ToD THU
One LCiit~oftc ainh gpilstofir, Lr~u{cO.
rIt        T
TOSHUA HUT, TINIGTON
NEW YOK -.'
THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY,
No. 9 BARCLAY SrT 
ENTERRD, according to Act of Congress, in the y tar 1868, by
To  CA"HOLIC PUBLICATION SOC IE.,
a the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New York. 
PREFACE.
THE author of the book herewith presented
to the reading community has requested me
to stand as sponsor to his first literary offspring.
I have undertaken this office with pleasure, oni
account both of the intrinsic value and merit
of the volume, and also of the special interest
and familiarity of the topics contained in its;
pages. It describes the interior history of a
mind travelling from Puritanism to the Catho —
lic Church over a long and circuitous route.
The writer who thus describes the process of
his own conversion is a genuine son of New,
England, descended from ancestors who, fromn
the first settlement of the colonies, have been;
honorably distinguished in church and state,
educated from infancy in the pure tradition
of the pilgrim fathers, a pupil of the ablest
.0 
Preface.
teachers of Yale, Princeton, and Andover sin,cere and earnest in his disposition, and therefore a competent witness regarding those things
of which he speaks. The history of such a mind
1is not purely individual, but also representa-tive; the mental analysis of a very perfect
specimen of a large class, completely disapipointed by New England theology, and yearning for a doctrine more satisfactory to the de:mands of reason, the dictates of conscience,
and the wants of the soul. It refutes the allegation that the tendency toward the Catholic
'Church is confined to the small section of
High-Church Episcopalians. This allegation
has an appearance of truth from the fact that
several converts to the Catholic Church from
'the unhierarchical denominations have passed
'through the middle region of Anglicanism.
The author of this book also tarried awhile at
the half-way house.  This only proves, however, that prejudice against the Roman Church,
ignorance of the true state of the question, and
hereditary prepossession in favor of everything
English have deluded their imagination for a 
Preface.
L/me. The movement toward the Episcopal
Church, which was initiated by Dr. Cutler, a
former president of Yale College, itself proves
a tendency toward Catholicity; although in
a majority of instances the individuals who
have felt it have stopped short of the logical
and legitimate result of the church principles
they have adopted. From various causes, so
well known that I need not specify them, our
English and American books of controversy
have been chiefly occupied with refuting the
illusory claim of the Episcopal Church to a
catholic character, and proving that church
principles logically require submission to the
supreme authority of Rome.   The  present
volume takes another course, and traces the
course of thought leading from popular Protestantism to the Catholic Church. It must
prove, consequently, very interesting and useful to a large class of persons whose case is
not adequately handled by the writers above
alluded to.
The popular Protestant theology has two
fatal defects: The first is. that it furnishes no
iii. 
Preface.
certain or exact criterion of doctrine; the second, that it gives no sufficient rule of action.
It cannot tell a man what he must believe or
what he must do in order to be a true follower
of Christ and child of God. Its failure has
become so manifest as to produce a very general suspicion that perhaps there is no positive
religion revealed by God, but that, if there be
one, it is the religion taught by the Catholic
Church. There is, therefore, a twofold tendency, on one side to scepticism, on the other hand
to a return to the boso,m of Catholic unity.
The first is the beginning of a suicidal mania;
the second, an impulse toward a new and more
vigorous life. This impulse will be quickened and directed in many souls, I doubt not, by
the present volume; and it is my heartfelt wish
that every one who reads it may attain to the
samne faith and peace in the true fold of Christ,
in which the struggles, doubts, and anxious
inquiries of the author have so happily termi
nated.               AUGUSTINE F. HEWIT.
ST. PAUL'S, NEW YORK, Feast of the Assumption, s86&
iv 
GROPINGS AFTER TRUTH.
MY DEAR 
I have decided upon a step which will probably
strike you with astonishment and dismay, but to
which I am impelled by an imperative sense of
duty. I have become a Catholic, or, as you and I
have always expressed it, a Romanist. I have accepted, as true and divine, doctrines which I often
joined with you in ridiculing; I have become addicted to practices which we have agreed in regarding as superstitious and idolatrous. But I assure you
that this is no sudden freak of mine. Though you
have been entirely unaware of it, my views in regard
to the Catholic Church have been undergoing a procecss of change for a year and a half; and during the
last six months a consideration of my own duty in
relation to it has so urged itself upon my mind, that
I could not shut it out even had I dared to do so,
and this I did not dare even to attempt. Wherever
I might be, or in whatever I might be engaged, i 
Gropings  fter 7ruth,.
would find my thoughts irresistibly drawn back to
this one subject, and the more I thoughl    f it, the
more I became involved in doubt  -_ perplexity.
Objections to the Catholic faith which had always
seemed to be conclusive, would suddenly be swept
away by answers presented to my mind with such
force and distinctness that they appeared to be
spoken in my ears; and I could not in some cases
resist the conviction that these thoughts, so new to
me then, though I have since read them in Catholic
books, were not my own, but were suggested by
some intelligence exterior to myself. I became
convinced that it was possible, at all events, that it
was the "still, small voice" of the Spirit of God
which was compelling me to listen; and so long as
there existed the smallest possibility of this, I did
not dare to stop my ears. It was while I was in this
state of mind that S, who had become somewhat alarmed at a remark made by me in a letter
to M, wrote me that she wished I would not
let myself be drawn into taking too much interest
in the Catholic religion. The caution was wellmeant, but it came too late. It is all well enough
to advise a man to shut his eyes and walk boldly
forward, so long as he is quite sure the way before
him is straight and level; but let his suspicions be
aroused in the slightest degree that his path ends
6 
Gropinzgs after Truth.l.
in a precipice, and he will prefer to see wlere he is
going.
I wish you to be convinced, also, that I hav.! not
depended upon my own wisdom in searching for a
solution of mny perplexities. I have been deeply
impressed throughout with a sense of my weakness and ignorance, and of my utter dependence
upon the guidance of Almighty God; and my prayer
to him and to our blessed Lord has been constant
and unceasing, night and day, that he would teach
me his will. I have cried to him as did the blind
beggar of Jericho: "Jesus, Son of David, have
mercy on me: Lord, that I may receive my sight!"
Do you think he has turned away from my despairing supplication? that he has left me to wander into
errors and deceits that will offend him and lead me
to destruction? If you can think so, I cannot; I
know in whom I have trusted, and I know that his
arm is under me, and that, resting on it, I cannot
fall.
And now I am going to give you a detailed account of the religious experiences through which I
have passed, in order that you may understand
how I have come at last into my present position.
l'houghl you may have known me all my life, yet you
know me only externally. You know that I became
a professing Christian when in college; that three
7 
Gropings after Truth.
years afterward I renounced my faith in Christ and
fell into infidelity; that ten years later I suddenly,
as it seemed to you, abandoned my scepticism and
renewed my connection with the church, and that
since, for a period of nearly twenty years, I have
appeared to be at rest in my religious faith. But
you will learn, no doubt to your surprise, as I have
never been in the habit of talking about myself,
that I have been wandering in a fog all my life;
that my religious opinions have been undergoing
one change after another, year after year, and that
never, until I was led by God's grace into the
Catholic Church, have I felt sure that I was not
standing upon a treacherous sand-bank, that would
be washed away and leave me to be swallowed up
in the flood.
I hope you will read my narrative with the kindness and affection which you have always manifested for me, and that, having read it, you will accuse
me of nothing worse than folly and stupidity. As
I can conceive of no possible advantage in a worldly point of view which I can derive from becoming
a Catholic, I am sure you will at least give me credit
for sincerity, and I hope you will admit there is
some show of sense even in my foolishness.
Until within a year and a half ago, I had never
had a suspicion that the views might be false in
8 
Gropings after Truth.
which we had been educated with regard to the
Church of Rome. We had been taught to consider
that church as the Antichrist which was to come in
the latter days; as the embodiment of wickedness
in its vilest form; wickedness concealing itself in
the external garb of purity. When a boy, I should
have been struck with the most incredulous amazement had I heard the idea suggested, (which I certainly never did,) that a Roman Catholic might
possibly be a good man and a sincere Christian;
and my only idea of the Pope was that derived from
Bunyan's representation of him, as sitting at the
mouth of his den, iike a disabled wild beast, vainly
gnashing his teeth at the pilgrims on their way to
the Eternal City.  "Pope and Pagan" were always
associated in my mind as twin monsters, equally
enemies of God and man.
When, as I became older, I found that there had
been good men in the Catholic Church, I was
astonished, but I accepted the explanation offered,
that they were exceptional cases-good in spite of
their religion, just as Plato was a good man in spite
of his paganism.
When J        became a convert to the (;atholic
religion, I was amazed at his infatuation, and unable
to understand how a man, who seemed to possess
good sense in other things, should betray such an
9 
Gropings after Truth.
utter want of it in this; and I confidently anticipated
that he would soon discover the emptiness of his
new faith, and would abandon it as he had aban doned other opinions which at various times he had
adopted. But when I found that his faith in his
church grew stronger from year to year, and that
his confidence in the piety of her clergy increased
as his acquaintance with them was extended, I was
compelled to modify my own opinions. I had no
doubt of the piety and purity of purpose of both
J     and M, and it was incredible that they
could be deceived for so many years in regard to the
true character of the large circle of Catholics, many
of whom were clergymen, with whom they were constantly associating. I came gradually, therefore,
to the conclusion that my old idea, that "Romanism" is not Christianity at all, but only a sort of
modified paganism, must be erroneous, and that
the Roman Church holds, at bottom, the essential
doctrines of the Christian religion, though almost
smothered under corruptions of human invention;
but I never suspected for a moment that the peculiar doctrines of that church which are condemned
by Protestant sects, are anything else than corruptiols, nor that there is any foundation for the claim
which she makes to be the "One Holy Catholic
Apostolic Church," the spouse of Christ.  It was
1o 
Gropings after Trzith.
with perfect sincerity that I more than once declared, that I considered myself under no more
obligation to investigate her claims to my faith and
obedience, than those of Hindooism or Moham
medanism.
And now go back with me to the days of our
childhood, and let us together retrace the interior
spiritual life through which I have been led for
half a century, and of which you have known
nothing. You remember the kind of religious
teaching and influence under which, as children
we were brought up. I knew nothing about it except that I heard every one call it "Calvinism;"
and I supposed Calvinism and Christianity to be
merely different names of the same thing, and that
a denial of the doctrines of Calvin and of Christ
involved equal guilt, and would equally result in
eternal damnation. I do not mean to say that I
was ever taught this in so many words; it was,
however, the product in my own mind of the
teachings which I received. The result in the
mind of a child of the religious instruction which
is given him would often amaze the teacher if he
were able to discover it. He pours in his doctrines
as a chemist would pour acids into what he regards
as an empty flask, expecting them to remain uichanged at the bottom. But the flask is not
I I 
1iropinz,s after Truth.
empty; it contains unsuspected earths and alkalies,
and the resulting compound is something very
different from the liquid which was poured in. I,
of course, derived all my ideas in regard to religion
from our mother, and other relatives who held the
same opinions as herself, and I implicitly believed
all which they told me; but I believed it as I understood it, and some of the articles of my faith
would have astonished them not a little could they
have known them. One false idea which I adopted
in childhood, and which brought forth its fruit in
subsequent years, was, that a true Christian is
perfectly free from sin. I can account for this
only by supposing that our mother, in taking pains
to impress upon my mind a sense of the goodness
which results from piety, led me, without being
herself aware of it, to infer that a truly pious person is absolutely sinless.
All the feelings which I had in my childhood in
connection with religion were disagreeable; I saw
it only in a repulsive form. Whatever was pleasant
in my daily life was wholly dissociated frown all
religious bearings or influences; whenever religion
came forward, it was always with a stern, repulsive
face, to do something which I disliked.  It interfered with my sports, checked all my gayety, took
away my playthings and picture-books, made me
12 
Gropings after Truth.
sit still and learn verses and hymns as a task, forbidding mie to do what would have given me
pleasure, and compelling me to do what I hated.
Sunday especially was a dismal day, and I would
gladly have blotted it out of the calendar. The
only thing that served to relieve its cold and silent
monotony was, that twice a day I could exchange
the prison atmosphere of home for the privilege
of sitting a couple of hours in a high-backed pew,
where I could see nothing except the people in the
opposite gallery, while sundry elocutionary exercises were performed in the pulpit over my head,
to which I paid not the slightest attention, and of
which I should have understood nothing, however
attentive I might have been. The general result
of mny early religious training was, a conviction that
religion was a very disagreeable thing to me, while
at the same time I believed that, in some manner
mysterious to me, pious people enjoyed it, because
they often said it was the source of all their happiness. My inference was, that I found it repulsive
because I was not a Christian, but that when I
should be converted-a change which I was then
much  too young to expect for many  a year —
should like it as they did. Indeed, there is little
doubt that I was told so.
