ceremonies any more than by creeds that the soul of man
is made true and pure. And yet let us admit the good
that has been done by pious and devoted men who
have believed in this sacramental salvation. It has
been daily bread for the souls of thousands in every
age; it has tended to open a way for the teachings of
Jesus to enter the mind and heart. " Every priest,"
says the Epistle to the Hebrews, " st.'tndeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices
which can never take away sins;" nevertheless, he
may often make men better and happier by his labors.
In one of the chambers of the Vatican there hang
opposite to each other two pictures, which are considered by many to be the two finest paintings from the
hand of man. One is the Communion of St. Jerome,
by Domenichino. The saint, old, decrepit, at the point
of death, is receiving the sacramental wafer, with an
expression of rapture on his face,- a rapture of reverence, gratitude, and love.   This is the apotheosis
of sacramental religion. On the opposite wall is the
Transfiguration of Jesus, by Rafaelle. Jesus, with
Moses and Elijah on either hand, floats in the air,
lifted above earth by the power of this great communion of mind and heart.  The faith in things unseen,
'.-,:....-.!-'!.
239 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
which can remove mountains, had removed the veil
between time and eternity, and brought the three great
prophets face to face. This is the religion of the
spirit, - not of form, nor of the letter, but of faith,
hope, and love!
It is far higher than the other. The covenant of
works comes to an end. Ceremonies will cease. Penances will be abolished. The outward sacraments of
water, bread, and wine will at last be no longer needed.
But the religion of faith, hope, and love, uniting us to
God, and to man, will always remain. These three
abide for ever. This is what transfigures time, and
this is what opens the way into eternity.
....
240 
CHAPTER III.
PRIESTHOOD AND RITUAL OF THE ROMAN-CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
CCORDING  to the Roman-Catholic doctrine,
the clergy is a body instituted by Christ, and inheriting special grace from him, in an unbroken line
of descent. It alone possesses the power of the sacraments and the government of the church,; Through
the medium of the clergy alone does Christ communicate with the people. They alone have the power
of opening or closing the gates of heaven.   This
hierarchy, which consists of bishops, priests, and deacons, is instituted by God.*  The special work of a
priest is to offer sacrifice.  The eucharist is the sacrifice in the New Testament corresponding to the
Jewish sacrifices in the Old Testament.   The  Roman-Catholic priest therefore is the fulfilment, on a
higher plane, of the Jewish priesthood.
* "Si quis dixerit in Ecclesih Catholica non esse hierarchiam divina ordinatione institutam, qua constat ex episcopis,
presbyteris, et ministiis, anathema sit." (Synod of Trent,
Sess. xxiii. canon 6.)
i6 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
The Protestant Church does not consider its clergy
as priests, but as ministers of the word. Their work
is not to offer sacrifice, but to preach the gospel. They
are successors, not of the Jewish priest, but of the
Jewish prophet.   This is the radical distinction between the clergy in the two churches. The one stands
at an altar; the other, in a pulpit. One receives his
authority from the priesthood by ordination; the other,
from the people by election.  The Protestant minister
is one of the people: he is no more a priest than the
rest. He is on a level with his brethren. But the
Roman-Catholic idea was expressed by Lainez, General of the Jesuits, in his famous speech at the Council
of Trent. He declared that the people were like sheep,
and the priest was their shepherd. " Sheep," said he,
"are beasts without reason; and therefore ought not
to take any part in the government of the church.
That belongs to the priesthood alone." *
But though Catholics have sometimes said, in an
extravagant way, that the worst priest was better than
the most pious layman, yet this idea has never been
thoroughly carried out in the church.   One of the
sacraments, that of marriage, is performed not by
the priest, but by the parties themselves, in the priest's
presence. For the Roman Catholics have the true
idea of marriage, as consisting essentially in the consent
of the man and woman. Most of the sacraments, in
* Sarpi, -quoted by Hase, p. I Io.
242 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
cases of necessity, can be administered by laymen.
Laymen can baptize, and their baptism is valid. In
the Middle Ages, knights confessed each other, and
gave absolution to their dying comrades. Monasticism
itself is a kind of included Protestantism. For why do
mien and women go into convents to save their souls by
penance and prayer, if they are satisfied with the salvation which comes from sacraments?  They go to
find a higher religion than the priest can give, in
direct communion with God himself.
One objection to the Roman-Catholic idea of the
priesthood is, that it is opposed to Christian equality
and Christian brotherhood.   It introduces into the
church a caste, like that of the Brahmins in India.
Christians are not all brethren in this system; but the
laity are brethren, and the priests are fathers.   Consequently a Roman-Catholic priest is usually called
father; though Jesus has said " Call no man father
on earth, for one is your Father in heaven, and all ye
are brethren." Accordingly Martin Luther declared
that all Christians were priests, and that there was no
real distinction between clergy and laity.  " Whoever
has received Christian baptism," said he, "is priest,
bishop, and pope. Two or three laymen, meeting
together in the name of Christ, make a church; they
can baptize, administer the sacrament, preach, and
absolve each other's sins."
This was certainly the original idea in Christianity.
God was to' pour out his Spirit on all flesh;" " On
243 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
my servants, and on my hand-maidens, I will pour out
of my Spirit, saith the Lord, and they shall prophesy;"
" I will write the law in their hearts, and ye shall no
more need to teach each other, saying, Know the
Lord, for all shall know me, from the least of you to
the greatest of you; " " The anointing [or christening] which you have received remains in you, and
ye do not need that any shall teach you."*   Peter,
the head of the Catholic Church, called all Christians
"a holy nation, a peculiar priesthood." t Irenaus
wr-ote, "All the good belong to the priesthood.": 
Tertullian said, " Are not all the laity priests? Where
three of them meet in Christ's name, there is a
church." ~ Consistent and logical Protestants therefore ought to admit that the laity, both men and
women, have full power to preach and pray in public,
and to administer the sacraments of baptism, and the
Lord's Supper. If some men are set apart for this, it
is for convenience, and on the principle of division of
labor. In the Congregational Church this principle of
equality is more fully asserted than in any other except
by the " Friends." In the Cambridge platform, it is
said that there may be a church where there is no minister, and that a man ceases to be a clergyman when lihe
ceases to be the minister of a church; that he becomes
a layman the moment that he loses his office as pastor
* I John ii. 27.
$ iv. 20
t I Peter ii. 9.
~ Exhort. Cast. c. 7.
244 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
of a church; and becomes a clergyman again, when
he is elected pastor of another church. This is the
true Protestant idea, thoroughly carried out.
According to the rule of the Roman Church, the
priest must be unmarried. To become a priest is to
take a vow of celibacy for life. This, however, is not
a matter of faith, but of discipline; and the RomanCatholic Church might, at any time, allow its priests
to marry. This is a reform loudly demanded by many
in the church itself, and will, probably, be the first
step taken in a new church reformation. If the Ecumenical Council, by its decrees, puts the church in
opposition to the temporal governments of Europe,
and also in opposition to modern science and all free
thought, the result may be that one or more Catholic
nations will separate from its communion, and be come national churches. They will probably not
become Protestants, but will retain the Catholic ritual
and ceremonies. But, in such a case, they will imme diately allow the priests to marry, as in the Greek
Church. For though Paul thought it more con venient not to marry, and praised celibacy, yet, in
the Epistle to Timothy, he called " forbidding to
marry" a " doctrine of devils," and told Titus thtat
a bishop ought to be the husband of one wife. And
there is something almost pathetic in the fact that the
Apostle Peter, the head of that church which has
made celibacy the law of its priesthood, should have
had a mother-in-law, and should have been said by
245 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Paul to carry his wife about with him on his missionary journeys.  One would not like to hurt the feelings
of a good Roman Catholic by reading the text about
Peter's wife's mother being sick of a fever.
The arguments in favor of an unmarried priesthood
are, that they can give their whole time to the ministry, not having to care for wife and children; that
they are more ready to encounter dangers, and go
on missions; they are not made anxious by dread of
poverty; and they are more reverenced by having no
bride but the church, no children but their parishioners. All these may be very good reasons why young
clergymen should not be immediately married, and
why some should not marry at all. But it is no
reason for forbidding all to marry by an inflexible
law. Riding by the shore of the Mediterranean, I
once invited into the carriage a priest, whom we
overtook walking, and we discussed this question
together in very bad French. He said, "How can
you Protestant ministers attend to your duties, and
visit your parishioners, when your wife or children
are sick, and you have to stay at home and nurse
them?"  To which I replied, that not having the experience of a married man, and living a solitary life,
he could not enter into the feelings of his parishioners,
but was placed apart from them. "A good wife,"
said I, "makes a man stronger to do all his duties,
and puts twice as much judgment and force into him
for his work. It is not good for the man'to be alone.
2-L6 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
He may have less care and more time when he is not
married; but he has not so much heart, nor so much
power for his work."
All the Roman clergy are divided into two classes,
-regulars and seculars.  The secular clergy are the
bishops and parish priests.   The  regulars are the
mnembers of monastic institutions,-monks and friars.
All the orders of monks take the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
There seems to be something natural to man in this
monastic system. It is found in all religions. The
Jews had their monks in the Essenes and Therapeutoe:
the Mohammedans, Brahmins, and Buddhists have
their anchorites, living either alone or in cloisters;
and here, in America, we have our Protestant monks
and nuns in the Shakers. The Buddhist monks live
in great monasteries, and take the same three vows as
the Roman Catholics. They are all mendicants, going
out every day to get their food. They pray with a
rosary, counting their beads, like the Catholics.
It is no doubt true that the cloister has brought consolation and peace to many a poor soul, who has not
strength for the battle of life. The community principle, in the cloister-life, is a good one.  It is to be wished
that we had Protestant communities, to which lonely
and weary men and women could go, and find friendship
and relief from perpetual anxiety. The struggle of
life is so fierce among us, competition is so active,
that thousands find it hard to live, even by working
247 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
all the tinie. Now if there were Christian communities
well arranged, where by the economies of combined
households, and by thorough organization, they could
have comfort and rest for a fair day's work, it would
no doubt be a blessing. Such communities as the
Shakers, and that of Rapp, show that this is perfectly
feasible. They all have a pecuniary success. And so
it was with the monasteries of the Catholic Church.