At the age of ten years, and while a school-boy
13 
Gropings after Trutlz.
at Andover Academy, I passed through one of
those periods of religious awakening upon which
New England Calvinists chiefly depend for the
conversion of sinners, and which are known by the
technical name of "revivals."  Hoping that the
time had come when I should be changed from the
state of nature in which I had thus far lived, and
in which I was liable at any moment to die, to the
state of grace in which I should be able to please
God, and into which I never doubted the Holy
Spirit would sooner or later bring me, I began to
pray and read the Bible and attend prayer-meetings, and perform the other acts which are prescribed in such cases, waiting from day to day for
some evidence that God had given me a new
heart. But my assiduous use of these "means of
grace" resulted in nothing, and after a few weeks
my excitement wore away as the "revival" died
out, and I gave up the attempt to get religion at
that time. In the opinion of my kind friends, I
had, by my obstinate persistence in sin, "grieved
away the Holy Spirit," perhaps "-sinned away my
day of grace," and there was only too much reason
to fear that God would never give me another such
call, but would henceforth leave me to work out
my own perdition. But these alarming prognostications did not alarm me in the least; for I was
14 
Gropings after Triuth.
perfectly conscious that I had been really anxious
to be converted, and had done everything that I
knew how to do in order to bring it about. I will
explain more fully what I mean by this in the
account of my next "awakening."
Four years now passed over, during which, so far
as I can now remember, it was never hinted to me
that I was required to love and serve God. If any
such duty was ever urged upon me, it made no impression upon my mind; for my idea was that I
must be converted before there was any use in trying to please God, and that there was no hope of
conversion until another revival should overtake
me. It was evident to my mind, from the conduct
and conversation of the pious persons with whom I
.was in any manner associated, that these were the
opinions held by them. Conversions, except during these periods of religious excitement, were always spoken of as little less than miraculous, and
except at these times it was never customary to
urge upon the unconverted the duty of becoming
Christians. So far as my own experience goes, I
can state explicitly that from the time of our mother's death, which occurred when I was eleven years
old, though I was constantly living in the families
of professing Christians, members of the church, 1
never received such instruction or warning from
I$ 
Gropings after Truth.
any of them as led me really to believe that I ought
to become a Christian then, at once. It is possible
I may at times have been told so, though even this
is very doubtful; for everything in their treatment
of me showed, as I have said, that my conversion,
during a time of religious quietude, would have been
viewed by them with as much astonishment as
would a rainbow in a cloudless sky. During this
period, if I refrained from vicious practices, lived a
moral life, and went to church on Sunday, it appeared to me that I did all which was required or
expected of me. My pious friends would probably
have been shocked had they known I had such
notions, and would say they had never taught
them to me. My reply would be, "You certainly
never meant to teach me such things, but'actions
speak louder than words,' and I believe you acted
in accordance with your opinions."
The next revival through which I passed occurred
when I was fourteen years old, and at the Academy
at Amherst, Massachusetts. I have a distinct re
collection of my mental exercises during that pIe.
siod.  I was very anxious to become a Christian,
and used to read the Bible and other good books,
and pray most unceasingly, and attend prayermeetings and converse on religious subjects, hoping, hour after hour, and day after day that God
16 
Gropings after Trthl.
would b)e satisfied with my prayers and teats, and
would give me the new heart for which I was begging; but all in vain. The teacher of the school,
at whose house I was living, would ask me from
time to time whether I "felt any change;" but the
only change of which I was conscious was a sense
of depression and weariness, and that was, of
course, no evidence of conversion. This miserable
state of things continued for so long a time that at
last, I believe, he became tired of it, and told me
that, as I seemed resolved not to yield to the
influences of the Holy Spirit, I had better resume
my studies, which had been laid aside in order that
I might give up my whole time to the more important work of getting religion. So I had sinned
through another blessed season of revival, and my
prospect of being ever again visited by the Holy
Spirit, whose gracious influences I had twice successfully resisted, was very dark indeed.
Now, what did I, and what did my pious advisers,
suppose was to happen in the case of my conversion?
Simply this: that while I should be engaged in
prayer or in holy meditations, I should suddenly
be impressed with an overwhelming sense of the
goodness of God or of my own wickedness, or both,
and should then experience some strange ecstatic
,eeling, different from anything ever felt before,
17 
Gropings after Truitl.
from which I might derive a vivid assurance that
my sins were pardoned, that God had created a new
heart within me, and that I was "born again."
This was, and is, the New England method of conversion; and the piety of the Christian who has not
experienced these supernatural emotions, and who
cannot state the precise day and hour when the
change took place, is regarded as of very question.able quality.
Persons "under conviction," as the phrase is,
are directed to pray, to read the Bible and religious
books, to fix their thoughts upon God and holy
things, to attend prayer-meetings, and converse with
pious people on the subject of the salvation of their
souls. These instructions are intelligible and practical, and all these things I did most persistently,
something else was evidently requisite, for doing
them did not make me a Christian. But when I
anxiously asked what more was required, I was answered with the usual cant phrases, that I must
'give my heart to God," "yield to the influences
of the Holy Spirit," "submit myself to the divine
vill," and other such expressions, all of which are
mere figures of speech which presented no practical
idea to my mind. If Almighty God, or one of his
angels, had come to me visibly and asked for mv
heart, I would gladly have given it, provided any way
18 
Gropings after Truth.
L tild be contrived of getting it out of my body; or
if *he divine Spirit had appeared to me and required
any external act of submission, I would have complied most joyfully. This plainly was not what my
religious teachers expected me to do; but what
they did expect, or how I was to do it, I did not
know, and they knew just as little. That what was
required of me was merely that I should resolve
henceforth to endeavor to do the will of God in all
things, to strive after holiness, and to avoid all that
is sinful-that this was the instruction which I needed, no one ever dreamed; for their theology taught
them that such resolutions must come after conversion; that the unconverted man cannot make them
with sincerity, and that conversion is wholly and
only a free gift of God, with which the sinner has
nothing to do further than to make some preliminary preparation for it in "using the means of
grace." The more assiduously he does this, the
more hopeful his case becomes; but having used
these means to the best of his ability, his own
powel ceases, and he can only wait and wonder
why he "feels no change."
It is scarcely necessary for me to say, that my
conscience did not reproach me in the least degree
during the time of my "awakening," for what wais
represented as my obstinate resistance to the influ
I9 
Gropings after Truth.
ences of the Holy Spirit. I was often told that
God was ready and desirous to save me, and only
my own unwillingness was the obstacle in the way.
I (lid not dispute this, but I knew it was not true
in any sense intelligible to me.  So the solemn
declarations of my religious friends, after the
excitement was over, that my case was a very
alarming one; that God had been striving with
me for weeks, endeavoring to overcome my wicked
opposition, and had now left me to pursue my
chosen way to everlasting death, fell upon my ears
as words that might contain some metaphysical
truth beyond my comprehension, but which, in their
plain, obvious meaning, I was conscious were not
true.  I had been anxious to become a Christian;
I had done everything which I knew how to do to
fit myself for the change which could be wrought
only by the power of God; and as he had not
seen fit to give me a new heart, I admitted that
there must have been some deficiency ill my own
conduct. But being totally ignorant of what that
deficiency was, and being conscious that I should
have remedied it if it had been explained to me
intelligibly, I had no sense of ill-desert in con
nection with the failure of my attempts to become
a Christian. I was told that it was my duty to give
miy heart to God; and on the other hand, that God
20 
Gropings after 7kujh.
only could turn my heart to himself; tb ht it was
my duty to love and serve him but that I could
not do this while still unconverted; that it was my
duty to pray to him, but that my prayers were a
mockery and hateful in his sight; that it was my
duty to be good, and I deserved eternal death for
not being good; and yet that I was as powerless to
make myself good, as is the Ethiopian to change
the color of his skin. Now, it is perfectly useless
to teach children such contradictory doctrines
they are not metaphysicians, and will not attempt
to reconcile them; if they believe one, they will
not believe the other. That my nature was utterly
corrupt; that I was incapable of doing one holy
act; that it was impossible for a holy God to view
me with any complacency, and equally impossible
for me to change this evil nature-these things had
been constantly preached to me from my earliest
days. It was a waste of words, therefore, to tell
me that I oulght to love God, and deserved punishment for not loving him and doing his will.
Every child knows that he is not to blame for iiot
doing what he cannot do.  This principle comes
into exercise in all the actions of his daily life, and
he applies the same principle to the duties which
God requires of him. He will say he is a sinner
for not doing some impossible thing, if he thinks
21 
Groptizgs after Truth.
his parents expect him to say so; but he will feel
no compunctions of conscience on account of his
deficiencies. Having lived through my second
revival without being converted, I made no objection to the statement that I had been all the
time striving against the Holy Spirit, and that it
would now be perfectly right, and just what might
be expected, if God should abandon me to my own
chosen courses; yet I had no sense of ill-desert in
reflecting upon the matter, and never believed God
would finally leave me to perish.
When a person, whose feelings on religious subjects have been aroused during one of these
"revivals,"  passes through  it without "experiencing religion," he is expected to fall back into
his former state of unconcern, and to become even
a greater sinner than before; he has wilfully
rejected the proffered mercy; he has turned a
deaf ear to the voice of the Saviour; he has
trampled in the dust the precious blood shed for
his redemption; he has come to the door of the
sanctuary and turned his back upon it; he returns
"as a dog to his vomit, and as the sow that is
washed to her wallowing in the mire." After all
this, what hope is there of his final salvation?
Ephraim is joined to his idols, let him alone," is
the consoling text which his kind friends are never
weary of repeating in his ears.
22 
Gropintgs after Triuth.
It seenis strange that real conversions ever
occur under such a system of instruction as I have
described; and the fact is only to be explained by
supposing that in most cases God takes compassion upon the ignorance of his suffering creatures,
and gives them some unusual sense of relief or
satisfaction, or some more vivid perception of his
attributes than they have had before, or even some
peculiar bodily sensation will answer the purpose;
anything which they can seize upon as affording
the least ground of hope that they have "met with
the change" for which they have been longing.
This hope, however slight it may be, gives rise to
a corresponding degree of joy and thankfulness,
and these emotions, being regarded as the very best
evidence of conversion, increase the hope to confidence and exultation, and the convert is welcomed into the company of Christ's chosen ones.
Snatched from the eternal misery to which he was
hastening, and having his salvation secured beyond the possibility of losing it, then, and not
till then, does he resolve, trusting in the grace of
G(od for assistance, to live henceforth a Christian
life; for he has always been taught that he must
be converted before it is possible to make such a
resolution with sincerity.
An interval of five years now passed, during
23 
Gropings after Truth.
which, so far as I remember, the duty of personal
piety was never suggested to me by any one. I
attended prayers morning and evening at the
chapel, after entering college, and on Sunday went
to church twice; but here all my religious exercises ended. I did not even pray to God privately,
considering it of no use. I constantly heard the
doctrine taught that every action, even the prayer,
of the unconverted man is wholly sinful, an abomination in the sight of God; so I made none.
The next "revival" to the influence of which I
was subjected occurred when I was nineteen years
old, and a member of the junior class in Yale
College. Here, at length, I was, or imagined myself to be, converted. I had learned nothing new
in regard to the philosophy of the change. and
when the religious excitement made its appearance
among the students, and my own hopes were
aroused that I might now become a Christian, I
could do nothing but have recourse to my old
prayers and holy books and pious conversations.
How long I had continued in this way, seeing
others daily "rejoicing in hope" around me and
nyself still passed by, I do not remember. But,
one day, after having wearied myself out with
praying and weeping and dejection, my mental
excitement suddenly gave way, and a sort of
24 
Gropings after Truth.
apathy came over me, so that I felt indifferent tc
everything about me. It was a purely physical
phenomenon, resulting from nothing but exhaustion, such as I have experienced hundreds of
times since; but it was sufficient for my necessities; it aroused a hope that I was converted,
and the hope gave me joy and a sense of complacency toward God and my fellow-creatures,
which emotions increased the hope and were increased by it, each mutually adding to the other
until all my anxiety vanished. My confidence
was also sustained by my pious friends, to whom I
gave an account of my feelings, and who regarded
my sudden change from despondency to rejoicing
as in the highest degree satisfactory.   I came
near losing my hope, however, as suddenly as I had
found it; for, having gone out to walk, I soon discovered that my unusual experience had vanished,
and that I was feeling just as I always did. I
went to Dr. T, and told him my happy sensations had all left me, and I was afraid I had been
deceiving myself; but he replied in such a way as
to encourage me, and when I found he considered
my state as satisfactory, I regained my confidence,
and with it my rejoicing. Then I did what I
ought to have done in the first place, but what no
rne ever intimated to me that I should do-resolve
25 
Gro6pzngs,fjter T, th.
henceforth to serve God and keep his command
ments. If I had not supposed myself converted,
I should certainly have made no such resolve, and
nobody, so far as I know, would have recommended it; for all would have believed such
advice could result in nothing better than a life of
hypocrisy and external morality. But for the peculiar physical sensation from which I derived my
hope, I should sooner or later have got over my
excitement, as in previous instances, from mere inability to keep it up, and relapsed into increased
forgetfulness of God and of my duties to him, utterly
ignorant of the fact that, in rendering me willing to
become a Christian, the Holy Spirit had done all
which he could do; that, so far as the work of God
was concerned, I was converted from the moment
when I experienced this willingness, and that nothing was necessary but that I should stay so.
I have no doubt there are multitudes of persons,
brought up as I have been in the doctrines of New
England theology, who go through life longing to
be Christians and waiting to experience this mysterious change called conversion, in order that they
may publicly profess their faith in Christ and join
the ranks of his declared disciples, and who are
stigmatized as good moral people and nothing more,
but who will find, when the light of another world
26 
Gropings  fter Trath.
opens upon tL m, that they have been Christians
all their lives without knowing it. And there are
multitudes of others who are plunged back into
lives of sin, because, when they were ready and
anxious to enter the fold of Christ, their pious
friends shut them out until they should experience
some strange ecstatic emotion for which they waited
and prayed in vain. These doctrines would be
ludicrous, if the sense of their ludicrousness were
not swallowed up in horror of their consequences.
My conversion being regarded as genuine, in
due time I joined the college church. In so doing,
I sto6d with others in the centre aisle of the chapel
and declared my belief in certain articles of faith,
but what they were I do not now know, and doubt
whether I knew then. I took it for granted they
were all right, and the idea was never suggested to
me that it would be well to know beforehand what
I was going to adopt as my confession of faith.
Such a suggestion would imply that either I myself,
or some one else, considered it possible that I could
be a Christian, and yet not believe just what my
church believed. This was a possibility that certainly did not occur to me. I had been brought
up to receive as true precisely what my religious
teachers had agreed upon as truth, and did so most
implicitly, without a thought of questioning its cort
27 
Gropiizgs after Truth.
rectness. It is in this way that almos'. every one
who joins a Congregational church has his cieed
fixed upon him. The new convert is expected, as
a matter of course, to unite with the church to
which his parents or friends belong, or which he
has been in the habit of attending; and in nine
cases out of ten he does not know, until he stands
up to give his assent to them, what the doctrines
are in which he is solemnly to declare his belief, and
in very few instances, probably, does he know much
better afterward. If a young person, as most converts are, he may have heard this "confession of
faith" read a hundred times without ever having
thought of its meaning; and when he declares his
acceptance of it, he understands the act as being
merely a pledge on his part to live a Christian life,
and to believe whatever his church and minister say
is gospel truth.
After leaving college I was sent by those who
had the direction of my education to the theological seminary at Princeton, to be prepared for the
ministry. If I was consulted at all in relation to
the matter, I have forgotten it; and, though now
twenty years old, I had never thought of setting up
my own will in opposition to that of my guardians
and counsellors. I presume I was sent to Princeton iil order that I might enter upon my work
28 
Gropings after Truth.
thoroughly imbued with the doctrines of Presbyterianism. I knew absolutely nothing in regard to
the differences of opinion among the various sects
calling themselves "orthodox," and supposed they
all held very nearly the same doctrines. I went to
the theological school, that I might learn what to
believe myself and to preach in future to others,
and expected to believe whatever might be taught
me, just as I had been accustomed to accept the
facts of natural science as explained by my college
teachers. That I had a right to take the Bible for
my sole guide, and to form my opinions as to its doctrines independent of and in opposition to those of
the theological professor, certainly never occurred to
me; and if I had broached such a heresy, I should
have been dismissed without ceremony. During
the first year of my theological course, I was engaged chiefly in the study of Hebrew, and had little
to do with doctrines. In the second year, however,
I found a constant conflict going on in my own
mind between what seemed the dictates of common
sense, and the necessity of receiving as God's truth
the dob,nas promulgated by the professors.  I was
beginning to think for myself, and could not understand why Christianity should require me to believe, not only so many things beyond my ccmprehension-this I expected-but so much whi(h seem
29 
Gropings after -2ruth.
ed inconsistent with the natural sense of right and
wrong which God himself had created within me.
I found it totally impossible to believe some of these
dogmas without assuming that nmy natural instincts
had become so depraved that I could not tell good
from evil. But as my own moral sense must direct
my own actions, I must depend upon its decisions
or be left to wander in utter darkness. As, however, I still supposed that the doctrines which were
taught were those of the Bible, I could not reject
the former without at the same time losing my faith
in the latter.
I next began to reflect upon the circumstances and character of my supposed conversion. I
still retained the idea that it was the doctrine of
my church that in conversion such a supernatural
change is wrought in the subject of it, that his tastes
and feelings all become different from what they
were before; that he afterward will not only avoid
whatever is sinful, but will have no disposition to
sin; that he will not only resist his evil inclinations,
but will have few or none to resist. But in examining myself, I soon became satisfied that no such
change had taken place in me. My likes and dislikes were the same as they had been before I was
converted.   I had no taste for vicious habits, and
had never had; I preferred good to evil, as a gene
30 
Gropinzgs after Trut,;.
ral rule, but so I had always done. I read pious
books fromn a sense of duty, but found a pleasant
story far more interesting. I attended prayer-meetings for the same reason, but often found them very
tiresome, and enjoyed a game of chess or back
gammon much more. I assumed a sedate deportment, as became a student of divinity, but envied
the undergradates of Nassau Hall their noisy
sports. In a word, I was the same man, or boy
more properly, that I had always been. Then, in
reflecting upon the manner of my conversion, I came
to the conclusion that I had, by my own imagination, made a "change of heart" out of a giddiness
of head, and that my supposed "new birth" was
nothing but a creation of my own fancy. I knew
that I had, in general, been endeavoring to do my
duty toward God and my fellow-creatures, and that
my attempts had been very unsuccessful; but I also
knew that I had been making the attempt only because I supposed myself to be converted; for it
was still an article of my creed, as I understood t,
that an unconverted man cannot love and serve
God, and therefore there is no use in his trying to
do so.
I next transferred my observation to my fellowstudents, and soon became convinced they were no
mnore changed than myself; and carrying my investi
31 
Gropings after Truth.
gations cut among the pious people whom I knew
or had known, and reflecting upon the many exhibitions which I had seen in them of tastes and feelings
and passions which seemed to me wrong and unChristian, my conviction became gradually fixed
that this notion of conversion was wholly a delusion. But this was tearing out the very cornerstone of the whole system of doctrine in which I
had been educated, and it is not to be wondered at
that the entire structure soon tumbled into ruins.
The result was, that I declared my loss of all faith
in the Christian religion, which declaration, of
course, put an end to my theological studies.
Dr. W, through whose influence I had probably been sent to Princeton, took me away and kept
me for a week at his house in B  -, attempting no
argument with me, but wanting me to read the Bible all the time. What he expected this would
effect I cannot imagine; for I had been reading the
Bible all my life and had never found out that
Calvinism and Christianity are not identical terms.
That in renouncing my faith in the religion of
the Bible, I was actuated by no desire to free myself from the obligation of living a virtuous lifc Is
evident, I think, from the fact that my conduct was
as strictly moral afterward as before. I never for
a moment doubted that there was a G)d who was
32 
Gropings after Truth.
good and holy, and who required goodness and
holiness in his creatures, and whom it was my duty
to please; and to this God, whom I recognized in
his works and in the government of the world, I
continued to address my prayers. It was only
the religion revealed in the Scriptures which I rejected.
I cannot give a detailed account of my religious
feelings and opinions during the next ten years, the
last eight of which, as you know, were spent in
wandering about the world, far from home. I never
made any open manifestation of infidelity, and always respected the religious sentiments of others;
and, so far as I know, none of the persons with whom
I was associated ever knew that I called myself a
sceptic. They considered me merely a man professing to be governed by moral principle, but, like
themselves, belonging to no church.
During the last two or three years of this period,
I became more and more dissatisfied with my situation. I began by thinking that there might, after
all, be some truth in this religion which I was reiecting, and if so, I was in a very unsafe position;
for I was liable at any time to die in my unbelief.
Such thoughts were only occasional, occurring at
longer or shorter intervals, and it is now impossible
for me to recall anything definite in regard to them
33 
Groptngs after Truth.
or their gradual action upon my mind. I only know
that they resulted in my resuming the faith which I
had cast off. The evidences ofthe truth of the divine
revelation by slow degrees so pressed themselves
upon me, that I was compelled to yield to their force.
The argument which had the greatest weight with
me, and which seemed quite unanswerable, was
this: and I beg you to remember it, for I shall have
occasion to refer to it hereafter. I found the religion of the cross, claiming to have come down to
us from the days of certain men who had founded it
and given their lives for it, and who had established
certain rites called sacraments, which had been practised from the very commencement, by those proessing a belief in the religion. Now, either this
system of religion, with its external and obligatory
rites, was established at the time at which it was
said to have been, or at some subsequent time
rational people were persuaded to believe that a new
religion, which neither they nor any of their coun trymen had ever before heard of, was no novelty at
all; that they and their fathers before them had
always been taught it; that they and their fathers
had been practising the rites of baptism and the
Lord's Supner, in commemoration of certain events
in the life of the founder of this religion, though
they knew perfectly well that they had never before
34 
Gropilzgs after Trath.
heard of any of these things. Such a supposition!
is so obviously absurd, that no person of ordinary'
intelligence can accept it. This religion, therefore,,
must have been established at the time and by the
men at which and by whom it professes to have'
been, or it could not have come into existence at all.
But the first believers in the religion must have had a
personal knowledge of the men called apostles, and',
must have known that they believed what they were,
teaching, and that they proved their belief by dying,
for the sake of it. In the third place, that all these,
men could be deceived in regard to the character'
of their master, with whom they had been in constant intercourse for years, and in regard to the,
genuineness of the miracles by which he proved his;
divine mission, would have been the greatest miracle'
on record. This rendered the chain of evidence'
complete and irrefragable.
I had been thus logically compelled to admit
the historical truth of the Scriptures and the divine,
origin of the religion taught in them, for more than,
a year before I made known to any one my change
of views. My reasoning was, that, in order'? be a
Christian, there was no necessity of joining a church..
I regarded all churches as merely associations of
believers, holding the fundamental doctrines of the
New Tlestament indeed, but interpreting them each
35, 
Gropings aft,r Truth.
according to its own fancy, and requiring tl)hat theit
members, as a condition of membership, should
.subscribe beforehand to views prepared for them
'by men who had no authority whatever to prescribe
to others what they should believe and profess.
But, as it would have been useless forme to call
myself a Christian while refusing to join any church,
I made no profession of faith in the religion of
,Christ. By taking this course, I shut myself out
from the Lord's Supper; but this, I argued, was not
my fault; it was chargeable upon those who refused me access to the Lord's table unless I
'would agree to believe just what they chose to require, however false or absurd it might appear to
me. I regarded the sacrament, also, as it is corn
;monly regarded by Protestants, as having no virtue
:in itself; as being nothing more than a ceremony
designed to keep in memory the death of our Lord,
and affording a means by which Christians mav
periodically make a public profession of their faith
in him. Viewing it in this light, I considered a
participation in it as of no very essential impor
t.Lnce.
I doubt, however, whether I ever felt quite satis
fled with tis position, and at length, in the summer
of I84-, thirteen years after my renunciation of the
Christian religion at Princeton, I determined to re
.36 
Gropintgs after TrZtl.3
sume publicly the faith which I had then cast off.
I was forced to admit the duty of confessing with
the lips, as well as believing with the heart, that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. I was also
convinced that a public profession of my faith in
him was absolutely necessary as a safeguard against
the temptations to sin to which I was constantly exposed, and that it was a mistake to suppose that I
could be a consistent Christian without letting any
one know it. But the steps by which I was brought
to this conclusion were so gradual that I can fix
upon no particular point of time at which my mind
was exercised in any unusual degree in regard to
these matters.
Having thus decided to reunite myself with the
"visible church," it became a question with me,
\With what branch of it shall I connect myself?
I had, for many years, been in the habit of attending the Episcopal Church, and preferred the
service as there performed; but I had been born
and brought up among Congregationalists, and
nearly all my relatives belonged to that communion. I presumed, also, that I myself was still a
member, under discipline, of the college church
where I had made my first profession.  Just at this
time, moreover, 2Veal's History of the Puritans happened to fall into my hands, in reading which I be
37 
Gropings after Truth.
came so disgusted with the horrible persecutions
to which he represents these people as being subjected by the Church of England, that I concluded
this could not be the Church of Christ, and that I
must look for it elsewhere. The result was, that I
wrote to New Haven, acknowledging my errors,
and asking a dismission from the college church
and a recommendation to that of -in B-,
where I was then residing. My application was
favorably received and answered, Dr. -     saying
that my case was by no means a new one; that he
had had many such; which is not to be wondered
at, when one considers how many of those who are
received into the college church are mere boys, who
have never begun to reason for themselves in regard to anything of more importance than the color
of a coat or the fit of a pair of boots.