They gradually absorbed into themselves a large part
of the wealth of many countries, and were suppressed
for this reason, and their property confiscated by the
governments of Catholic nations. In the Middle Ages,
they did great good. They were the refuge of the
oppressed, the last retreat of learning; they became
teachers of youth, and the civilizers of the community.
But they were very apt to run the course of other
institutions. At first, founded by good men for good
purposes, they were useful and pure. Their virtues
gave them influence, power, and wealth. Then power
and wealth corrupted them, and they became indolent,
luxurious, vicious. Then they grew odious, and were
abolished; and others, better and purer, took their
place.
No one can be present at a function of the RomanCatholic Church on a great festival, and in a magnificent cathedral, without feeling the impressive nature
of the ceremony.   The grand architecture and  the
splendid music; the processions of priests in their gorgeous robes and vestments; the mysterious ceremonies
248 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   z49
at the high altar, genuflexions, the smoke of incense,
swinging of censers, elevation of the host, ringing of
bells, -all is calculated to touch the imagination, like a
solemn tragedy. There is something essentially dramatic in the whole ritual, and most people love the
drama. The worship of the Virgin in the Catholic
Church also touches a cord in the human heart. When
God is represented as clothed in terror, an awful monarch; when Christ is revered as the Judge whose chief
attribute is justice: then comes the Virgin Mary, coinbining all the sweetest traits of tender womanhood.
She has the purity of the girl, and the devoted kind
ness of the mother. She is the friend of the sinners;
she takes them all as she finds them; she never chides,
finds fault, or condemns; her only work is to save.
And then she has such power in heaven, as the Mother
of God, that she can save us. All who put themselves
under her protection are safe. Mary, in the Catholic
Church, is a creation of the human heart, which had
been defrauded of its heavenly Father by fierce and
terrific doctrines. They took away the love of God,
they took away the blessed grace of Jesus; and so
the poor empty heart turned to Mary, put her in
heaven, and then took her for its God, its Christ, its
Saviour. It can come nearer to her than to the Trinity:
she is more human. All sweet and great names therefore are given to her in the prayers of the Catholic.
She is "Mother of God," " Star of the Sea," "Spouse
of the Holy Ghost," "Door of Heaven," " Qieen of 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
the Angels," " Rose among thorns," " Ocean of love."
And yet I sometimes wonder what the real Mary in
heaven thinks of all this; and how her modesty must
be pained by this great wave of worship, coming up
to her from earth every day, -she who was only a
sweet, pure woman. It seems too hard that she should
have to hear it all, and be made unhappy by being
thus an object of worship which so often takes the
heart of the devotee from God, and from Christ. Think
how very sadly any good woman would feel at finding
herself in heaven made the object of worship. I think
Mary is really much to be pitied.
Jesus has told us not to use " vain repetitions in our
prayers as the heathen do, who think they shall be
heard for their much speaking," and gives us his
own prayer as an example of what is short but comprehensive. And then the Catholic makes a rosary,
in which he repeats the Ave Maria one hundred and
fifty times, and the Lord's Prayer ten times.   The
Catholic prayer-book tells us that this rosary " was
composed in heaven, dictated by the Holy Ghost, and
delivered to the faithful by the Angel Gabriel, Saint
Elizabeth, and the Church of Christ." * The same
book, published by authority of the bishops of the
church, has litanies to many diffierent saints, as Saint
Joseph, Saint Teresa, Saint Bernard, Saint Philomena, and - what seems very curious, - one " To the
* Saint Vincent's Manual, p. 428.
250 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
Infant Jesus," and another to the "Blessed  Sacrament." Do the Catholics believe that there is an
infant Jesus now in heaven? Is Christ an infant now?
And if not, how can they pray to a being who does
not exist? This litany addresses the infant Jesus eightynine times. It says, for example, " Infant, crying in
the crib, have mercy on us;" "Infant, equal to thy
Father; " "Infant, subject to thy mother;" "Infant, in
want of food;" "Infant, dwelling in heaven, "&c.,
"have mercy on us." All these eighty-nine prayers
are addressed to an infant who does not exist; for
certainly Christ is not an infant now.
The litany of the blessed sacrament has a great
number of petitions addressed to the eucharist, asking
it to have mercy.  It says, " 0 wheat of the elect;"
" O wine which makest virgins;" " O supersubstantial
bread," "Chalice of benediction," "Heavenly antidote," &c., "have mercy on us."   It is true that,
according to the doctrine of the Roman Church, the
bread and wine are changed, as to their substance,
into the body and blood of Christ. It is true that he
means to worship, not the bread and wine, but the
God manifested by them. But what the worshipper
adores, in this prayer, is not this substance which is
invisible, but the accidents, the outward phenomena,
which are not changed. When he says, " O wheat!
O wine! O bread! O chalice!" he is adoring the
visible form under which God is supposed to be
present.  And just so the Athenian, who worshipped
25I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
the statue of the Phidian Jupiter, intended to worship
not the marble, but the God manifested by the statue.
He did not mean to worship stone and gold and ivory.
If the one was idolatry, the other is idolatry. So when
the Catholic adores the crucifix, or pictures, he means
to have his mind ascend through these to God. But
that is just what an intelligent Hindoo will tell you
about his images of Vischnu and Siva. The danger
is that the ignorant and unspiritual will, in both cases,
make a fetich of the idol, the picture, the cross, the
wafer, and worship the visible part, letting his devotion stop there.
The church of Rome has often committed the fault
of letting itself down to the level of the ignorant worshipper, instead of lifting him up to hers. The motive
was good, the spirit amiable. She wished, like Paul,
to become all things to all men, in order to save them.
Only she carried it too far; and instead of raising
them, she was sometimes drawn down herself. To
meet the tastes and wishes of the Pagans, the early
church allowed a great deal of Paganism to enter into
Christianity.  The Pagans worshipped deified men,
and each had his favorite saint to whom he prayed.
The Roman sailors worshipped Venus, and called her
"Star of the sea," and  "Queen of heaven."   The
Pagans had sacred images, fallen from heaven. So
have the Catholics. The Pagans adorned their inmages with flowers, knelt to them, offered incense to
them, carried them in processions, and made pil
252 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   253
grimages to them. So do the Catholics. The Pagatis
had statues which winked and nodded. So have the
Catholics. The statues at Athens sweated before the
battle of Cheronea. The statue of Mars, at Rome,
sweated during Tully's consulship. Antony's statue,
on the Alban Mount, bled before the fight at Actium.
The ancient Romans kissed the toe of the Pontifex
Maximus, and the ancient Druids kissed the toe of
their chief priest. Holy -water is a Pagan institution.
It stood in the same part of the temples as in the
churches, and was used to touch the body. They
called it lustral water. Incense is Pagan. Roman
Catholics celebrate the Purification of the Virgin on
the 2d of February: the old Romans celebrated the
miraculous conception of Jove on the 2d of February.
The priest's vestments come from the old Roman
priests, and have the same names.
The Roman-Catholic churches are full of the relics
of saints. A church in Cologne has, built into its
walls, the bones of I I,OOO martyred virgins. In the
cathedral of Cologne are shown the skulls of the
three wise men who came to see the infant Jesus. It
is said there is extant, in different places, enough of
the wood of the true cross to make a dozen of the same
size as the original one. The holy shirt of Jesus is
kept in the Lateran Church at Rome, and also in the
church of Argenteuil, and a third is kept at Treves.
In the Middle Ages they exhibited to the people
a feather from the wing of the Archangel Michael; 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
one of the bones of Moses; one of the thorns from the
flesh of the Apostle Paul; some of the tears of the
Redeemer at the grave of Lazarus; and a member of
Parliament in England lately stated in his place that
in eight Catholic churches to-day there are flasks in
which is kept the milk from the bosom of the Holy
Virgin. But all this is of pagan origin. There are
immense buildings in India called Topes, erected before the birth of Christ by the Buddhists, over the
relics of their saint. One in Ceylon contains his tooth.
Another covers the place where his shadow once fell.
Pausanias says that in the Greek temples they preserved an egg believed to have been laid by Leda,
and some of the clay out of which Prometheus had
formed men. In a mosque near Mecca is kept the leg
of mutton which Mohammed was about to eat, but
which spoke to him and said, " Eat me not, I am
poisoned."
In many Roman-Catholic churches are to be seen
votive offerings presented by those who have been
cured from disease or saved from danger by the Virgin,
or by some saint. The walls are often entirely covered
with arms, legs, and hands made of marble, or silver,
hung up by those who have been cured of diseases in
those organs. But in the museums of Europe you
find exactly similar images and votive offerings,
from Roman, Greek, or Egyptian tombs. These same
images were suspended in the pagan temples, for the
same reason; and. the custom is often alluded to by
254 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.    255
classic writers. Certainly there is no harm in borrowing a custom from the ancients, if it is a good one. I
do not blame the Roman-Catholic Church for being
willing to take good things wherever it can find them.
The reverence for relics is natural to man. VVWho
would not be thankful to obtain a piece of the original
manuscript of one of Paul's Epistles to put into his
collection of autographs? Pilgrimages to the graves
of saints are natural. We go to Mount Vernon to see
the tomb of Washington; and Mr. Everett gave a lecture one hundred and fifty times in order to raise
money to buy the Mount Vernon estate for the nation.
But to allow false relics to be manufactured is not the
part of a true church. Thousands of pilgrims every
year go on their knees up the Scala Santa or Holy
Stairs at Rome, supposed to have been brought by the
Empress Helena from Jerusalem in 326, and believed
to be the steps of the house of Pilate. There is not
the least historic evidence, or probability, that when
Jerusalem was destroyed, these steps were preserved
or could have been. Yet the papal bulls give nine
years' indulgence for each of the twenty-eight steps so
ascended by a pilgrim.
" God is a spirit," said Jesus, " and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
Devotion is not enough to make Christian worship:
there should also be  truth.   The  Roman-Catholic
Church has an infinite good nature: it has taken
pains to suit its worship to the passions, prejudices, 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
and habits of mankind. Therefore its churches are
crowded, and its people are more devout than Protestants.  They worship more.   But is their worship
purifying and elevating? The Catholics worship more
than the Protestants. But the Mohammedans worship
more than the Catholics. The Hindoos worship more
than the Mohammedans. Is it the quantity or the
.uality of prayer which makes it acceptable to God?
Two commands Jesus gave in relation to prayer,
which seem to have been forgotten by his disciples.
One was, Do not pray much, as though that would
help you. Do not make long prayers, or use many
repetitions, for God knows already what you want,
and says, " Before they call I will answer, and while
they are yet speaking I will hear." The other command was, Do not pray in public, to be seen of men;
but go into your closet to pray. The chief part of the
public worship of the Catholic Church is in order to
be seen. It is an exhibition. When the priest performs mass he does not speak to the congregation, nor
with them, but in Latin; and he cannot be heard, for
he turns his back to the people. They follow him in
their prayer-books as well as they can, and look at the
elevation of the host when the bell rings. In Protestant churches there is an attempt at least to have all
pray together, minister and people.
However, we do not mean to say that Protestant
worship is what it ought to be, any more than the
Catholic worship. Each has faults of its own, and
256 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.       2
opposite faults. One has in it more of love than of
truth: the other more of truth than of love. That is
the distinction of the two churches all through. One
is cold, but pure; the other is warm, but turbid with
very mixed sentiments. Protestantism has more morality and less piety; Catholicism, more piety and less
morality. Romanism is more loving, gentle, friendly;
Protestantism is more truthful, pure, and conscientious.
All this goes into the worship. The Roman Catholics
put every thing into their worship, true or false, which
seems to do good to the worshipper, or to make him
happy. Protestants are so careful to have only what
is true, that their worship becomes an occupation for
the intellect, and grows cold.
One day, perhaps, we shall have a service which
will unite the merits of both; a ritual which  shal
combine fine architecture, music, and paintings, with
simplicity, purity, and Christian truth. Our churches,
standing always open, will be the religious homes of
the people, into which they can always turn, and rest
their souls from the weariness of daily tasks. They
will not be merely for prayer, but also for all humane
action, work, culture, and social intercourse.
In Catholic countries the poorest man or woman,
living in misery at home, has a share in the noblest
and most beautiful building in the city.  Every morning they have as good a right to go into their magnificent church, as the nobility or the king. There is fine
music; there is a daily mass; there are pictures, the
I7
257 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
masterpieces of art; there are statues and exquisite
carvings in marble and wood. There is something for
eye, ear, and heart, as well as for the intellect. Cannot
we do the same? Why should not the walls of our
churches be hung with illustrations of the life of Jesus,
great Protestant paintings? Why should there not be
every day, at suitable hours, the finest devotional
music? Why should we not have lighted, warmed,
and handsomely furnished parlors, opened every evening for conversation? Where the Catholics have done
well, let us not be afraid to imitate them; and, if we
can, to better their example.
z58 
CHAPTER IV.
RESULTS OF THIS DISCUSSION.
HERE  are two different views of the Christian
Church: the one places the essence of it in its
visible part, the other in its invisible part.
The first of these may be called the Church of the
Mustard Seed; the second, the Church of the Leaven.
The one is an outward, visible tree, in which the birds
come and build their nests. The second is the little
leaven, hid in three measures of meal, gradually leavening the whole.
The true Christian Church comprehends both ideas.
It is an inward communion, and an outward organization. Roman Catholics also believe in the inward
spirit of communion in the church, as its soul. Protestants also believe in an outward organization of the
church, as its body. Every living thing has a soul
and a body: without soul, the body is only a corpse;
without body, the soul is only a ghost.
Both Roman Catholics and Protestants believe in
the church visible and the church invisible. But the
one makes the visible church the root, and the invis 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
ible church the fruit; the other makes the invisible
church the root, and the visible church the fruit.
The Roman Catholic teaches that safety consists in
being in outward, open communion with the true,
visible church, of which the pope is the head. As
long as you are in that, you are safe. Protestants
teach that safety consists in being in inward spiritual
communion with the invisible church of truth and
love, of which the invisible Christ is the head.
The question resolves itself into this: What are we
to do first?  What is the first step to take?   The
Roman Catholic says the first thing to be done is to
have faith in the visible church, and to submit to its
authority; till this is done, nothing is done; when this
is done, all things else will follow. The Protestant
says the first thing is to be united to the invisible
church by faith in Christ, and obedience to him;
when this is done, all is done.
The essential religion of the Roman-Catholic Church
is in the sacrament. A sacrament is an outward act,
which, when duly performed, conveys an inward
power. The absolute importance of being in communion with the visible church lies in this,- that
otherwise you cannot have access to the sacraments,
which are essential to the life of the soul.
Any Protestants, therefore, whether Baptists, HighChurch Episcopalians, or others, who make any external ordinances essential to salvation, are really
planted on the Roman-Catholic idea of the church,
260 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.   261
and not on the Protestant idea. The great growth of
the Baptist body in America is because they make
of baptism a sacrament; implying that no one is safe
until he is baptized. If you wish to increase the visible church, you can easily do so, by making it essential
to salvation to belong to it.
The Roman-Catholic principle, as distinguished from
the Protestant, is this: "Do good, and you will be
good."  The Protestant principle is: "Be good, and
you will do good."
The Catholic begins on the circumference and works
in to the centre; the Protestant begins at the centre
and works out to the circumference.
There is evidently truth in both principles. An
outward action, good or bad, reacts on the soul. An
inward conviction, intention, affection, works its way
out into the conduct. Consequently, it will not do to
condemn wholly the Roman-Catholic principle. The
real objection is not that it is false, but that it becomes
false by being stated exclusively.  If you say, "A man
may be made better by joining a church, and receiving
its sacraments," you say what is true. If you say, "He
can be made better only by joining the church, and receiving its sacraments," you say what is false.
Materialism  says, "We  are made what we  are
by outward circumstances, and outward influences."
Spiritualism says, "We  are made what we are by an
inward formative principle." One teaches that the
body makes the soul; the other, that the soul makes 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
the body. Materialism is at one with the RomanCatholic theory; Protestantism with the transcendental
theory.
To show how entirely the principle of the RomanCatholic Church is to work from without, I quote the
commandments of the church from St. Vincent's Manual (page 25).
"COMMANDMENTS  OF THE CHURCH.
"I. The Catholic Church commands her children, on Sundays and holy days of obligation, to be present at the holy
sacrifice of the mass, to rest from servile work on those days,
and to keep them holy.
"2. She commands them to abstain from flesh on all days
of fasting and abstinence; and on fast days to eat but one
meal.
"3. She commands them to confess their sins to their pastor, at least once a year.
"4  She commands them to receive the blessed sacrament
at least once a year, and that at Easter, or during the paschal
time.
"5. To contribute to the support of our pastors.
"6. Not to marry within the fourth degree of kindred, nor
privately without witnesses, nor to solemnize marriage at certain prohibited times."
The condemnation of the Roman-Catholic Church
is in the extravagance of its pretensions. If it demanded less, it would receive more. It declares itself
the one infallible, apostolic, holy church, out of which
is no salvation. By this extravagance it incurs the
Master's sentence: " Whoso exalteth himself shall be
262 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
abased." For this arrogant assumption implies that
there are no Christians outside the Church of Rome:
consequently no Christian goodness. Therefore every
good man and woman in Protestant Churches is a
refutation of the Roman-Catholic claim.
The assumption of Rome is not that it produces a
better sort of Christianity than is created by Protestantism, but that its own kind is the only kind. It
ought to follow that all the goodness of Christendom
is contained in Roman-Catholic countries. These
should be full of holiness, truth, purity, conscientiousness, and love. The difference should be so evident as to need no argument. But it is not so. The
morals of Protestant nations are at least as good as
those of Catholic nations. Hence the Catholic assumption is. untenable, and the Catholic claim is
false.
Protestantism has been long enough in the world to
enable us to judge of this. Jesus teaches us that the
tree is known by its fruits. He declares that a good
tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree
good fruit.  "By their fruits ye shall know them."
Let us apply this test to the Roman-Catholic and Protestant Churches.
A legitimate fruit of the Roman-Cathlolic tree is
persecution  on account of opinion.   The  Roman
Church assumes to know certainly what doctrines are
true and what false.   But false doctrines, it says, if
believed, will destroy the soul for ever. If by burning
263 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
a few hundred or a few thousand individuals, it can
save whole nations from becoming heretics, it saves
hundred of millions from eternal fire. Accordingly,
it holds itself justified in so doing. Hence, by a natural consequence, come the Inquisition, Torquemada,
Alva, the Bartholomew Massacre.
The present pope, in his " Encyclical Letter" and
"Syllabus," declares this doctrine very plainly.  In
the "Encyclical," he says there are those "who dare
to teach.. against the doctrine of the holy Scriptures,
of the church, and of the holy Fathers, that condition
of society the best, in which the civil power does not
recognize the obligation to coerce by enacted penalties
the violation of the Catholic religion, except so far as
the public peace may require it." He also calls it remarkably impudent to affirm " that the church has no
right to coerce the violators of her laws by temporal
punishments."   In the twenty-fourth section of the
"Syllabus," he also condemns the opinion that " the
church has no power to employ force, nor has she any
temporal power, direct or indirect." It may be said
that Catholics generally do not share this view.
But we can scarcely open any Catholic journal without finding some declaration in this spirit.  Thus the
"Univers," the ultramontane  journal, published in
France, speaks thus: -
"A heretic, examined and convicted by the church, used
to be delivered over to the secular power, and punished with
death. Nothing has ever appeared to us more natural, or
z64 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
more necessary. More than one hundred thousand persons
perished in consequence of the heresy of Wickliff; a still
greater number by that of John Huss. It would not be
possible to calculate the bloodshed caused by the heresy of
Luther, and it is not yet over. After three centuries we are'
at the eve of a recommencement. The prompt repression of
the disciples of Luther, and a crusade against Protestantism,
would have spared Europe three centuries of discord and of
catastrophes, in which France and civilization may perish.
It was under the influence of such reflections that I wrote
the phrase which has so excited the virtuous indignation of
the red journals. Here it is:' For my part, I avow frankly
my regret is not only that they did not sooner burn John
Huss, but that they did not equally burn Luther; and I regret, further, that there had not been at the same time some
prince sufficiently pious and politic to have made a crusade
against the Protestants."'
If it be thought that such doctrines cannot be held
by Catholics in America, we refer to the following
passage extracted from Mr. Orestes A. Brownson's
"Review," to show the contrary. Mr. Brownson is
an American, educated a Protestant, for many years
the advocate of the broadest religious liberty. If such
a man as this, on becoming a Catholic, defends persecution, it is evident that nothing in modern civilization,
or modern education, can neutralize the logic which
carries every consistent Catholic to that conclusion.