I took my letters to Dr., who had already
been made acquainted with the particulars of my
case. appeared before the examining committee,
who said nothing to me that I remember, and in
due time was received into fellowship as a member
of the    - church of B-.  One question put to
me by Dr., and my reply to it, remain fixed
in my memory.  He asked me whether I ever had
a recurrence of my doubts. My answer was, that
I had, but that I had determined not to listen to
38 
Gropings after Tiruth.3
them.  This answer expresses the state of mv mind
at that time. I had decided that the Christian religion is true and divine, and had resolved to accept and live by it. But when some of the doctrines which appeared to be taught by it presented
themselves alone to my acceptance, mv faith was
staggered by them, and it required a vigorous
effort of the will to say, as I did say, If this is
Christian doctrine, I will believe it if I can; and if
I cannot believe it, I will not let it disturb my trust
in God's wisdom and goodness as revealed in Jesus
Christ.
When I was received into communion with the
-church, I did the same thing which I had
done sixteen years before at New Haven; that is,
I stood up and publicly professed my acceptance
of certain "Articles of Faith," without knowing
what they were until I heard them read. I did
this, however, with very different purposes from
those which I had then had. Then, as I have already said, I regarded it as a duty to acknowledge
as truth whatever my church might teach.  Now, I
had no such idea.   I considered it necessary to
unite myself with a Christian church, and in ord(er
to do so I was compelled to acquiesce in the "Articles of Faith" agreed upon by its members and
minister; but in assenting to them I did not con
39 
Gropiizgs after Truth.
sider myself bound by them for one moment lon.
ger than I was myself satisfied of their truth. I
had not, for so many years, denied the authority of
even the Apostle Paul in order now to fall back
into an admission of that of a modern church committee, or of any uninspired man or body of men,
of the present or any antecedent age. "The Bible
alone" was assumed by me, not theoretically merely, but practically, as my rule of faith, and I claimed
that it was not only my right, but my duty, to examine every doctrine for myself in the light of
God's word, and to accept or reject it according to
my own judgment as to its truth, regardless of the
opinions of others who had no better authority than
myself to pronounce upon it. I had found out that
John Calvin had no more right to decide what my
faith should be than had Martin Luther; the Synod
of Dort than the Westminster Assembly; Dr.
at Princeton than Dr.        at New Haven; that
very different views were held and taught by different theologians; that the creed of a church is
generally that of its minister, and his that of the
school at which he was educate d; and that all these
different views and different creeds represented
nothing but the opinions of men who made no
claim whatever to any divine authority to teach
divine truth.  Therefore, as, among these contra
40 
Gropings after Trutk.
dictory opinions, many must necessarily be false,
my ornly rational course was to accept none of
them unconditionally until I should myself be convinced that they were taught in the Bible.
It was at this time that I decided on resuming
the purpose which had been interrupted so many
years before, of entering the Christian ministry, and
that I went to Andover for the completion of the
theological studies that had been begun at Princeton. I carried to Andover my independence of the
judgment of other men, and during my course of
study there, while listening attentively to the instructions of the professor of theology, felt under
no obligation to accept the truth of all his doctrines,
unless I was satisfied with his reasoning and his
evidence.
Some men-perhaps most men-acting on the
principle by which I was governed, would have
gradually built up a system of faith for themselves
out of a mass of probabilities, and having once
formed it, would, by mere force of will, refusing to
see anything that opposed their opinions, have
eventually persuaded themselves that there could
be no doubt in regard to the correctness of their
views.   If I had been ten years younger, I miglht
have done so myself. The actual result in my
case, however, was very different. Among the
4I 
Grcpizgs after Truth.
conflicting doctrines taught by different schools, I
found it impossible to come to any more satisfactory decision than thac some seemed to be true and
others to be false; while there were very few with
regard to which I could venture to express an
opinion, with absolute certainty that it was correct.
My creed came to be nothing but a collection of
opinions held with various degrees of confidence,
but containing almost no articles to which I could
say "credo," "I believe," without any mental reservation whatever.   As for the attempts which I
heard made to explain the doctrines of the Bible,
many of them seemed to me very unsatisfactory,
and some utterly absurd; so that I came to the
conclusion, and often said, that ministers involve
themselves in inextricable difficulties by trying to
know too much, and that it would be far better for
them frankly to acknowledge their ignorance of
many things, in pretending to explain which to
their people they only stultify themselves.
It will be seen at once, that when I had completed my course of theological study, and was
licensed to preach, I was totally unqualified to
assume the spiritual charge of a congregation of
men and women who might reasonably expect me
to instruct them as to what they should receive as
religious truth.   I could tell them what I myself
42 
Gropings after Tiath.
believed, or thought I did; but if any pers on had
asked me, "Do you think it necessary for me to
believe as you do, in order to be saved?" I should
have been obliged to reply, "I do not know."
I will endeavor to state, so far as I can recall
them, the main articles of my creed at this time. I
received the Bible as the inspired word of God,
though I was unable to decide in what sense, or to
what extent, it was written by divine inspiration.
This question is an unsettled one in the schools,
and it was useless for me to attempt to settle it. I
believed that the "Bible alone is a sufficient rule
of faith," because, on any other supposition, there
seemed to be no rule at all. I also believed that
every one must decide for himself as to what the
teachings of the Bible are, for the manifest reason
that no authority now exists by which these teachings are to be explained. The Apostles, and possibly some of their immediate successors, spoke by
inspiration, and their words are to be received as
the voice of God; but for certainly fifteen hundred
years this voice has been silent, and during this
time no man has been so commissioned tG preach
the Gospel as to render obedience to his instructions obligatory upon me or any one else. The
dicta of those who have assumed to act as teachers,
and who have been followed by large masses of dis
43 
Gropintgs after Truth.
ciples, are nothing but opinions, binding upon no
one. Some of these opinions are probably true, but
the far larger number must necessarily be false,
hence, among these conflicting doctrines, every man
must judge for himself which are to be received and
which rejected; for in adopting any of them blindly
he is quite as likely to believe error as truth. His
rule is, and must be, the Bible as he understands
it; for the moment he is required to adopt the
opinions of others in opposition to his own, he is
compelled to admit that the Bible alone is not a
sufficient "rule of faith" for him, however sufficient
it may be for others.
Now, if the Scriptures contain the rules of action
by which God requires me to regulate my life, and
the articles of faith which he requires me to believe, and if he has given me no infallible guide in
the interpretation of his law, while threatening me
with eternal punishment in case I fail to act and
believe in accordance with his will, it is impossible
to avoid the conviction that he has so expressed
that will as to render it perfectly intelligible to
every one who sincerely wishes to know and to do
it. On any other supposition, God may punish me
hereafter for hlaving neglected to obey a comnmand,
the existence of which was not only unknown to
me, but even impossible to be known. Such a
44 
Gropinigs after Truth.
doctrine seems so monstrous, so utterly at variance
with every idea of justice, that I have always
doubted either the sense or the sincerity of its defenders. I have heard it argued that since human
laws do not admit the plea of ignorance as an excuse for transgression, divine justice is not required
to do it. But the argument is a very weak one.
The human judge must assume that all men are acquainted with laws properly promulgated, because,
in each particular case, he has no means of ascertaining whether the ignorance alleged by the culprit under trial is real or pretended, and if the former, whether it is voluntary or involuntary, excusable or inexcusable. Moreover, no judge or
jury would condemn a man for transgressing a law
which was so obscurely worded that a dozen different interpretations could honestly be put upon it.
If the accused could show that he had obeyed the
law as he understood it, and that his interpretation
of it might possibly be the true one, the sense of
justice of the whole community would demand his
acquittal. lie had merely made a mistake into
which, under such a law, the most law-abiding citizen might fall; and if such a mistake deserved
punishment, no one could feel secure.
Applying this plain principle of justice to the law
of God, he has certainly so declared his will that
45 
Gropings after Tru. k.
his creatures can understand it, or they must be
excused for not obeying it; but if the divine law is
so clearly expressed, that all who desire to do so
can understand it, how comes it that so many and
such conflicting interpretations are put upon it?
Many a confident, self-satisfied sectarian will reply at once, "It is because men do not wish to
know the truth, and persistently shut their eyes to
it." In many cases this may very possibly be the
reason; but, on the other hand, in very many
others it does not seem to be.   Suppose, distrusting my own unaided judgment, and desiring to settle the articles of my faith in a satisfactory manner, I have invited half a dozen men of as many
different persuasions to discuss with me the points
of doctrine in regard to which they disagree.   So
far as I can judge, all are equally intelligent,
equally devout, equally sincere, and equally confident in the soundness of their own opinions; and
no'one can doubt that such persons may easily be
found in every denomination of Christians. They
all declare that they have formed their opinions
upon a careful and prayerful examination of the
word of God, and anxious only to know the trutk.
Yet no two have come to the same conclusion. Am
I to infer from this that only one of the six really
desires this knowledge, and that the other five are
46 
Gropings after Trth.
hypocrites? This would be a very uncharitable inference. But even supposing this to be the true
explanation of their differences, of what use is it to
me unless I can ascertain which of the whole number is the true seeker after truth?   I can discover
no marks by which to distinguish the genuine coin
from the counterfeit; all have the same weight, the
same ring, the same stamp. How can I make an
intelligent choice among them? And suppose, after having heard all which each man can say in defence of his position, I should decide to adopt the
opinions of one and reject those of the others, how
can I be sure that I have not made a mistake?
Sy opinion is worth no more, because it is mine,
than it would be if it were another man's. It is of
more importance to me, because I must act upon
it; but absolutely, in deciding what is true and
what is false, it is merely the opinion of one man, and
of very little value.  If, after having formed it, I
were to insist that it must necessarily be conrect,
and that only their own unwillingness to know and
believe the truth prevents all other persons from
seeing it as I do, I should justly be regarded as a
self-conceited fool, whose judgment was of no
value whatever. My decision is my opinion, and
nothing else or more, and plainly decides nothing
beyond my own actions. I may, therefore, be
47 
Gropintgs after Truth.
wrong, after all my attempts to find the truth, and
in condemning those who fail to discover it, I
should be in great danger of passing sentence upon
myself.
I have often heard it said that they who pray for
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in their search after truth, and trust themselves unreservedly to that
guidance, will never be led into error. But the
man who urges this in defence of his own opinions,
merely assumes, in the face of abundant evidence
to the contrary, that only he, and those who agree
with him, have-or think they have-prayed for
such guidance in a right frame of mind, while
all others have neglected to do so. That the proposition, as stated, is true, there is no need of denying.   It is enough to say that a man may mistake in judging his own feelings and emotions,
as easily as in judging any thing else. Or he may
sincerely desire to be taught of God in some things,
while in others he prefers to act upon his own
judgment; and he who asks for divine guidance in
regard to one matter, while rejecting it in relation
to another, can have no reason to complain, if left
altogether to his own wisdom.
In view of the foregoing considerations, I saw no
means of avoiding one or the other of two conclusions. On the one hand, God has given his crea
48 
Gropintgs after Truth.
tures a law so vaguely expressed that, with a sincere
desire to understand it, many of them fail to do so,
at the same time threatening with the most fearful
penalties every transgression of that law  or, on
the other, the matters with regard to which there is
such a conflict of opinions are unessential, and no
evil will result from leaving them undecided.  The
first proposition seemed too monstrous for belief; I
was, therefore, compelled to adopt the second, and
this became a fundamental article of my creed, a',
I think it is of the creed of Protestants generally.
But when I attempted to draw the dividing line
between essentials and non-essentials, I found myself quite unable to do so. It was easy enough to
decide that the points of doctrine which are made
matters of dispute in the various trinitarian or, so
called," orthodox" sects, belong to the latter class;
also, questions in regard to church government, the
time and mode of administering baptism, and so
forth. But in the course of my life I had known intimately large numbers of persons calling themselves
UTnitarians, who, so far as I was able to judge, were
as sincere in their faith and as exemplary in their
lives as the members of any "orthodox" church.
They believe that Jesus Christ is the "Saviour"'
the "Messiah," the "Son of God," everything that
he can be except God. How could I be certain
49 
Gropinzs after Truth.
they were living in an error which would plunge
them into eternal death, when I could not doubt
that they meant to believe in the Bible, and denied
the divinity of our Lord only because they honestly thought the doctrine is not taught there? It is
impossible to doubt the sincerity of these persons
and their perfect confidence in the correctness of
their belief; for they prove both by being willing to
die and appear before the bar of God, trusting in
his promises as they undei stand them. Many of
them also are men who are admired for their learning and wisdom and scholarship, and who have
made the Bible and its doctrines the study of their
lives. Yet they do not believe that Jesus Christ is
"Very God."  What am I to infer from this?  Applying my previous reasoning to this case, it would
run thus: Whatever God requires his creatures tc
believe, he has stated so plainly that all who will
may know it; many persons who, so far as I have
the means of judging, do wish to know the truth,
fail to find this doctrine taught in the Bible; the
logical inference is, it is not so taught as it would
l)e if a belief in it were necessary to salvation, and
it must be classed among the non-essentials. But
can this be possible? Either I am guilty of exalting a creature to the throne of God, and giving him
the worship and homage which belong to God
50 
Gropings after Truth.
alone; or they who reject the doctrine are guilty of
dragging the Almighty from his seat, and degrading
him to the level of his own creatures. Can he view
either of these monstrous sins as an excusable error,
resulting from a misunderstanding of his written
word? That Christ is God seems to me to be
taught in the Bible; but I can easily understand
how a person brought up in the Unitarian church
should be unable to put any other interpretation
upon the doctrine of the Trinity, than that there
are three supreme Gods, equal in substance, power,
and glory.  Viewing it in this light, he must reject
it or renounce his reason. Moreover, if the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is so plainly taught in
the Scripture as many persons suppose, what has
been the necessity of writing so many books in'order to prove it, age after age, from the days of
Arius down to the present time? A doctrine which
requires so much to be said in its defence certainly
admits of much being said against it. Is it, then, or
is it not, one of the doctrines which may be safely
left undecided; does it, or does it not, belong to the
class of non-essentials? At the time of which I
amn now writing, I was unable to answer this ques.
tion in any other way than by saying, "I do not
know."
But if it is of no essential importance whether
51 
Gropings after Truth.
Jesus Christ is regarded as God or as one of his
creatures, the views which may be adopted by dif ferent individuals in regard to his person and the
nature of his mission, must be of no consequence
whatever; for the interval existing between the high est and lowest created beings vanishes into nothing,
when compared with that which exists between the
supreme Jehovah and the most exalted of his creatures. Whether, therefore, I consider the Messiah to
have been far above the loftiest archangel or only a
man like Moses and Joshua, is scarcely worth asking
or answering. What my opinion may be with regard
to his object in coming to the earth and the end
attained by his living and dying here, is quite immaterial. But if this be so, is there any doctrine
of the Bible which different persons may not safely
understand in different ways? Is there any doctrine so explicitly stated that it may not be variously
interpreted? Again, if we may believe whatever
seems to us to be taught in the Bible, and be safe
in that belief, may we not use our reason in the
same way in judging of the book itself? May we
not doubt its divine authority altogether? Much
may be and has been said and written to prove it to
be pur ely a human composition. If our intellects
should be convinced that it is nothing else —if we fail
to see the evidences of its divine origin-can we
52 
Gropiogs after Truth.
justly be condemned for an honest error in judgment, so long as we sincerely desire to know the
truthl and to do the will of Almighty God?
You see the end to which my reasoning has
brought me. I started with the proposition, that
God has given his creatures the means of learning
infallibly all which he requires they should believe.
This is undeniably true. I have ended with the
consequence, that it is of no importance what they
believe or disbelieve, so long as they are sincere
and virtuous.   This is just as undeniably false.
But at what point in the argument did the reasoning cease to be true and begin to be false? This is
a question which, with no other teacher than the Bible, I have never been able to answer. That I was
required to believe something, did not admit of a
doubt.  Our Saviour has said: "He that believeth
shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be
damned." There is no mistaking these words, at all
events; they are as plain as language can make
them; but, believeth what? As originally spoken,
the meaning of the words is perfectly clear. Our
Lord was addressing the eleven apostles: "Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature: he that believeth your preaching, and is
baptized shall be saved; he that believeth it not
shall be damned." There is no difficulty here;
53 
Gropi,ngs after Truth.
any who might fail to understand the preaching of
an apostle could obtain an explanation from his
own lips, and he could adapt that explanation to
every man's capacity. But what am I to do now,
when conscious of my inability to understand what
it is which I am required to believe? The apostles
have all been dead for nearly eighteen hundred
years; no person is now living having authority to
explain the few letters and annals which they have
left behind. They have not even given a formal
draft of the creed which I am required to accept,
and I am obliged to pick it out from their writings,
and piece i together for myself to the best of my
ability. Somre things I feel sure are positively
stated; some seem to be taught in one place while
in another I find statements that appear to conflict
with them; some are so obscurely hinted at, that I
can form no clear idea of their meaning; and yet
this terrible threat hangs over my head, "Believe,
or be damned." What can I do but cry out, almost in despair: "Lord, what must I believe? I
cannot understand the book, and there is no Philip
here to explain it to me."
It is probable that you will fail to comprehend
my perplexity, because you have never had a doubt
as to whal you are to believe, and you have always
regarded your own faith as derived by yourself
54 
Gropinigs after Trulh.
from the Bible. But I think a very little reflection will convince you that this is a mistake. You
were taught what you now believe by your parents
and friends long before you were old enough to
read the Bible understandingly, and you implicitly
received as true just what you were taught, and
have never for a moment harbored the thought that
these teachings might be erroneous; you would
have been shocked had you ever found a doubt in
regard to their correctness springing up in your
mind, and would have regarded as a religious duty
its immediate suppression. But the fact that you
have been educated in one system of doctrine and
not in another is purely accidental, so far as any
events are over which we have no control. It has
resulted simply from your having been born in one
family, and not in another; in one church, and not
in another. If your parents had been Lutheran,
or Methodist, or Baptist, or Unitarian, you would
have growr up with just as firm a 2onviction of the
truth of their doctrines, and you would have found
those doctrines just as plainly taught in the Bible,
and yoli would have then been just as much astonished as you now are, if I had been unable to see
them so clearly as yourself.   There can be no
doubt of this whatever, unless you have some reason for supposing that you would have proved
55 
Gropings after Troth.
the one exception in a thousand to the general
rule.
Now try to imagine yourself in the position which
I occupied when I regained my faith in revealed religion. I had no creed ready made which it was
only necessary for me to take up and carry along.
I had the Bible, nothing else. This I regarded as
the word of God, from which alone I was to learn
his will, and from which alone my faith was to be
derived.   The  world was full of contradictory
treatises on Scripture doctrine; but they were all
written by men who neither had, nor pretended to
have, any right to speak authoritatively. Of those
who were once regarded as little less than inspired,
some are now thrust aside with contempt, and others have sunk into utter oblivion. Evidently, these
mere human expounders of the sacred writings
were very unsafe guides, and I could not venture
blindly to follow any of them. The same might
be said with equal or stronger emphasis in regard
to any living teachers.   I might listen to their
teachings, but could adopt them as articles of faith
only when convinced of their truth.   But these
teachings are as multifarious and conflicting as
are the opinions of men on any doubtful subject.
What one learned and pious professor reveres as
divine trith, another ridicules as sheer nonsense,
56 
Gropings after Tirultli.
and a third repels with holy horror as rank heresy.
In deciding among these various opinions, I had no
guide but the Bible, and whatever point of doctrine
might be accepted by me as true, I would be sure
to find other men battling against as false, and just
a ready as myself to prove from the Bible thle correctness of their opinion. Finding, therefore, that
every form of doctrine can be established from the
Bible to the entire satisfaction of those who hold
it, is it strange that the only conclusion to which I
could come in regard to all except a few fundl
mental articles of faith, was, "I do not know what
to believe"? I might think the balance of evidence
was in favor of'one doctrine and against another,
and therefore decide to accept the former and re
ject the latter; but in so doing I was compelled to
admit that I might be wrong. I wanted knowledge
of the truth, not a mere balance of probabilities,
and I saw no possible means of ever acquiring it.
Perhaps you will say, this state of doubt and
uncertainty was a natural consequence of my having for a time abandoned all faith in the gospel ot
Christ, and that, but for this, I should have gone
on peacefully, believing as I had believed before,
and as you believe now. This is very possible;
but whether it.would have been best for me to do
so depends entirely upon whether what I then be
57 
Gropings after Truti.
lieved and what you now believe is the exact truth,
and that is the very thing in regard to which we
may not agree.  I presume you will not deny that
it is better to be harassed with doubts than to be at
rest in error; better not to know what road to take,
than to walk confidently in the wrong one.
Or you may say, my troubles arose from my having despised the instructions of others and trusted
to my own wisdom for guidance. But in whose
wisdom should I trust? I was willing to be taught,
but I must know that my teachers possessed the
requisite qualifications. Who taught them? and
who taught their teachers? Follow the line back,
and you will find at the starting-point nothing but
human opinion, worth just as much less than the
opinions of to-day as the world has advanced in
knowledge. The opinions of John Calvin are of
little value in comparison with those of living theologians, and there are probably now but few persons who agree with him in all things, though his
name was the orthodox shibboleth when we were
children. It is easy to say I should trust in the
judgment of wise and good men, rather than in my
own. Such generalities do not meet the difficulty.
Tell me who they are; name them; then go and ask
them whether they would advise me or any one to
adopt their opinions on all points blindly, and whe
58 
Gropings after Trith. 
ther they are willing to take the responsibility in
case any of those opinions should prove tc, be
erroneous. If they are the wise and good men
that you think them to be, they would be appalled
at such a proposition.
But in saying what I have supposed you to say,
you would admit that a man can secure himself
against doubt only by holding fast to the instructions which he has received from others, and not
presuming to judge for himself what is taught in
the Bible. You woutld admit the very thing which
you probably denied when I asserted it just now;
that is, that your faith is fixed and unwavering, not
because you have derived it from the Bible, but because you have not. You would admit that he who
regards the decisions of other men as mere human
opinions, and therefore, possibly erroneous, and
who attempts, from the Bible alone, to ascertain
what he is required to believe, will almost necessarily find himself involved in perplexity, totally unable to decide what to receive and what to reject.
But in admitting this, you abandon at once the Protest ant dogma, that the "Bible alone is a sufficient
rule of faith;" for a rule of faith which a man
cannot safely examine for himself, unless he is already so firmly established in some faith that there
is no danger of its being shaken by anything which
59 
Gropiizgs after  Truthi.
he may find there, is certainly a very stralitge
one.
The simple fact is, that the Bible is a rule of
faith to Protestants to this extent, and no further,
that, having received their faith from the oral
instruction of their parents and teachers, without
the Bible, they have recourse to it in after-years,
merely to find in it the things which they have
been taught, and which they already believe; and
this they have no difficulty in doing. Now, if
they all believed the same thing, and all found it in
the Bible, the fact would furnish pretty satisfactory
evidence that it is actually there. But how is it to
be explained that the most contradictory creeds
are found there, to the entire satisfaction of some
classes of well-meaning people? There is evidently something wrong in the practical working of the
system; but what is it?
You must not suppose that this difficulty never
occurred to me until I began to examine into the
claims of the Catholic Church.   I have seen it for
twenty years, and have never been able to discover
a satisfactory solution of it. I saw that if children
are to be taught any religious truth whatever, they
must necessarily receive it from their parents and
pious friends, by word of mouth, long before they
are able to find it for themselves in the Bible.   I
60 
Gropings afte, Tnth..
saw that if the creed of the teachers is false, their
errors must as necessarily be absorbed by the
mind of the child as is the food which is served out
to him by his body; there is no possibility of his
escaping this result. I saw that, in some very rare
cases, people change their creed in subsequent
years; but, as a general rule, so firmly are the
doctrines taught in childhood fixed in the mind,
that they cannot be eradicated without, at the same
time, uprooting all faith in the religion of the Bible, leaving only a blank infidelity in its place,
Seeing these things, which seemed to me indisputable facts, I could not avoid asking myself how far
those, who, under such circumstances, are believing error instead of truth, are responsible for their
errors, and what age or what degree of intelligence
is necessary before persons thus brought up'n
a false system of doctrine can reasonably be expected to discover the fact.   I could make no Teply to these questions, and was obliged to rest
satisfied with the reflection that God knows his
own purposes, and will do all things well and
wisely-a reflection evidently based,  not upon)
Christianity, but upon natural religion.
But with all these difficulties suggesting theim.
selves to my mind, in opposition to the dogma that
the "Bible alone is a sufficient rule of faith."
6i 
iGraop, its after Truth.
I nevertheless retained it as a fundamental article
of my creed, because it seemed to me absolutely
necessary; I knew of no other "rule," and it must
be the Bible or nothing. I had tried the" nothing,"
and found it would not do.
After what I have already said, it is scarcely
necessary for me to add that my creecd was made
up almost wholly of negations with very few affirmations. I believed that the sin of Adam has entailed upon his descendants a. nature which is
predisposed to sin. But I did not believe that
any man is guilty of the sin of Adam, or exposed
to punishment on account of it. The doctrine of
the Westminster Assembly's Catechism, that "all
men sinned in him," if the words are to be understood in their ordinary signification, seemed to me
utterly ridiculous.
I believed that Jesus Christ came to the earth,
and suffered and died, in order that mankind might
be freed from the consequences of Adam's sin.
But I did not believe that he suffered the punishinent due to men for their sins, nor that he was
punished at all, in any proper sense of the word. I
believed the incarnation and sufferings of Christ
were necessary, otherwise they would not have
taken place; but I did not believe they were
necessary because God was unable to pardon a
62 
Gropings after Truth.
repentant sinner without them, or because he was
obliged to inflict upon s(,mne person the penalties
pronounced against sin. Why they were necessary
I did not pretend to know.