Thus spoke Mr. Brownson, some years ago indeed;
but he has never retracted his declaration.
"The church is a kingdom and a power, and as such must
have a supreme chief; and his authority is to be exercised
265 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
over states as well as individuals. If the pope directed the
Roman Catholics of this country to overthrow the constitution, sell its territory, and annex it as a dependent province to the dominions of Napoleon, they would be bound to
obey. It is the intention of the pope to possess this country."
In another Romish periodical, a writer signing himself " Apostolicus," thus confirms the bold statement of
the more illustrious writer:
"I say, with Brownson, that if the church should declare that the constitution and the very existence of this
or any other country should be extinguished, it is a solemn ordinance of God himself; and every good Catholic
would be bound, under the terrible penalty pronounced
against the disobedient, to obey."
The " Freeman's Journal," the organ of the Archbishop of New York, also says,
"The pope of Rome has supreme authority over every
square foot of surface on this globe. His rights are circumscribed only by the ends of the earth, and the consummation
of the ages."
Persecution for opinion's sake is therefore one of
the fruits native to this Roman-Catholic tree. Whenever and wherever it does not bear this fruit it is because it is feeble, and grows in an uncongenial soil.
Give it strength enough, and this fruit will immnediately reappear. But usually it has not been wanting.
Witness the crusade preached againist the Albigenses,
in the thirteenth century, by order of Innocent III., in
which Arnold, the papal legate, triumphantly declared
that he had put to the sword, in one city, twenty thotu
266 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
sand persons, sparing neither rank, sex, nor age. Witness the thirty-one thousand nine hundred and twelve
persons burnt alive in Spain alone, by the holy Inquisition, between I633 and I8o8. Witness the Bartholomew Massacre in France, to commemorate which,
medals were struck in Rome by order of the Pope.
Witness the horrible cruelties of Alva in the Netherla.nds,by order of Philip II.,who only lived to obey the
Church of Rome, and do as his confessor ordered him.
Is the church which has ordered and permitted
these cruelties and atrocities the only holy and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. who came "not to destroy
men's lives, but to save them"?  Do these bitter fruits
prove the tree to be the blessed and true vine, outside
of which is no Christianity?
If it be said that Protestants have also persecuted,
there are two answers. First, when Protestants persecuted, it was done in opposition to their principles;
and the logic of those principles soon put an end to
the persecution. But when Catholics persecute, it is
in accordance with their principles; and the logic of
those principles continually tends to reproduce the
persecution. Secondly, Protestants do not profess to
be the only true Christians, and therefore are not expected to be so much better than the Catholics. But
Catholics, because they claim a monopoly of Christianity, are bound to be free from all that is inconsistent
with its principles.
Another fruit of true Christianity is social progress,
267 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
and an advance in national life. Roman Catholics
then, if their assumption is correct, ought to be manifestly far in advance of Protestant countries in science,
art, literature; in comfort, wealth, population. longevity; in good government, in the administration of
justice, in the reform of criminals and vicious persons;
in general education; in charitable institutions; in
private morality, purity of manners, peaceful homes,
general goodness. Now, if we compare Catholic nations with Protestant, do we find the former thus preeminent? Are Spain, Austria, Italy, Portugal, where
the Catholic Church has ruled with absolute authority
until the present time, so very much superior to Protestant Switzerland, Holland, Prussia, England, that he
who runs can read their vast advantage? On the contrary, has not the result of this long Catholic teaching
been in Italy, Spain, and Austria, a revolt against the
church itself, often accompanied with a hatred of all
religion?
Here are a few statistics of education: * The city of
Turin, in I848, while Catholic, spent 43,762 francs
on  education.   It now  spends  one  million.   In
x86o, under the good Catholic Bourbons, Naples
had  only  42  schools,  and  3,oo0  pupils.    Now
it has  iii schools,  and  I7,ooo  pupils.   All  the
Italian governments together, before I8o, spent only
8,ooo,ooo francs. Now they spend 40,oo0o,o00oo. In
* See Contemporary Review, x869, page 391.
268 
IROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
I865, Italy, which had always been taught by the ecclesiastics, contained, out of every Ioo men, 72 who
could not read nor write,- and out of every Ioo
women, 84 who could not read nor write. In Protestant and Catholic Europe, out of every io,ooo persons, there are in the schools,- in Prussia, I,520; in
England, I,4oo; in Holland, I,280; in France, I,66o;
in Belgium, I;44; in Austria, 830; in Spain, 620; in
Italy, 500; and in Russia, I50. Are the countries
under Roman-Catholic influence as immeasurably superior to Protestant nations, in point of education, as the
Roman theory requires? And shall we, in the United
States, give up our unsectarian system of education, and
adopt the sectarian system of the Catholic Church?
This is what it asks us to do. It demands of us to
change the grand system of free schools, the best institution of the state, in order to gratify the tastes of
foreign priests, and emigrants from Europe. We receive them to our country; we make them citizens;
many of them come as paupers, and in a few years
become prosperous under our institutions. Then they
ask us to give up our American system of universal
education, which puts one in five out of our whole
population into the schools, and take that of Italy
which educates one out of twenty. But the American
people have been at school too long to be deceived by
the arguments of Mr. Hecker and his Jesuit friends.
As, according to Scripture, the meek are to inherit
the earth; and as, according to Romanism, only the
269 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
Catholics can possess Christian meekness, it follows
necessarily that the Catholic nations should far surpass
the Protestant nations in all outward prosperity. They
ought to be the wealthiest, strongest, best governed.
In them alone, there ought to be the union of order
and freedom, respect for law, and individual libecty.
When the Reformation came, the Catholic writers predicted that it would end in anarchy and ruin, that
every Protestant nation would be brought to utter destruction. For example, says a writer in the " Revue
des Deux Mondes" (Jan. 15, I870), -
"Bossuet, saluting with an eloquent voice the court of the
widow of Charles I., believed himself able to enter into the
counsels of the most high, in predicting that England was
doomed to eternal wars, and that there was no possible remec(ly for her evils except in returning to her ancient faith and
obedience.  This prophecy was uttered by Bossuet twenty
years before the final banishment of the Stuarts, which has
given to this reprobate nation the longest period of power,
peace, and freedom, ever enjoyed by any people of the world."
It is a favorite argument with our Roman-Catholic
friends that Protestantism tends to infidelity and atheism. We must choose, they say, between Rome and
utter infidelity.
A very careful, and apparently a very well-informed,
writer in the "London Spectator" (June 20, I869)
takes a very different view of the situation. We quote
a few passages:  "One of the most marked signs of the times in Catholic
countries is the extent to which irreligion is becoming a reli
270 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
gion, a fanaticism as fierce and as propagandist as that of any
creed has ever been. The change is not so perceptible in the
Protestant States, where irreligion tends towards indifferentism, or rather to a tone of mind lower even than that. This,
however, is not the tone of irreligion in the Catholic countries
of the Continent. There the new attitude of Catholicism, its
fiercely aggressive obscurantist and persecuting tone, has
irritated scepticism to passion, to a hatred of Catholicism
and its ministers, which in its ferocity and the concreteness
of its manifestations recalls the days of the first French
revolution. The laughing scepticism of'polite society' is
vanishing away, and in its place we have a propagandist spirit
which cannot be content without overt acts.
"Men write, it is reported, from all parts of France to congratulate M. de Sainte-Beuve, most brilliant among essayists
and among the few remaining masters of the lost art of conversation, to congratulate him on maintaining the'sacred
cause' of materialism in the Senate; and one such correspondent signs himself a member'of the grand diocese,'
thus making of denial not only a creed, but an ecclesiastical
organization. Others, said to be thousands in number, bind
themselves by oath never to accept the services of the Church
in life, in death, or after death; to be married by civil ceremonial, to reject the' last offices,' -which in Catholic countries have a social as well as religious importance, - and to
be buried in unconsecrated ground. Our readers remember
the astounding explosion of materialism among the students
from all parts of the world who assembled at Liege to advertise their scorn and hatred of the ideas involved in the words
'God,' and'soul,' and'revelation,' and'church,' a scorn
and hate to which words seemed inadequate to give expression except in phrases that smelt of blood.
"In Belgium, where Ultramontanism has selected its battleground, materialism, utter and propagandist, is the creed of
all but the religious, and is accompanied by a desire not
271 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
merely to quit, but to put down the church as an evil thing, a
foe to human society. The struggle is regarded as one between civilization and the Syllabus, as a warfare between
irreconcilable ideas, in which every weapon is to be welcomed
and quarter is disgraceful. M. de Montalembert, who, if a
bigot, is furthest of mankind from a fool, declares publicly
his belief that Paganism is winning, that the Continent is on
the eve of a burst of irreligion, or hatred to religion, such as
even the Revolution did not produce, in which all institutions
claiming to be divine will be overthrown, and men commence
the organization of a new and secularist world.
"That revolt of the schoolmasters in Austria was a revolt of
the leaders of the peasantry, and was directed against ideas
as well as against priests. It is stated that the Kaiser has
admitted to the Vatican that on religious matters he is not a
free agent; that all his soldiers could not enable him to veto
the'Godless bills;' and whether this account is correct or
not, it is certain that the Austrian masses never got so excited
on any secular matter. We have often reminded our readers
of the fact that a city riot in Belgium always includes an
attack on priests or monasteries; and the curious state of
affairs in the department of Charente is a present illustration
of the state of feeling. The priests there are being protected by
Lancers from the hands of their flocks, who, were the soldiers
withdrawn, would tear them in pieces. The very best friends
the clerical order can have are the few highly intellectual
men who strive to reconcile Rome with the modern world,
who maintain that Christianity is compatible with any form
of material civilization. To such men, the only men who
stand between them and the materialists, and the only teachers who might in the last resort teach the masses that no
dogma can produce hunger, that freedom is consistent with
belief in the real presence, and that the unity of the church
does not increase the conscription, the Ultramontanes, constrained by Rome, impelled by fear for themselves, driven by
272 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
terror for the future of mankind, offer the Syllabus, under
penalty of being considered foes like the Voltairians and the
materialists. Naturally, the intellectual Catholics and the
laity refuse, being unable to deny what they see,- that civilization is good; and the church is really reduced to what its
enemies call it, a corporation hostile to society, and as such,
in the judgment of those enemies, to be ecrasee, razed off
the ground it cumbers. The church offers in Catholic Europe
only the alternatives of abject obedience or hostility; and
Europe, unable to obey, without discretion accepts the alternative. It is not with pleasure, but with pain, that we record
a growing doubt whether M. de Montalembert is not in the
right; whether, if Rome does not change her policy, Europe
may not see an explosion of irreligion, or fanatical hatred to
religion of every kind, false and true alike, which will make
the last quarter of this century the darkest through which
modern man has passed. We like not Catholicism, with its
sacerdotal claims, or Ultramontanism, with its machine-like
obedience; but either is better, Hindooism is better, we had
almost written Fetichism is better, than the foul creed which
papal madness is establishing, -the creed which has for its
solitary profession the dogma,' Sugar is sweet."'
Some Catholic controversialists remind us that a
great many Protestants in New England have gone
from orthodox Protestantism to Unitarianism and Universalism, and that many have gone from these to
transcendentalism, rationalism, radicalism; and, for
aught I know, some have gone on from these to
atheism.
But this does not prove that Protestantism is logically bound to go on to Unitarianism, Universalism,
radicalism, and atheism.  It does not prove that there
i8
273 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
is no logical stand-point between Romnanism and
atheism. For, suppose we admit that, as a matter
of fact and history, atheism comes out of radicalism,
radicalism out of Unitarianism, and Unitarianism out
of Protestantism; where did Protestantism, as a matter
of fact, come from? Did it not come out of Romanism? Martin Luther and all the original Protestants were Catholics before they became Protestants.
If, therefore, you say that because atheism comes out
of Protestantism, therefore Protestantism is the mother
of atheism; then Catholicism is the grandmother of
atheism, for Protestantism came from it.
I grant that the tendency which takes men from Romanism to Protestantism is the same tendency that
afterwards takes them on to rationalism and atheism.
It is the tendency to free thought. It is the tendency
to throw off human authority and to think for one's
self. Out of that tendency came Protestantism; out
of that tendency, carried to an extreme, comes atheism.
But who says that logic requires us to carry a principle
to extremes? How does it appear that it is reasonable
to rush from one extreme to the opposite?
Catholics believe that there is a tendency in Protestantism toward rationalism and atheism, and conclude from that, without proving it, that this is a
logical and rational tendency. But we do not reason
so in other things.  We usually suppose that the rea sonable view is between two extremes. Horace says,
"While fools shun one extreme, they run into another."
274 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.    275
The tendency of a cautious man is to be too cautious, that is, timid; the tendency of courage is toward
rashness; the tendency of self-respect is to pride; the
tendency of humility is to diffidence. But we do not
usually say that, therefore, there is no rational and logical ground between rashness and cowardice, between
pride and diffidence. Then why should we say that
if we believe in God and Christ, we must also logically believe in the Roman Church and all its assumptions? Is there no medium between atheism and
superstition, between bigotry and scepticism? When
in all other things we consider it irrational to go from
one extreme to another, why consider it rational in
religion? Protestantism is the true medium between
Romanism, which submits reason to authority, and
that ultra-rationalism which, like the spider, spins its
whole web out of its own bowels.
But, in truth, Protestantism, instead of helping the
tendency of free thought toward atheism, hinders
it: it keeps men from atheism, instead of sending
them forward into it. In Roman-Catholic countries,
as soon as a man begins to doubt the infallibility of
the church, he goes right on into atheism.  In Protestant countries, when a Roman-Catholic doubts, he
becomes a Protestant, a Unitarian, or at worst a deist.
The greatest outbreak of atheism, in modern times, was
in France, shortly before the French Revolution. Now
the Protestants had been extirpated by Louis XIV.;
the Huguenots were driven out of France, and it was 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
left purely Catholic. Yet in two generations nearly
the whole intellect of the country had gone over into
atheism. Dr. Priestley, being in Paris, shortly before
the French Revolution, in the company of some
savans, said he did not believe there was one real
atheist in the world. " Count us," replied one of the
Frenchmen: "every one here, except yourself, is an
atheist." Almost the only men of eminence, not
atheists, were Voltaire and Rousseau. Rousseau was
brought up as a Protestant in Geneva: Voltaire was a
great student of English Protestant writers, like Locke
and Newton. As soon as free thought breaks out in
the Catholic Church, it goes directly into atheism.
There  is no  stopping-place.   Blanco  White  testifies the same about Spain;  and Protestantism had
been rooted out of Spain by the inquisition. The
same thing is true in Italy.   Protestantism is the
safety-valve for free thought. The Roman Church
fastens it down, and the result is an explosion.
But, suppose that doubt does not come out, is the
man or nation any better for that? The policy of the
Roman Church is to repress all outbreaks of heresy:
the policy of Protestant countries is to let them come
out. That is why you often see and hear more of
scepticism in Protestant countries than in Catholic.
Let it be understood that we are now not opposing
Catholicism as a religion, but only its extravagant assumptions. If it were contented to take its place as
one denomination, one expression of Christianity, we
276 
FROM ROMANISM TO PROTESTANTISM.
should not be called on to oppose it. But it is because
it arrogantly claims to possess all of Christianity, and
therefore becomes an exclusive and persecuting church,
that we are bound, in the interest of Christian liberty,
to oppose its pretensions, and to show their emptiness.
The day will come, let us hope, when these pretensions will be laid aside. When, in the providence
of God, national churches are established everywhere
independent of Rome, we may see the end of papal
assumption. Then every church will admit itself to
be an organ, and only one, in Christ's body; each cooperating with the rest for the good of all.
277  
FOURTH STEP.
FROMN THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT. 
11 Tb7rveu    t rt r  C()o,7rOotvV,
.n crap~ OV'K 60,-?Xl o~dv'6."
John vi. 63.
11'Ov di' To' 7ai  icvpiov, IK- c;Lev()Epia."
2 Cor. iii. 17. 
CHAPTER I.
THEOLOGY AND RELIGION.
N this last and briefer division of our little work, we
shall treat of the future of Christianity. We have
seen that Protestant Christianity is an advance on Romanism. But it does not follow from this that a poor
Protestant is better than a good Catholic, nor that
there is nothing good in the Church of Rome which
Protestants do not possess.   In truth, each church
might learn something from the other; for each has
advantages which the other needs, and deficiencies
which the other might supply.
The Reformation was a providential event, came
when it was needed, and has done an immense good
to the world. Still, it has done some harm. It destroyed the outward church unity previously existing,
and has niot yet substituted a better kind. Each church
has taken to itself a part of the Christian life, and is
wanting in another part. Rome has more of order,
system, organization, unity; the Protestant Church,
more of freedom, variety, activity, and progress.  In
Romanism there is more of sentiment, more of wor 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
ship, more of the womanly and affectionate side of
life. In Protestantism there is more of conscience,
of truthfulness, of intellectual activity, more of the
manly side of life. Each needs what the other has;
and the church of the future must unite the advantages
of both.
But this reconciliation can only be effected by going
down deeper, and going up higher, in the Christian life.
We must forget the things behind, and reach out to
those before. We must pass from the letter of Christianity to its spirit. And the first step is to comprehend the difference between theology and religion.
So long as these two are identified, sectarianism and
bigotry will continue to divide the church. If I believe
that the soul is saved by truth, as the Scripture asserts,
and then confound truth in the soul with the form
in which it is expressed, I shall consider my particular
form of truth essential to salvation. Then I cannot,
and ought not, to tolerate any variety. " Truth is
one," I say. " If I am right, you are wrong, and vice
versd." It is therefore essential to Christian progress
to see that the letter of truth is one thing, and the
spirit of truth something very different; in other words,
to see the difference between theology and religion.
What then is religion?
Religion is looking up, with reverence, love, and
homage to the Invisible Perfection, - not in us, but
above us. When I see the honest and faithful dog,
looking up with devoted affection to the mysterious
282 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
mind of man, there is a certain rudimental religion in
that loving gaze; more so, I think, than in any mere
effort at self-improvement or self-culture. Religion lifts
us above ourselves in the admiration of something
better and higher. If the God I worship is not as
good as I am; if I think him more powerful, but unjust, vindictive, cruel, -then this is not religion, but
superstition. It does not lift me up, but drags me
down. When we find in ourselves something higher
than ourselves, - purer, nobler, better, - we then are
listening to God's voice in the soul. We are tempted,
we go astray, we often do wrong; but there is a voice
within, a voice of eternal right, speaking in the conscience, which never consents to our wrong. It is
something higher than we are; it is God speaking to
us as the eternal right.
We are often poor, mean, low, but there is in the
soul an ideal of something better than we. In the midst
of our folly and fault, there stands before us the pure
image of serene goodness, and we cannot but reverence
it. This also is God, showing himself to the soul;
and when we catch a glimpse of this infinite beauty,
purity, holiness, - not in us, but above us, - we have
a sense of religion. When we look constantly, steadily,
deliberately at this image of perfect goodness, we
become religious. The sight and worship of this
supreme excellence is religion. Putting it into words,
and defining it in propositions, is theology.
There are hours in which I catch in nature the sense
283 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
of a universal presence; above nature, yet in it. In
the infinite beauty of a summer day; in the solemn
majesty of a winter night; in the sublimity of ocean
lashed by the tempest into black roaring waves, over
whose slippery sides the vessel staggers and reels
through the pitiless storm; in the deep stillness of
autumn woods, where no sound comes but the dropping of nuts or the faint whistle of the lonely bird, -
amid all these scenes there comes up in the soul the
sense of a great unity, a substance below all, a power
above all, a life within all; and we come face to
face with God. This is religion. Analyzing this
sentiment, and stating it in metaphysical formulas, is
theology.
When I open the Gospels, and read the words of
Jesus, I find myself in sunshine. Light and warmth
are united in his teachings, inseparably. The light
warms, the warmth illuminates. He makes goodness
lovely, natural, simple, easy. He is no austere moralist, no cold lawgiver, but a man among men; not
bound by the etiquette of religious ceremonies, but
just as willing to take a walk with his disciples on the
Sabbath as on any other day. He does not use the
stereotyped language of piety; but he teaches by the
dough in the bread-trough, by the door through which
he passes, by the net his disciples are pulling out of
the water, with good and bad fish sticking in its
meshes. He makes God seem near, and heaven close
by, and life full of good opportunity, and every soul
284 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
capable of goodness. He is my friend, my teacher,
my brother; and his thought seems to become a part
of mine. That is religion. Then some learned man
comes and defines Jesus; saying how much of him is
Irman, and how much divine; and shows me how it
is proper to talk of him according to the metaphysics
of Aristotle. That is theology.