My views in relation to future punishment, if I
had made them known, would have been regarded
by my church as exceedingly unorthodox. I was
very doubtful whether any human beings would be
made to suffer through all eternity on account of
sins committed in this life. I could not see why a
God of infinite benevolence would not provide
some means of preventing this, if for no other
reason than to satisfy his own desire for the
happiness of his creatures. That he could derive
any positive gratification from witnessing their
torments seemed to me a shocking doctrine, and I
never accepted it for a moment. None of the
attempts which I have seen or heard to reconcile
the fact of eternal punishment with his infinite
goodness and justice, were satisfactory to my mind.
At the same time I was obliged to confess that the
fact itself does seem to be taught in the Scriptures
so plainly as to render a denial of it almost
impossible. I remained, therefore, in a state of
unbelief, rather than of positive disbelief, in regard
to the doctrine. I hoped it might eventually be
found that we misunderstand the teachings of the
63 
Gropintgs after Truth.
Bible, and that God knows how hlie may fulfil every
word which he has spoken, and yet, at somfe distant day, banish all sin and all suffering from his
creation.
The peculiar views, however, which are held by
the New England "orthodox" churches in regard
to future punishment, I rejected without hesitation.
The opinion once sustained by so many, that
infants are born into theworld with natures so corrupted by sin that, in case of their death, they
must be cast at once into hell-that "hell is paved
with infants' bones "-this doctrine is so abhorrent
to the natural instincts of the human heart that I
have never met any one who defended it.  But it
is still believed by New England Christians that as
soon as the child has reached an age at which he
is capable of knowing right from wrong, he becomes subject to the same law as his parents, and
cannot be saved wi'hout going through the process which I have already described, known by the
name of "conversion."  As, however, this change
seldom takes place, or is even looked for, at an
earlier age than from twelve to fifteen years, it follows that the vast majority of chi' Iren who die before this period are sent at once to eternal misery.
It matters not how lovely, how amiable, how apparently conscientious they may have been during
64 
Gropings after Trutlh.
their brief lives; they died unconverted, and are
now suffering the unending torments of hell. Such
a doctrine as this I have never believed.
Again, suppose two men to die at the same time;
one of them has lived a life of irreproachable integrity; he has been a good husband and father; has
endeavored to fulfil his duties toward his fellow-men
in all respects, and was the object of the esteem
and love of all who knew him; but he never "made
a profession of religion," and died unconverted.
He is in hell, cast into the company of devils and all
vile beings, to abide with them for ever. The other
man has spent his whole life in wickedness, having
been an outlaw from society, a blasphemer of God,
a hater of all good, a robber and a murderer; but
an hour before he expiated his crimes upon the
gallows, he "experienced a change of heart," and
"gave satisfactory evidence" of conversion.  He
has gone directly to heaven, and in the glorious
company of saints and angels is singing the praises
of redeeming love. One of these men has never
done a good thing in his life, and he is to be for
ever blessed. The other has never intentionally
done an evil deed, and he is to be for ever damned.
This kind of doctrine I have never been able to
believe. I felt perfectly sure that the sacred writers
never meant to teach it.
65 
Gropings after Truth.
Especially does this become incredible when
taken in connection with the other "orthodox "
dogma, that conversion is not the act of the sinner,
but is wholly and solely the gift of God; that the
sinner not only does not, but absolutely cannot
convert himself.   So that in the case supposed
above, one of the two men is rewarded with eternal
happiness for having done what he did not do; the
other is punished with eternal misery for not having
done what he could not do. Is it possible for absurdity under the guise of religious truth to go fur
ther than this?
The doctrine that the sinner cannot, of his own
volition, repent follows logically from the antecedent doctrine that human nature has become totally depraved in consequence of the sin of our first
parents. If the nature of man is wholly evil, it is as
useless to expect it to produce any right emotions,
as it would be to look for grapes in a bramble
bush. "An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit."
Before the bramble can produce grapes, it must be
changed into a vine; but there is no point in it,
from the lowermost root to the topmost twig, where
the first initial step in such a process of change can
begin. It is a bramble by nature, and can germinate into nothing but brambles. I need not say
66 
Gropinzgs after Truth.
that this doctrine of total depravity formed n: part
of my creed.
I believed in the necessity of regeneration; but
I supposed this change to be identical with conversion, for so I had always been taught. Conversion I believed to consist in a change of purpose ir
the sinner; in a resolution, with God's assistance,
to renounce all sin, and to obey in the future the
divine commandments; this I regarded as the
whole of it; and this I believed the sinner can resolve and can begin to do whenever he pleases,
without waiting to pray or to read a chapter in the
Bible or to do anything else. At the same time, I
believed that no man does make this resolve unless
impelled to it by the direct influences of the Holy
Spirit upon his mind, though he is perfectly able to
do it without any such impulse if he chooses.
The sacraments of the church I regarded as they
are commonly regarded by members of the communion to which I belonged. Baptism I considered to be nothing but a ceremony by which parents
publicly profess their intention to bring up their
children in the fear of the Lord, and by which
adults unite themselves to the external church.
The Lord's Supper I looked upon as a mere memorial of the death of thfie Saviour. I did not suppose that either of the sacraments has any virtue
6F 
Gropings after Truth.
in itself, or changes in the slightest degree the
condition or state of the recipient.   It follows, of
course, that I considered them of no very essential
importance.
The bodies which Protestants call churches, I
regarded as nothing more than a union into one
external company of persons who hold, or profess
to hold, the same religious opinions, in order that
they may worship together. I did not recognize
the right of such a body to prescribe to me or to any
one what we must believe, and I disapproved the
practice which is almost universal, of incorporating
into their "confession of faith" the peculiar views
which they may hold in regard to points of doctrine
which are matters of dispute among Christians. I
considered this as especially unjustifiable in small
country towns where there is usually but one church,
as the effect is, either to exclude from church-membership all whose opinions do not precisely coincide
with those of the ruling majority, or to compel
them to resort to some mental reservation by which
to justify themselves in publicly professing to believe things of the truth of which they are by no
means satisfied. As the Bible alone is the rule of
faith, and as all men have an equal right to judge
of its meaning, it follows, as a logical consequence,
that all who profess to believe it, and who appear
68 
Gropings after Truth.
to live Christian lives, should be admitted to the
Lord's table. As such a practice as this, however,
would probably result in interminable disputes in
regard to points of doctrine among members of the
same church, I saw that it would be inexpedient
and perhaps productive of more evil than the present method, which compels many persons to profess to believe what they do not.
As regards the great mass of the ministers of
these churches, I did not think they had any
special calling or any special fitness for the position which they occupied. I knew it was a very
common idea with young ministers that they had had
a call to preach the gospel; but I was convinced this
call existed nowhere but in their own imaginations.
My reasoning was, that if our Lord had given
them any such call, he would have made known to
them the truth which they were to preach to others.
But unless truth is as multiform as error, very few
of them can hold it, and it is impossible to decide
which these are among the far larger number who
do not. Besides, I was satisfied that most young
men go into the ministry for precisely the same
purpose for which others engage in the practice of
law or medicine; that is, to get a living by it; and
if they knew beforehand that they would fail in this,
they would regard this fact as furnishing satisfac ory
69 
Gropings after Truth.
evidence that they had no "call" to the work.
There are certainly exceptions; there are some men
in the ministry of high talent and general education
who might have done vastly better, in a worldly
point of view, if they had chosen a different profession, and who have.renounced paths that would
have led to wealth and preferment from a pure desire to spend their lives in laboring for the conversion of sinners. But these are evidently very exceptional cases, as every one, I think, must acknowledge who will pass in review before his mind
all thle clergymen whom he knows, and examine
them, one by one, in reference to this matter.
There was one question, personal to myself, to
which I was unable to give a satisfactory answer.
When was I converted? Almost every convert under the New England system knows the precise
day and hour when he "met with a change."  He
can state very minutely what he was doing at the
time, of what he was thinking, and what were the
feelings which led him to infer that he was "barn
again." I could have done the same thing during
the first three years after my conversion in col lege; but I came to the conclusion subsequently
that my peculiar sensations were wholly physical,
and I had never seen any reason to abandon this
view of the matter. I have just stated what my
70 
Gropings after Truth.
m,tinions now were in regard to the nature of conversion.  When, therefore, did it take place in my'
case? I certainly made the resolution, at the time'
referred to, that I would abandon sin and obey the.
divine law, and I endeavored, with varying degrees.
of constancy and success, to keep it, until I became'
,ronvinced that my supposed conversion was a delusion. Even after having abandoned my faith in re —
vealed religion, I retained a belief in a supreme.
God, who had a right to require me, his creature,.
to do right and to avoid evil, and I think I did act,
to some extent at least, in reference to his will.
Had I, then, been truly converted while in college,,
and had I been really a Christian through all the-.
years during which I had been denying my Redeemer?  The question seems a very absurd one;
but I had never thought of doubting the correct —
ness of the doctrine which I had been taught, that.
regeneration and conversion are the same thing,
and as it is evident that no man can be regenerat —
ed twice, if the change did not occur in me at the.
time specified, I had no idea when it did. The
last revolution in my views and feelings was so gradtial, that I was not myself conscious of the changes
going on in them unless I compared them at long
intervals; and at no time, so far as I recollect, was
I aroused in'o anything like a state of religious ex
71 
Gropings after Truth.
icitement.  I was as calm and deliberate ii  ny reasonings and conclusions as if I had been studying
some purely scientific subject, and admitted one
truth after another only as I became convinced
:that it could no longer be doubted. It was impossible to fix upon any particular point of time as
the turning-point in my faith. When, therefore, did
I "become a Christian " in the New England sense
of the phrase?
Some persons, probably, would solve the difficulty very readily by replying, that I have never been
converted; that I am not now, and have never been,
a Christian. This solution occurred to my own mind,
and led me to self-examination; and the conclusion
at which I arrived was, that if this view of the case
was correct, I knew neither what it was to be a
Christian, nor how to become one, and I saw no
means of ever knowing.   I certainly desired to
know and believe the truth, and did receive as true
the doctrines of the Bible so far as I could ascertatin them; I certainly wished to know the will of
God, however far I might be from being always
willing to do it; and that he would leave me to
perish through absolute inability to discover what he
would have me do, I did not believe. I was, therefore, seldom troubled with doubts in regard to my
own conversion. I was conscious of being a great
:72 
Gropings after Truth.
sinner in the sight of God;  but I knew  that I
should have to contend against my evil inclinations
as long as I lived, and never expected to be free
from them while my soul dwelt in this body. On
the other hand, I knew that in my better frames
of mind I did earnestly desire to avoid sin, and
that I never yielded to it without afterward sorrowing on account of it and praying for forgiveness; and
I believed that such a state of mind is produced and
kept in activity only by the influences of the Holy
Spirit. I was satisfied, therefore, that the difficulty
in deciding when I was converted could not be
solved by replying, as somne might reply, "Never."
It must remain an open question which I was un
able to answer. 
Thus far I have been describing my feelings and
opinions as they were at the time when I came to
New York, after having spent a year in preaching
at various places. It is very possible you have often wondered why I so suddenly renounced the
ministry; if so, you now have the explanation. I
was conscious of an entire unfitness to act as a
teacher of others in regard to matters which concerned their eternal welfare, while I was so ignorant myself.   I also knew that I held opinions
which would exclude me from almoit all the pulpits
in which I was invited to preach, if I should make
73 
Gropings after Tri;th.
them generally known. I therefore determined to
decline all such invitations, and to let my clerical
profession quietly drop.  It was then that I comnLenced my school in B,and to the few re
quests which were at first occasionally made, that
I would supply the place of an absent min.ster, I
replied that my school required all my attention,
and that I needed Sunday for a day of rest. It
was not long before every one seemed to forget
that I had ever pretended to be a clergyman, and
this was just what I wished.   Now I am about to
enter upon a new phase of my religious experience.
You know that, during the twelve years of my
residence in B, I continued to attend the P
church, and that on coming to this city nearly three
years ago, I became a regular attendant at St.
J's Episcopal Church  and you probably supposed that I had made this change merely as a
matter of taste, because I preferred the Episcopal
to the Congregational service.  This was one reaso', certainly.  I thought the congregation should
take some part in the exercises; that they should
go to confess their sins and to pray for forgiveness
themselves; not to sit while the minister does it for
them. I had also been so often offended by the
prayers to which I had been compelled to listen,
but in which it was impossible for me to join, tha*
74 
Gropinzgs after Truth.
1 had become convinced it is far better to have a
prescribed form, than to allow the clergyman to
stand up in the pulpit, and, under the pretence
of acting as the spokesman of his people, pray for
things which many of them do not desire, and perhaps in language that shocks their sense of propriety and of the reverence due to Almighty God.
I need not say that I do not intend to apply these
remarks to the prayers of Dr.. There would
be no justice in my doing so, as every one knows
who has been in the habit of attending his church;
but they are applicable to those of a very large
number of Non-Episcopal Protestant ministers.