Perhaps I have never prayed; or I have said my
prayers, repeating by rote some formula. God has
seemed a great way off, and very high up, and I do
not know whether he hears me or not. If I speak to
him, I think it proper to praise and adore him very
much, using the grandest words I can find. But some
day, in my hour of need, - in my great sorrow, when
the darling of my heart lies cold by my side; when
my love is deceived; when all my hopes are shattered, -
I suddenly find myself talking with my God, as though
he indeed were close by, and could help me into his
peace. In a moment, every thing in my heart is
changed. "He has rebuked the winds and waves,
and there is a great calm." After that I know what
prayer means. After that I go to God just as I am, -
poor, weak, sinful, -and talk with him as a friend.
After that, whenever I feel too weak for my work, I
just look up, inwardly; and I find myself fed with the
daily bread I needed. This is religion. But when I
take these experiences, classify them, philosophize
about them, and state them as an article of faith,
that is theology.
285
. 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
If I have this threefold experience of God; if I find
him in nature and providence as a universal Father,
taking care of all his children, sending sun and rain on
the evil and the good alike; if I find him as taught by
Christ, and shown in his life, as the friend of my soul;
if I find him also in my heart in prayer, giving me
light and peace,- how does it help me to be told that
this is a trinity, and that God is three persons in one
substance? Such a statement may or may not suit my
intellect; but how does it help my heart?
Religion belongs to the heart; it is love. Theology
belongs to the head; it is speculation. But love is one
and the same thing always, while speculation is always different. Love is always one. A mother's love
for her little child is the same, whether she is a queen
in Buckingham palace, or a beggar nursing her baby
under a hedge.  A gentleman told me that he went to
church in the Isle of Wight, where Queen Victoria
was also worshipping. After church he stood to see
her come out with her husband and babies; and reported her as saying, " Shall we go home, Albert, or
shall we take the children to drive?"  It did not seem
a very memorable speech to bring back to America;
but he remembered it, because it showed him that a
queen was just like any other mother after all. That is
why we all are thrilled with poetry; for poetry speaks
the language of the heart. When the baby in Homer
cries because his father has his helmet on, and Hector
takes it off in order to kiss his child,- that touch of
286 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
nature overleaps the twenty-five centuries between, and
makes Hector and ourselves akin. But when the metaphysician explains the theory of paternal love, and
shows us its theology, we feel that we are several
thousand years apart.   Religion, which is love, is
always one and the same; theology differs with every
different thinker. Is it not curious, then, that Christians
should have always endeavored to unite the church by
theology, instead of by religion? It is as though we
should try to tie the rivers together with ropes made
of sand, instead of letting them flow together in the
ocean.
Religion, wherever you find it, as far as it goes, is
always one and the same thing. It is always reverence, faith, obedience, gratitude, hope, and love.
Father Huc, the Roman Catholic, found a religion
like his own among the Buddhist monks in the Lamasery of Thibet.   Bishop Southgate found a piety
like his own in the aged Mohammedan, bowing his
head to the ground in prayer to Allah. I knew a man
who thought that no Unitarian could be a Christian;
but who was converted from that infidelity, merely by
opening a chamber-door unexpectedly, and finding his
Unitarian friend on his knees before God. It has happened that men, in the bitterness and rage of sectarian
cruelty, have dragged their theological opponent to
the stake; but that when they have seen him calm
amid the flames, calling on God, they have rushed
away in despair, crying, "We are damned for ever:
287 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
we have burnt a saint." Religion, a sentiment, created
by the Spirit of God in human hearts, is one and the
same; while theology differs, with every age, with
every church, with every man.
But, it may be said, "Is there then no truth which
is equally true for all times and all men?" For example, is it not always true, and the same truth, to
say, "' There is one God, the Father?" And is not
that a theological statement, a proposition for the
intellect, the article of a creed?
I answer that the statement, "There is one God,"
does not mean exactly the same thing in the mouth
of a Unitarian, and in the mouth of a Trinitarian.
The Unitarian means by it a simple unity; the Trinitarian, a complex unity.  And when I say, "God is a
Father;" does that mean the same to him who has
been brought up by a kind and tender father, and to
him who never had a father, or had a brutal and vicious one? The child who has had a bad father, and
a good mother, would understand the truth better by
hearing, "God is my mother." Therefore no theological statement, even in the simplest form, means
the same thing to all minds. But filial love, in a
child's heart, so far as it is real, is always the same.
If it exist at all, and so far as it exists, it is the same
thing. There may be more or less of it, but the radical feeling is one.
The Apostle Paul, I think, taught exactly what I
have been saying, when he declared that knowledge,
288 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
even his own knowledge and teaching about God, was
partial, imperfect, and would come to an end; while
faith, hope, and love would never come to an end.
"We know in part, and we prophesy (or teach) in
part," says he; "but when that which is perfect is
come, then that which is in part shall be done away."
Modern philosophy teaches the same, in calling all
knr.owledge relative; made up of the sight of the thing
itself, and the capacity of the one who sees it. The
form of knowledge, which is the verbal statement,
changes and passes; but the substance of knowledge,
which is the inward experience in the soul, remains.
Knowledge passes; truth remains. There are, most
certainly,
"Truths which wake
To perish never," -
truths, hidden in the heart, concerning God, duty, immortality, love, and peace.
The question we are discussing, it will be observed,
is not whether right opinions are not desirable, useful,
and important, but whether they are essential. Can
a man be a true Christian whose opinions about Christianity are all wrong?  That is the point.  Now, since
we find good men holding all varieties of opinion, it is
evident that goodness does not depend on sound opinion. There is no sect so small, so poor, so heretical,
as inot to have its saints, its heroes, its martyrs. When
the Quakers came to New England as a new sect, no
wonder our Puritan Fathers thought it impossible that
I9
289 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
they could be Christians. The Quakers began by rejecting the whole Calvinistic theology,- the trinity, the
atonement, and total depravity. Then they declared
that the Bible was not the only rule, nor the highest
rule, of Christian faith and practice; but that the Holy
Spirit was above the Bible. Then they flatly' contradicted the fundamental article of all New-England
theology, -that'man was unable, until he was converted, to think or feel or act rightly. On the contrary,
they declared that there is in all men an inner light, -
a " light which lightens every man who comes into the
world," a " grace of God, bringing salvation, which has
appeared to all men," and that every man who heard
that voice in his soul might find the way to heaven.
Going further, they rejected baptism and the Lord's
Supper, and also the Christian ministry. And so, having renounced all orthodox theology, they ended by
disowning the existing church, and all ecclesiastical institutions, as the work of Satan. Then they proceeded
further still, and took up the foundations of civil society, -refused to take oaths, pay taxes, serve on juries,
do military service, or hold slaves. And to make
themselves still more unpopular with the common
people, -which resents mostly any innovation in external matters, - they dressed queerly, they talked
queerly, and they lived queerly. No wonder that our
Puritan Fathers were shocked, and tried to keep them
from coming into New England. And it is no wonder,
though it is a thing to be for ever lamented, that when
290 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
they could not keep them from coming here, - in those
dayts when every one persecuted, and thought persecution the right thing, -they should have hung them on
Boston Common. And yet, to-day, who questions or
denies the Christianity of the Friends? Who denies
tlat they have just as much religion, to say the least,
as any other communion?
In one sense, all right doctrines are essential to Christianity; that is, all are essential to its integrity as a
system of thought. So every organ, limb, and fibre is
essential to the integrity of the human body. The hairs
on the head, the nails on the fingers, are essential to
make a complete human being. A bald man, a deaf
man, a one-legged man is not wholly a man. But a
near-sighted man, or a man who has lost his arm, can
live. In theology, every doctrine is essential to the
integrity of the system. But no one, now, considers
the imputation of Adam's sin, or even election and
reprobation to be essential doctrines. Yet Lutherans
and Calvinists used to fight more savagely and bitterly
over these questions than any would do now about the
trinity. Logically, no part of a theological system is
unessential.   Every doctrine, down to the most minute, is necessary to the integrity of the whole. It is
idle, therefore, to select two or three, and say that these
are essential, and that those, and only those, are Christians who believe in them. One thing or the other,
Make the tree good, and all its fruit good; or else
make the tree corrupt, and all its fruit corrupt: for
the tree is known by its fruit.
29I 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
That the tree is known by its fruit is a fundamental
Christian axiom; but neither bigotry nor sectarianism
can accept it. They do not judge the tree by the fruit,
but the fruit by the tree. In the famous convention in
1869, held at Portland, of the different branches of the
Young Men's Christian Association, it was laid down
that all evangelical Christians might be members.
Some one asked, " Who  are evangelical Christians?"
and some one else answered, " Those who love the
Lord Jesus in sincerity." Then an honest man from
Fall River said there were Unitarians in his town who
loved the Lord Jesus as much as anybody else: were
they evangelical? To which a learned divine from
Pittsburg or Wheeling replied that a Unitarian could
not love Jesus: it was impossible. So he judged the
fruit by the tree. The tree is labelled a Unitarian tree;
then it cannot bring forth good fruit. The fruit looks
good, smells good, tastes good; it looks like love for
Jesus; it seems like honesty, piety, submission, penitence, faith. But it comes from a Unitarian tree;
therefore throw it away, it is all bad. But if we cannot know goodness when we see it, all the foundations
of belief crumble. How can Christianity be proved
to be true, unless we know what goodness is before
we become Christians? We argue that Christianity is
a religion favorable to human virtue; that it makes
men better; that Jesus himself was pure, holy, and
good beyond all precedent. But all this argument
gives way, if we are unable to tell a good man, until
we learn what creed he holds.
292 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
It is on this fundamental distinction, between religious experience which gives us a knowledge of God,
Christ, and Christianity, and theological speculation
which gives us only opinions about them, that the
battle of Christian freedom and Christian union is to
be fought and won. It is the only solid foundation for
either. So long as men believe Christianity to be a
matter of opinion, they will feel bound to be exclusive,
to separate, to persecute, to enslave their own minds
and those of others. Liberal Christians in all sects
are therefore fighting the battle of humanity and Christianity. They contend for that knowledge of God and
Christ of which Jesus speaks when he says," Flesh
and blood have not revealed it unto thee, Peter, but
my Father in heaven." No doctrine is essential which
man can teach man, which flesh and blood can reveal,
which can be packed into propositions, put into logical
boxes, and carried about by tract societies. All essential knowledge is born of life, and is the faith of the
heart.  "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness." Paul does not pray that Christ may dwell in
the heads of the Ephesians, but in their hearts.
Religion is the root of theology, not theology the
root of religion. The life is the light of man, not the
reverse. Filling the brain with doctrines about God
and Christ, before life has led the soul to see them,
often tends to benumb the spiritual nature rather than
to quicken it. Instead of teaching young persons doctrines and speculations about Jesus, lead them to Jesus
293 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
himself. Let them read his words, study his life, and
apply it daily in their own.  We can never know God
by speculation: we know him as we live from him
and to him, as we endeavor to serve him, as we come
near him in practical obedience, as we love and help
his children.
This distinction also is the guarantee of perfect intellectual freedom.  So long as we think that any form
of opinion, any method-of statement, may be essential
to salvation, we cannot examine it freely. We are
held by our hopes and our fears to certain conclusions,
before we begin to inquire. We are working in chains.
Let us admit and believe that a man may, in his speculations, be even an atheist, and if he is honest, yet
really be a Christian in his heart. Let us believe that
many a man who is all wrong in his theology may be
all right in his faith. Let it be seen that love alone
abides, -love, rooted in faith, made strong by hope.
Then we become free to inquire, modestly but faithfully, into all truth.
And this principle alone will produce union in the
church, and so enable it to convert the world to Christ
and God. Jesus in his last prayer intimates that the
world cannot be converted to him till his disciples are
one: " That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art
in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us;
that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
As long as Christians consent to unite only with those
who agree with them in intellectual results, so long
294 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
the church will never become one. But if they will
unite with all honest men who are seeking to know
God and Christ and to do right, then there is a chance
of their finally coming all to agree in opinion. But
the only real unity, the only unity which Christianity
demands, is THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT IN THE BOND
OF PEACE.
I lately saw a picture of Christ among the doctors.
The little child was sitting in the midst, and with
childlike ardor was reaching out his hands while he
uttered his thoughts about God and truth. The old
doctors were standing and sitting around; some searching their books to find an answer to his questions;
some asking each other what they thought about it;
some repeating, evidently from their memory, what
they had learned before. They represented the orthodox tradition; he, the immediate revelation. They
stood for sound, safe, conservative theology; he, for
that divine religion which makes all things new in the
heart, the life, and the world.
295 
CHAPTER II.
THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM.
HE  object of this chapter is to show what are
the essential unities of belief in the Christian
Church. I shall endeavor to present the creed of
Christendom, the faith of the true Catholic Church;
and to show how many more, and more important,
are the convictions in which Christians unite, thanii
those about which they separate and divide.
It is true that when we first look at the church, it
seems a mere battle-field of warring creeds and opposing sects. Sectarianism began very early among Christians, as far back as the days of the apostles and the
church of Corinth. Some were Paulists, some were
Apollosians, some Peterites, and some Christians, with
an emphasis on the first syllable, so as to make even
that name of union a sign of division. In a century
or two Christians were murdering each other in the
streets of Alexandria, about the difference beween
o6oov'ato  and OOlOt6WtO. In the tenth century the eastern and western churches divided on the question
whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
or from the Father and the Son. Afterwards came the
crusades against heretics, and the furies of the inquisition; and later still the horrible wars of religion, laying waste half of Europe. This now seems to us like
a hideous dream. At present we only persecute each
other by calling names; and even that luxury seems
fast disappearing. To be a misbeliever formerly was
to be a miscreant; now it is rather an honor. Men
whom no one would take the pains of listening to, if
they-preached the old-fashioned doctrines, have a considerable following if they are supposed to be the
founders of a new religion, or the denouncers of the
ancient faith.
The bitterness of old sectarian bigotry has very much
departed, but separation often exists where there is no
hostility. We have almost done fighting with each
other about our differences of opinion, but as yet there
is no union. Union will come only when we perceive
the fact that we really are at one in all essentials. At
present we only tolerate each other, and stand apart.
But when we realize that we agree in one hundred
points where we differ in one; that we agree in all
essentials, and only differ in unessentials; that the
practical working faith of all Christians is about the
same, then we shall be really willing to co-operate, to
unite, and to love each other. It is for this reason that
I shall now devote myself to showing in how many
things Christians are all agreed.
The first article in the creed of Christendom is this:
297 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
"We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth." Christians dispute in regard to
the metaphysical nature of the Deity, as to the mystery
of the Trinity and the hypostatic union. Some say that
there is a threefold personality -or a threefold mode
of being, or a threefold somewhat - in the Deity;
and others contend that there is not. But so obscure
and difficult is this question, that it is almost impossible
for the most acute theologian to express himself intelligibly concerning it, and it is quite impossible to'find
any Scripture terms in which to state it; and so it
resolves itself at last into a question of words,- not,
What ought we to believe? but, What ought we to
say? Meantime, all Christians believe God to be one,
in every practical sense. We do not worship a pantheon of Gods, as did the Greeks and heathen: we
worship one Supreme Being,- above all, through all,
and in us all. All Christians agree, as against atheism,
that there is a God; all agree, as against polytheism,
that there is but one God; all agree, as against materialism, that he is a Spirit; all agree, as against pantheism, that he is a person; all agree, as against
superstition, that he is infinitely good, not a God of
wrath, but of love; and all agree, as against enthusiasm and fanaticism, that he requires a reasonable
and a moral service, not one of madness or folly. No
doubt all kinds of aberrations have come into Christianity; there has been in it pantheism and polytheism,
materialism and superstition, enthusiasm and fanat
298 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
icism. But none of them has been accepted into the
creed of Christendom, all have been condemned by its
unanimous verdict. The doctrine of the universal
church has been, that there is but one God, the Father
Almnighty, Maker of heaven and earth; that he is a
Spirit; that he is one; that he is a person; that he is
love, and dwells in love; and that he asks for a manly,
free, and reasonable service.
The second article in the creed of Christendom is
this: " We believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of
God."
Christians dispute about the nature and rank of
Christ in the creation. Was he God? Was he man?
Was he some great archangel, above man, below God?
But those who call him God can only explain this
Deity by speaking of a mysterious union between the
Infinite Spirit and the human soul of Christ. And
those who call him man must also admit that he was
intimately united with God in thoughts heart, and will.
Even the most radical Christians do not call him a
common man, but a very uncommon man. Who, that
claims to be a Christian at all, doubts or questions the
purity, the truth, the humility, the courage, the human
sympathy of Jesus? Who denies that the truth he
taught has been for the healing of the nations? Who
can resist the conviction that the movement originated
by him is the greatest fact in human history? All
Christians are agreed here, - that he taught love to
God, and love to man, as the supreme law; and that
higher than this no one can go.
299 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
When we assert with all of Christendom, that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God, what do we mean? We
mean that his method of overcoming evil with good
is to conquer the sin and misery of the world.   We
mean that his truth is at last to convince all understandings, that his love is to win all hearts, and that
to his divine holiness every knee is to bow.   So he is
to be the Christ, the King of the world. He is our
master, because he reveals to us a higher spiritual law
than any other. He is our Saviour, because nothing
saves us front evil and sin like the conviction he imparts of the infinite tenderness and universal fatherly
love of God. And yet he is our brother, made in all
respects like his brethren.
The third article in the creed of Christendom is the
Bible.
All Christians believe in the Bible as the best of
books, - better than any other, sacred or profane.
They may differ about the way in which it was inspired. Some may think that the Holy Spirit played
on the writers as a man plays on a flute; some may
believe that every word and letter of the Bible is absolutely true. Others may believe the writers inspired
as all men are inspired, only more so; and may deny
that inspiration is infallibility. But all Christians see
in the Bible a book full of God, and full of truth. It
is sweetness and strength. It is comfort in sorrow; it
is guidance in duty; it lifts us near to God; it purifies
the soul. When we go to sit by the bedside of the
300 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
sick and dying, what words like these will lift the
heart to a sight of invisible eternal realities? What
preparation for the dangers of life, better than a
knowledge of these writings? It is a profitable book,all admit that, -profitable for doctrine, discipline, and
instruction in righteousness. All the churches believe
in the Bible.
The fourth article in the creed of Christendom is
the Holy Spirit.
" I believe in the Holy Ghost." Is there anly Christian who does not believe in the Holy Ghost? Christians
differ as to whether it is a person in the Trinity, and as
to whether its influences are irresistible or persuasive.
Some think it comes and goes; others, that it is God
with us always, ready to send love and truth into the
heart which is open to receive it. Some think that it
comes to put something in us which was not there
before; others, that it is like the influence of one soul
on another. I talk with my friend. I am angry. I am
unhappy. I am in a bad, wicked mood of mind. But
my friend is calm, strong, just, gentle, generous. As
I talk with him, somehow my bad passion melts away,
my evil purpose dies out of me. It is not his argument
which has convinced me; he has used none. It is his
Holy Spirit which has convinced me; that I could not
resist. So God's Holy Spirit convinces us when we
put ourselves in communion with him.
What should we be if we could not feel that ineffable presence? How desperate our life, if we did
30i 
STEPS OF BELIEF.'
not know that the infinite love is always waiting to
bless us.  As a man closes the curtains of his chamber,
and shuts out the day, so we often close our heart
against God, because we are determined on some
course which we know to be wrong. But as, when
we open the shutters, and draw the curtains, the light
streams in; so whenever we are willing to turn our
souls to God, his light is ready to illuminate us. We
all believe in the Holy Spirit, -the Spirit which leads
us into'new truth; which  enables Christianity to
make progress; which receives more light from the
greater experience of the church and the soul; the
Spirit which dwelleth with us, and shall be in us. The
creed of Christendom declares, "I believe in the Holy
Spirit."
The creed of Christendom has also included a belief
in the church.