These considerations alone would have been sufficient to lead me to the resolution, which I had
made several years before leaving B, that whenever anything should occur to sever my connection
with him as my pastor, I would join the Episcopa]
Church.
But I had other reasons of far more importance
for finally taking this step.   My  religious views
were gradually undergoing such a change during
these twelve years that, at length, I could not conscientiously profess to believe in accordance with
the " Articles of Faith" to which I was supposed
to assent.
Of the boys who were members of my school,
75 
Gropings after Truth.
about one half always were children of Episccpal
parents, and many of the families in which I was
most intimate were connected with that church.
Hence I had an opportunity of comparing the
effects upon young children of the different kinds
of religious instruction to which they were subject
ed.   On the one hand were those who had been
brought up as outside the fold of Christ, totally depraved, wholly inclined to evil, and in need of constant watching to prevent their breaking away from
all restraint; expected to do wrong rather than right,
and not credited with right feelings toward any one,
and least of all toward God, whom their sinful
hearts must necessarily regard with hatred, because
they were still in their natural state, not yet converted, though their parents hoped they would be
in God's good time. I found that many of these
boys were just what they were expected to be;
false, deceitful, difficult of control by any appeal to
their consciences or their sense of right, and apt to
grow worse as they grew older.
On the other hand were those who had been
brought up by their parents as lambs of Christ's
flock; taught to regard themselves as young members of the church, made so by their baptism; expected to do voluntarily what they knew to be
right; never told that all their most innocent ac-'
,76 
Gropings after Tnrtth.
tions were sinful and displeasing to a h ly God,
but, on the contrary, that God was their heavenly
Father, who loved them and was pleased with them
when they did right; taught that they should try to
act as Christians from the very earliest age, so that
they might be fitted for confirmation and to be
admitted to the full privileges of the church as soon
as they should be old enough. These boys, I found,
were generally just what they were expected to be,
truthful, reliable, amiable, and under the control of
right moral feelings. The inference was irresistible: this teaching is true and right; the other is
false and wrong.
I became satisfied, also, from my intercourse
with members of the Episcopal communion, that
those who had thus grown up into the church, without having gone through the prescribed course of
conviction and conversion, which I had been taught
to consider so essential, gave as good evidence in
their lives of true piety, as could be found among
the members of any other church. They could re member no period when they were not governed,
to some extent at least, by religious principle; they
had been confirmed while yet children, had been
admitted at once to communion, and had lived con sistent Christian lives ever since, without having
thought of asking themselves, whe;t they were con
77 
Gropinzgs after Truth.
verted, wzhen they became Christians; and if such
a question had been proposed to them, they would
have replied that they were always Christians.
I was convinced they were right, and that nothing
but the religious teaching to which they are subject ed renders necessary, in the case of children of pious
parents in other denominations, the violent change
through which, at some time in their lives, they are
expected to pass, under the name of conversion.
They have been taught to consider themselves
wholly given over to do evil; invited to look on
when their parents engage in religious exercises,
but excluded from all participation in them; told
so constantly they are incapable of any right emotions, that they are careful not to manifest any lest
they should be accused of hypocrisy; then, when a
revival happens, they are worked up into a feverish
state of excitement, trying to get themselves into
such a frame of mind that God may be induced to
"give them a new heart"-an  operation of the
nature of which they have not the slightest ideaand ready to seize upon any unusual feeling of
mind or body in evidence that it is done. The
change with them, if happily it come, is really a
great one. Before, they were children of the devil,
now, they are the chosen lambs of the flock. Be.
fore, every act of their lives, it matters not how pure
78 
Gropings after Trutlh.
mnay have been the motives that produced it, was
steeped in sin and deserving of eternal punishment;
now, every act is supposed to be acceptable to God,
who will graciously pardon all the shortcomings of his
beloved child. Before, they were watched, dclistrusted, disbelieved, suspected of vices which they hated,
and accused of offences which they never thought
of; now, they are received into favor, loved, caressed, rejoiced over, trusted in everytlhing, suspected
of nothing. It is, indeed, a mighty change to them,
and there can be no wonder that they look back upon
it to the end of their lives, as the turning-point at
which they were snatched from the path which was
leading them to destruction, and set down in the
way to eternal life. But the necessity for this via
lent change has come from the nature of the doctrines held by their parents and taught to them,
and from nothing else.
I once saw in the Missionary Herald an account
of a revival among the children of the mission
school at Ouroomiah, written by one of the missionaries, in which he describes the phenomena as being identical with those observed in similar cases
in a New England village; whence he draws the
inference that this is evidently the way, and the only
way, In which the Holy Spirit operates, the world
over, in converting sinners to righteousness. But
79 
Gropings after Truth.
his facts prove no such thing; they me(,y rvfurnish
an illustration of the familiar truth, that like causes
produce like effects.
You must not suppose from what I have said
that I intended to deny (for I am speaking of opinions held by me for years before I came here)
either the reality of the change which occurs in
conversion, or the agency of the Holy Spirit in
producing it. Its reality was evident from the fact,
that men who before had lived in the practice of open
sin, and who had mocked at all religious principle,
did now manifestly reform their lives and endeavor
to conform their conduct to the precepts of the
Bible; from being bad men, they did become good
men. This was a fact patent to the observation
of every one, and I believed that all such reformations are wrought through the influence of God's
spirit working upon the soul. But on the other
hand, I believed that the degree of such change is
very various, depending entirely upon the previous
character. In those who have always lived in per
sistent rebellion against what they knew to be their
duty, and who have given unchecked sway to their
evil inclinations, the change must necessarily be
deep and violent; on the other hand, in young persons, examples of whom may be found in abundance
in Christian families, who seem always to have been
80 
Gropings after Truth.
under the influence of right moral feelings, al.d who
have never been happy with the consciousness of
having done wrong until they have confessed their
fault and been forgiven, the change is a very slight
one, except just so far as it is made important by
the opinions of their parents and religious teachers;
and if they were brought up under a right system
of instruction, it would be either wholly unnecessary,
or would take place so quietly and at so early an
age, that the subject of it might know nothing
about it. Between these two extremes, there would
naturally be every intermediate degree of change
in the affections and the life.
The result of my observations and reflections was
a conviction that there is no necessity that all persons should pass through the peculiar experiences
called in New England "conviction" and "conversion," and that the children of the church, if
properly educated, might be expected to grow up
into mature Christians as naturally as the kernel
of wheat grows into a wheat-stalk and not into a
thistle.
This conviction necessarily led to a change in
my opinions in regard to "regeneration."  Hithero
I had never thought of it as being anything else
than the "conversion" of Calvinists.  But having
become convinced that this may, in many cases, be
8I 
Gropizgs after Treth
of very little practical importance, if not absolutely
unnecessary, I was obliged to seek elsewhere for
the "new birth," which it is evident, from the
stress laid upon it by our Lord, cannot be regarded
in so trivial a light. His words are very explicit.
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God." If, therefore, this new birth does
not take place in conversion, where are we to look
for it? The answer seemed to me a very plain
one; so plain that I wondered I had never seen it
before. It is contained in the reply of our Saviour
to the wondering question of Nicodemus: "Except
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Christians
of the sect to which I belonged wholly ignore the
words "of water " in this text. That they refer to
the water of baptism no one denies; they can by
no possibility mean anything else. Yet these Christians, while believing that a man must be born of
the Spirit, deny that he must be or is born of water.
This is evident from the fact that they refuse baptism
to an unbaptized adult, unless they have what they
consider satisfactory evidence that he has already
been regenerated in conversion. He must have
been "born again" before being baptized, or they
will not baptize him; hence, if he is born of water
at all, it must be a second new birth, supplemental
82 
Gropings after Truth.
to the former. These persons hold no such opinion
as this; they reject altogether the doctrine that regeneration takes place in baptism; yet the fact is
declared in this text, in language as clear and unequivocal as are the words which can be adduced
in proof of any article of Christian faith. They
must mean this or have no meaning at all.
But decisive as is this text, there is other evidence in abundance that regeneration takes place
in baptism. The rite, as practised in Calvinistic
churches, means nothing and effects nothing, so far
as the recipients are concerned, when applied to
young children. Hence, if a child should die unbaptized, it is considered of no consequence whatever.   But such views  are entirely inconsistent
with the importance evidently attached to the rite
in the New Testament. It is unnecessary for me
to refer to particular texts in proof of this; you
need only read the Bible yourself, with this thought
in your mind, in order to be convinced of it.
Finally, I was satisfied that it had always, from the
earliest ages, been the doctrine of the church, that
baptism is something more than a mere dedication
of the child to God on the part of its parents. All
history shows this, and the language of the Nicene
Creed, which few deny was the creed of the church
long before the "corruptions of popery" were in,
83 
Grolpings after Trtiht.
troduced, proves it: "I acknowledge one baptism
for the remission of sins."
Some objections to this view of regeneration
presented themselves to my mind, but all seemed
to admit of reasonable answers. In the first place,
if the new birth occurs in baptism, many persons
are regenerated who are never converted to righteousness.   It appeared  to  me  that two replies
could. be made to this, either of which might be the
true one.  It is evident from the term used to designate it that regeneration is purely an act of God
in which the subject of it is as passive as in his
natural birth. What is the nature of the change
produced I did not profess to know, but had no doubt
that it freed the individual from some evil inherent
in human nature as a consequence of the sin of our
first parents, and I saw no necessary connection
between this act of divine power and mercy and
the subsequent turning from the world to God,
which is the act of the sinner himself. Or, if this
reply is unsatisfactory, we may suppose, I argued,
that God, who knows in every individual case whether
the recipient of baptism will be a true Christian in
after life or not, makes the regenerative power ot
the rite dependent upon what he knows will be the
future action of the baptized person.
Again, supposing this doctrine of baptismal re
84 
Gropings after Truth.
generation to be true, many persons are converted
before being regenerated. I saw no difficulty in
this. It is the duty of all men to love and serve
God whether regenerate or not, and whatever man
ought to do, he can do; for it has always seemed to
nie a self-evident proposition that where there is no
ability there is no obligation. If, therefore, an unregenerate maii can repent and turn to God, there
is no reason for denying that, under the influence
of the Holy Spirit, he sometimes does.
Again, a person may be truly converted and
suddenly die before being baptized: how can he
enter the kingdom of heaven?   My reply to this
was, God holds the lives of all men in his hands,
and if he takes from any one the power of complying with his requirements, he will undoubtedly accept the will for the deed.
You will understand that no one but myself is
responsible for the views which I have been expressing; I am stating merely the operations of my
own mind in relation to these questions. I had
never read the writings of any advocate ot the doc
trine of baptismal regeneration, and do not know
at the present time whether they would answer the
above objections as I have done. I only know that
these answers seemed satisfactory to me.
This view of regeneration solved the difficulty in
85 
Gropings after Truth.
deciding the time of my own conversion. I belie  ed
that I had been "born again" in the water of baptism, and conversion being nothing more than a
turning of the affections from the world to God, I
saw no reason why it might not occur more than
once. Indeed, every act of penitence is a partial
conversion toward God, as every sinful act is a
partial retroversion from him.
Holding these views in regard to the effect and
importance of baptism, it is evident that I could
not consistently continue my connection with a
church, one of the articles of whose creed is, that
"only believers (by which word is meant, members
of the church) and their infant children are proper
subjects of Christian baptism." If my ideas were
correct, it would be horribly wrong to refuse baptism to any one, or to the children of any one, who
might be willing to receive it for them or himself,
even though he should refuse to perform any other
Christian duty. Our Saviour's command is: "Go
ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them;" yet here was a church professing to do the
former in obedience to the command, and positively refusing to do the latter except to those who
would subscribe to certain dogmas which it did not
itself dare to say were essential to salvation. Far
better would it be to do as Protestant historians
86 
Gropiitgs after Trottlt.
say was done in tormer days by Catholic missionaries-seize upon all persons who fell into their
hands, and baptize them even against their will.
I have brought my narrative down to the time of
my coming to W, nearly three years ago, and
you now see the motives which led me to connect
myself with the Episcopal Church. In the first
place, I preferred a form of service in which I could
feel that I was myself taking a more important part
than that of a listener; secondly and chiefly, the
church has a creed to which I could give my assent.
But in enrolling myself as a member of this
church, did I intend to acknowledge her right to
prescribe to me authoritatively what I should believe? Certainly not.  "The Bible alone" was still
my rule of faith as much as before, and I considered myself under no more obligation to receive the
Thirty-nine Articles as of divine authority, than the
"Confession of Faith" of any New England congregation. Both are alike the expression of merely
human opinions; both alike are to be received or
rejected according as they do or do not seem to me
to be sustained by the word of God. The creeds,
those called the "Apostles'" and the "Nicene," I
accepted without questioning, and supposed that I
did so because I was convinced they are thus sus
87 
Gropings after Truth.
tained; at least, I should undoubtedly have given
tis as my reason if asked why I believed them.