Christians have contended and fought as to which
was the true church, but all have believed in some
church. All believe in the communion of saints, - in
the brotherhood of those who hold the same truth, serve
the same Master, seek the same heaven. The essence
of a church is where two or three meet together in the
name of Christ. Two or three men, with a strong
belief in any thing, make a church. Their belief draws
them together and keeps them in sympathy. We have
churches in politics, -the Democratic Church and the
Republican Church.  We have churches in reforms,the Anti-Slavery Church and the Temperance Church.
302 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
We have churches in society, - Aristocratic and Plebeian. We have Conservative clubs, Union clubs, and
Woman's-Rights clubs. Ideas organize associations;
the largest, deepest, highest ideas organize the largest
and most enduring associations. A church, in some
form, is a need of human nature.
There are those who stay outside of churches, and
prefer to spend their Sunday in reading, sleeping, or
taking a walk. I think, however, that they lose a good
deal. They excommunicate themselves from the blessed
sense of human brotherhood. In other places, men
meet with those related to themselves in some special
ways, - meet their customers, meet their associates,
meet those who belong to their clique. In the Church
of Christ they meet all God's children in universal
ways. Novalis said that Christianity was the last word
of Democracy. Christianity alone unites us with all
mankind. Those who think they have no need of the
church, who think they have outgrown the church, are
much mistaken. They grow small, narrow, puny, in
their isolation from the great tide of human life, which
only can flow together in the house of God, where all
are one before Him, the Universal Father.
Therefore Christians agree in accepting the church
as the brotherhood of believers.
And again: the creed of Christendom includes the
same moral law,- the same conceptions of duty, right,
honesty, purity, truth, generosity, patience, forbearance,
forgiveness, temperance, sobriety, love to God, and love
to man.
3o3 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
There has never been a denomination founded on
any new ideas concerning right and wrong. There
has never been any one which denounced another as
infidel because it disbelieved the golden rule. There
has never been any bitter theological controversy about
the meaning of the sermon on the mount. No church
has ever excommunicated its members for rejecting the
ten commandments. Bigotry has always consisted in
believing more than others, never in doing more than
others. The creed of Christendom has always contained, as its essence, love to God and love to man.
The creed of Christendom also includes a belief in
immortality and the future life.
What sect or party among Christians does not accept
this and cling to it? They differ as to the circumstances of resurrection, judgment, heaven, and hell.
Some insist that we shall rise again in the same material body; others that we shall rise in a spiritual body.
Some think the judgment of Christ is to be in one place
and at one time; others that it is a perpetual judgment,
taking place now, and to take place more fully hereafter. Some believe heaven and hell divided by physical barriers, and each to be a sort of receptacle, a place
into which souls are to be put. Others believe heaven
to be the state of the soul, -a state of love, peace, and
joy in God; and hell a state of the soul, - selfishness
and falsehood and bitter hatred. But all believe in
immortality, resurrection, heaven, and hell.
Again: there are different ways of believing in the
304 
FROM TIHE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
atonement of Jesus; but all Christians believe that
Jesus has in some way brought the soul to God.
One view assumes that it was necessary:lat Christ
should die, in order to produce an eflect on God. He
died to satisfv the wrath of God, or the holiness of God,
or the justice of God, or the moral government of God.
He died to reconcile two attributes in the divine nature; to enable God to be just, and merciful too. God
wished to pardon, but could not do it because his justice required him to punish some one. Christ said,
"IPunish me, and pardon them."  God did this, and so
was able to pardon without violating any principle of
justice. It was a supernatural transaction, something
taking place in the transcendental world. This is one
view of the atonement.
Another view is, that Christ died to reconcile man
to God, not to reconcile God to man. He died to bring
us to God, not to bring God to us. The effect of his
death, as of his life, was wrought on the human soul.
He came to make us see the infinite tenderness, the infinite pity, of our heavenly Father; to make us see that
he cares for us more than we care for ourselves. He
makes atonement, by making man and God one; by
making the church one; by making nations, races,
classes one; by doing away with war, tyranny, slavery,
envy, jealousy, and all uncharitableness.   It is no
transaction in the supernatural world, but one which
takes place here in time. Whenever tw6 who were
divided are reconciled by the gospel; whenever the
20
305 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
proud become humble, and the lowly courageous,
Jesus makes atonement. The atonement of Christ
is universal reconciliation, proceeding from a revelation of God's love.  That is the view of the atonement,
according to some thinkers. But all Christians believe
in the atoning, or unity-making power of Christ and
his gospel.
Once more: there are different ways of regarding
salvation by Christ, but all Christians believe in some
Christian salvation.
One view considers salvation as the rescue of the
soul from future suffering, from a future hell.  Jesus
has paid our debt: we can now be saved by believing
in him. It is a future salvation. It is escape from
future punishment. This is one view.
The other view regards punishment, in this world
and the next, as the natural consequence of wrongdoing; as something fixed in the very laws of nature,
something which cannot be avoided by any expedient,
and something which it is good for us to endure. The
object of punishment is to purify and improve. It
takes place here, and will take place hereafter. There
is no use in trying to escape it; it is inevitable.
Salvation does not consist, therefore, in removing punishment. It is rescue from sin. Jesus saves us by
giving us a new heart; teaching us to love what is
good; putting a new life into us, by which we can
rise above ourselves; bringing us into communion
with God and heaven. He is not a future, but a
306 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
present Saviour. He gives heaven here, the beginning
of heaven hereafter. Whenever a man, woman, or
child, makes a sacrifice for the sake of truth, he enters
into heaven. Whenever we are able to trust God, and
talk with him as a friend, we go into heaven. When ever we love Jesus, and try to do his work in the
world, and help his little ones, we are sitting in heavenly places with him. Jesus saves us by inspiring us
with faith, hope, courage;  by making us love our
fellow-creatures, as God loves themi.  He saves us, not
fromn any outward hell, but the hell of our own passions, our ungovernable desires, our cold hearts, our
bitter jealousy, our folly, recklessness, insincerity. He
saves us by giving us the love of truth, purity, goodness. This is the view of Christ's salvation, according
to many Christians. But all Christians believe in some
salvation through Christ.
Thus are we all baptized into the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost. The doctrine of the Trinity, which
has been made a narrow, unintelligible, and exclusive
formula, is one day, in a larger form, to be recognized
as the most inclusive of all doctrines; the fullest statement of the length, breadth, depth, and height of the
divine Pleroma, the fulness of him who filleth all
in all. It will include the past, the present, and the
future. When we say, " We believe in the Father,"
we include in that statement the declaration that whatever God has made is divine. The whole past is
divine. There is a sacred meaning in all nature,
3 O'/' 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
science, history. God is in all that has ever been.
from the foundation of the world. He has inspired
all the prophets of all religions; he has fed the souls
of his children in all lands and climes; he has disinherited none. He is the universal Father.
And when we truly say, " We believe in the Son,"
we shall accept every form of human nature as a part
of the universal church of Christ. Jesus, as the Son,
is to bring all men to his Father. Christ is to be the
great atonement, leading all souls to God.   Every
human being is a son of God, all are loved by him;
he wishes all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. As God the Father is in nature
and history, so through the Son he descends into
humanity, and unites himself with mankind. None
so poor, low, ignorant, as not to have a share in this
redeeming love. God, who as the Creator and Father
has been in all the past, as the Son is in the present life
of mankind, is with us now and here; so that now is
the accepted time, and now is the way of salvation.
And when we say that "we believe in the Holy
Spirit," we announce the great hope for the future.
All is to come right at last. Evil is to be overcome by
good. Progress is the law of the universe, and progress will never end.
When Jesus first told his disciples of the coming of
the Holy Ghost, it was in these words:
"I have many things to say unto you; buet you cannot
bear them now. But when that spirit of truth shall come,
it shall lead you into all truth."
308 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
The Holy Spirit, therefore, comes to complete revelation.  It fulfils what is in the four Gospels.   It
emancipates us from the letter of the New Testament,
and carries out its divine spirit more fully. It makes
Christianity not a stationary creed, but a progressive
religion. It enables it to accept the valuable results
of science, of heathen religion, and heathen philosophy, all that God has taught in other ways to his
children. It makes Christianity an advancing religion,
always abreast with the age; only a little before it, its
leader and guide.
I cannot think that this dead formula of the Trinity is
allowed to remain for nothing. I think it has a better
meaning than those perhaps know who hold it. To
me it means UNIVERSAL UNITY; Christianity showing
us God in all things, -in nature, life, history, mankind, the present, and the future.
This view of Father, Son, and Spirit confounds and
confiites all narrowness, -the narrowness of the science which rejects Christianity, and the narrowness
of the Christianity which rejects science. It rebukes
the narrowness of that sectarianism which rejects the
universal church of human brotherhood; the narrowness of that conservatism which rejects every coming
reform; and also the narrowness of reformers who
reject and neglect the great history of the past.
We worship God the Father, through the Son, and
in the Holy Spirit.
"One God, ile Father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in us all."
3o9 
STEPS OF BELIEF.
" One Lord, Jesus Christ," who is the way, the
truth, and the life. He is the door through which we
enter on our upward way; the bread which feeds
our life; the lamb slain from the foundation of the
world; showing us how God comes to dwell among
men, and to save all his children.
And " one Holy Spirit," the spirit of holiness, in
which we walk, speak, live; which shows us better
things to-day than we knew yesterday; which turns
Christian belief into Christian experience; which
makes us live Christianity, and not merely talk it
or think it. One Holy Spirit, dwelling in the hearts
of all good men and women and children, giving to
them all, all the good they have.
Thus this formula teaches us that the same God
who is above us is also the God who is with us, and
the God who is in us. One God, whether seen in
nature, or revelation, or life! One God, whether he
came in the past, comes in the present, or is to come
in the future!
When this view is realized, we shall have the true
Communion of Saints, by which God shall unite all
men in Christ, all men with each other, and all with
himself.
Thus we see the unities of Christendom: we see
how all Christians, no matter how much they differ,
are essentially one. They differ because they are
narrow; when they go deeper, and rise higher, they
come together.
31o 
FROM THE LETTER TO THE SPIRIT.
For they all believe in one God, one Christ, one
Bible, one Law of Duty, one Church Universal, one
Immortal Life, and one Holy Spirit.
Where they differ, it is because they know in part,
and see in part; where they agree, it is because they
supply the narrowness of their creed by the largeness
of their love.
Cambridge: Press of John Wilson & Son.
31 I 
r.)