But I soon discovered that I had an entirely different reason for receiving them and rejecting the
authority of the "Articles of Religion." This was,
that I knew the creeds were almost as old as the
Christian religion, and expressed the faith of the
church as it had been from the earliest ages, while
the "articles" date back no further than the reigns
of Edward the Sixth and Elizabeth. It may appear
strange that it did not at once occur to me, that in
this I had abandoned my rule of faith-the Bible
alone-and had adopted another, namely, the teachings of the early church. But I did not think of this
until some time afterward; for the moment I stepped
outside of the creeds, I saw no means of ascertaining what these teachings were. Anterior to the
Reformation" there was but one  church, and
whatever we now possess which is true has been
handed down through successive ages by her.
But I had always believed that this truth has been
so buried under errors and corruptions, that it is
now almost impossible to dig it out from under the
mass of rubbish in which it is concealed. The
creeds stand out clear and distinct above it, firm
and immovable as the primitive rock, and upon
them I felt secure; bat all around them I saw noth
88 
Giopings after Truth.
ing on which I could venture to trust my foot In
taking the teachings of the early church, therefore,
for my rule of faith, and having to depend upon my
own sagacity in discovering what they were, I
should have been far worse off than with the "Bible
alone."
And now, for the first time in my life, I began to
suspect that the opinions in which I had been educated, and the truth of which I had never questioned, in regard to the Catholic Church, were not
quite correct.  Two years ago, M       began sending me The Catholic World, and I read the successive numbers as they appeared, merely from curiosity, to see how the advocates of this absurd superstition would attempt to defend it in the brilliant light of this nineteenth century. But I soon
found, to my astonishment, that the sentiments expressed by the writers who supplied the pages of the
magazine were wholly irreconcilable with what I had
always supposed to be the doctrines of the church.
Thie discovery was so unexpected that I was absolutely bewildered by it, and was in the condition of
the seaman who should suddenly find all his old
landmarks, which he had considered as firm as the
earth itself, beginning to shift and dance about,
and disappear, at last, altogether. I no longer knew
what to depend upon, or whether I could depend
89 
Gropinzgs 7fter Truth.
upon anything. Had the church changel her doc.
trines? This I knew she certainly had not done
since the Council of Trent, in the sixteenth century;
yet 1 had never doubted that she held doctrines
which evidently were not held by the writers or the
conductors of this magazine, which is endorsed by
the highest authorities of the church as an exponent of Catholic opinions.
The first thing which began to open my eyes was
finding the massacre of Bartholomew's incidentally
spoken of in a manner quite like to that in which
I had been used to speak of it myself. I had beeii
taught that this slaughter was instigated by the pope,
that it was and is justified and defended bv all
Catholics, and that at the time of its occurrence it
was made the subject of a special Te D)eum at Rome.
This I found to be assumed as all false; its falsity
not spoken of as a matter which was to be argued,
but taken for granted in such a way as to show
that the writer supposed all his readers knew it to
be false. 1 had regarded it as a doctrine of the
church that heretics were to be extirpated without mniercy by fire and sword; and I found religious
persecution condemned as strongly as it could be
by any Protestant review.  1 had believed it to be
a doctrine of the church, that "the end sanctifies
thle means," and that it is right to do evil that good 
Gropinzgs after Truth.
may come;" and I found such doctrines neN Or al
luded to except with abhorrence.    I had  been
taught that the priests professed to pardon sin by
their own power; that they sold pardons for money,
and sold even permissions to commit sin, pardoning
it in advance before it was committed. I found that
the contributors to The Catholic World knew nothing
of such doctrines. I had been taught that the Catholic religion is one of merely exterior forms and
ceremonies, having very little of inward piety; yet
I found all the articles of this periodical pervaded
with a spirit of piety apparently more genuine,
more fervent, and more uniformly consistent than I
had ever seen in other writings even professing to
be "religious."  The writers seemed not to have
put on their religion for some special purpose, intending to take it off like a holiday dress when the
occasion should be over, but they wore it always
and everywhere, as their ordinary working-day raiment.  Laying down Hrarper's or The At/1ntic and
taking up The Catholic World seemled like going from
a pagan temple into a Christian church; an.4 I found
m)self becoming a better Christian, from month to
month, through the influence of this oracle of a "corrupt church," learning to love God and my fellowmen more and more. day by day, through the teachings of those who, if my old instructors were to be
91 
Gropings after Truth.
believed, have no such love themselves. A most
marvellous result truly!
Then turning my attention from these writings to
the living representatives of the Catholic faith
whom I saw everywhere around me, whose whole
lives are spent in doing good, and who are looking
for no reward in this world for their self-sacrificing
charity, the conclusion which I could not avoid
was: Protestants may talk as much as they please
about the "corruptions" of the Catholic Church;
but if, as our Lord said, a tree is to be known by
its fruits, there can be nothing very corrupt about
this old church as it exists among us, whatever it
may have been in the days of Martin Luther. That
it is now and here a true church of Christ, I have
not a shadow of doubt.
Having made this acknowledgment, it was plainly impossible for me to stop here. This church
claims to be, not merely a church, but the church;
she claims to speak by divine authority, and demnands obedience from all Christians. It is evident
that, if she has this authority, she supplies just what
I have felt the need of all my life-a reliable interpreter of the word of God. At length I began to
think her claims might be well founded, and by
a gradual process of change my admission of the
possibility of this was converted, through the opera
g2 
(;Grohizgs after.'rzth.9
tions of my own mind, into a conviction of its probability, and finally into a full belief in its truth.
Throughout this process, which was going on during a period of nearly a year, I went to no Catholic,
layman or priest, for advice or instruction, and I
read no Catholic books, being resolved, that in
case I should eventually become a convert to their
faith, you and my friends should be unable to say
I had been led astray by the craft and deceit of
priests and Jesuits. It was not until nothing remained as an obstacle in the way of my going to
what I believed to be the only true church of
Christ, except some of the charges made against
her by Protestants, which I had never seen answered though I had no doubt they had been, that
[ sought an interview with a Catholic priest. He
gave me to read Milner's Endof Controversy. If this
book had been written expressly to meet my wants,
it could not have done it better. Before I had
fitnished it my hesitation was at an cnd, my resolution was made, and now I thank my God, morning
and evening and all day long, that he has so mercifully opened my eyes to see the truth to which
for so many years I have been blind. My doubts
and difficulties are over; I know what the Bible
requires me to believe and do, because I have
found the Philip whom I needed as an interpreter
93 
Gropiizes after Trutl.
of the sacred writings, but whom I have longed foT
in vain all my life, not suspecting he was so near
me.
As I have kept no record of the successive steps
by which, during the last two years, I have been
advancing toward my present position, I cannot
state them in chronological order. I can only give
you the general results, with the considerations
which have led to them, and in doing so I shall be
obliged to repeat to some extent what I have already said. I will endeavor, however, to avoid this
as far as possible. I hope you will reflect upon
each of these considerations which appear to me so
convincing, and, if you think any of my premises
false or my deductions erroneous, that you will
point them out to me, in order that I may see them
as you do, provided your view of them is most in
accordance with truth; for to know the truth is undoubtedly the desire equally of both of us. Remember, also, that it is illogical and irrational to
deny the conclusion, while you are unable to show
where the reasoning which leads to it is false, unless you have such evidence of its falsity as ought
t, be satisfactory to every one who means to believe
what God has said, whether it is sustained by aIgu.
ment or not.  If you have any such evidence of the
falseness of the religion taught by the Catholic
94 
Gropings after Truth.
Charch, I should be able to see it as well as your
self, and it would be wrong in you to withhold it
from me.
The first conclusion at which I arrived as the re3ll1t of my reflections was this: The Bible alone is
not a sufficient rule of faith; by which I mean that
it is not such a guide to God's truth that all men,
or indeed that any man, merely from a study of its
pages, can ascertain with absolute assurance what
are its teachings, or can be certain that his opinions, when formed, may not possibly be erroneous.
At the risk of giving my narrative the appearance
of a doctrinal treatise, I will, for the sake of distinctness, mark with figures and letters the steps
of the reasoning which has led me to this conclusion.
(i.) My own experience has shown me that, however sufficient the Bible alone may be for other
men, it is quite insufficient for me. The foregoing
history of my past spiritual life must convince you
also of this fact.
(2.) There is internal evidence in the Bible itself that it cannot be a sufficient rule of faith.
(a.) The truths of the Christiani religion are not
there stated clearly and distinctly, so that even the
unlearned man. by a mere perusal of the book, can
understand what it intends to teach; and it is im
95 
Gropings after Truti.
possible to reconcile this obscurity with the doe.
tiine that every man is required to learn the truth
from itlalone, and will be punished for ever if he
fails to do so. So evident is this that Protestants
are forced to admit it; and, in order to avoid the necessary consequence, they have to fall back upon
the assertion that God will himself explain his
word to those who ask him to do so. This would
be satisfactory, were it not that, if the assurances of
pious, devout men of various faiths are worth anything, God has, under just these circumstances, given
as many different explanations of his teachings as
there are different creeds in the world, and those
who hold the most contradictory opinions are alike
confident that they have been enlightened from on
high.
(b.) It is evident that the sacred writers themselves
had no suspicidn that their writings would, in future
ages, be regarded as containing the whole code of
the Christian religion. The gospels are mere narratives of some of the events which occurred in the
life of our Lord, and are designed to be nothing
more; even as such they are, according to the testinmony of St. John, very incomplete. Most of the
Epistles of St. Paul were written for purely local
purposes, and allude to points of doctrine only so
far as these have a bearing upon the special object 
Gropiitzgs after Trith.
which he had in view. He also constantly assumes that his readers are familiar with circumstances which gave rise to his letters, and a knowledge of which is essential to their proper understandil)g, but of which we know little or nothing.
He also makes allusion to customs and doctrines
in so cursory a manner that we can form no defi
nite idea of his meaning, at the same time promis
ing to explain by word of mouth those things which
may not be understood by his readers. It appears to
me that no one can read his epistles with the object
kept before the mind, of judging whether, in writing
them, he had any other than a local and temporary
end in view, without being convinced that, if he
had, it is not apparent.
(c.) We have the testimony of St. Peter that
there are in the Epistles of St. Paul "some things
nard to be understood, which they that are unlearn.ed and unstable wrest, as also the other Scriptures,
unto  their own perdition."    He  does not say,
they who are perverse and wilfully blind, but they
that are "unlearned and unstable," that is, not establishled, fixed in their faith.  Now, if knowledge
of  and stability in the truth are to be acquired
only from a study of the Scriptures, every man
must be both unlearned and unstable when hle first
enters upon that stud)   The words of the apostle,
97 
';iropzngs.,ftr  Truth.
therefore, must mean one or the other of two thii,gs.
either, that there are some things in the Epistles of
St. Paul which any man, who, with a consciousness
ol Iris own ignorance, searches them for instruction,
may misunderstand and thereby destroy himself,
and that this is also true of the other Scriptures;
or, that before venturing upon an examination of
the Scriptures for himself, he should, by some other
means, have acquired such a knowledge of the
truth and such stability of faith as to render him
secure against the danger of misinterpretation.
%Whichlever of these two explanations you  may
choose to adopt, both are equally fatal to the
Protestant dogma, that "the Bible alone is a
sufficient Rule of Faith."
(3.) rhis doctrine is not really held by Protestants themselves.
(a.) This is proved by their practice.   I need
not dwell upon this point, having done so sufficiently already. Every one must admit it who reflects, that Protestants are careful to teach theii
children what  they themselves  regard as truth,
long before those children are old enough to understand the Bible; and if the child, on becoming a
man, should, through a study of the Scriptures,
abandon the faith of his parents and adopt another
adverse tL theirs, he is condemned and excommu
98 
Gropings after Tuth,.
cated as a rebel. He may make the Bible his
rule of faith as long as he consents To interpret it as
his religious teachers have done, but no longer.
I will venture an assertion which you will probably
regard as extravagant, but which, nevertheless, I
believe to be strictly true.  It is this: that most
Christian parents would refrain from urging upon
their children the reading of the Bible-that very
many of them would endeavor to prevent it-if
they supposed the result of such reading would be,
the rejection by a child of the doctrines held by
themselves and his adoption of those of some rival
sect.   But they know from experience and observation that the danger of this result is so exceedingly small that they need feel no anxiety in regard
to it.
(b.) Protestants admit that it is hazardous for
a man to enter upon the study of the Bible with
the assumption that he knows nothing already of
Scripture doctrine, and that everything is to bIe
learned from the written word.  This is a very
singular admission when coupled with the assertion
that he must derive his faith from those Scriptures
and from them alone. He must study the Bible in
order to ascertain what he is required to believe;
but he should first be careful to have decided what
he will believe, or else it is possible, it is.even pro.
'n::": ~'" 
99 
Gropiugs after Truth.
bable, that he will fall into dangerous enors. The
inconsistency of these two doctrines is so manifest,
when they are thus placed side by side, as to be
positively ludicrous; yet they are both held by the
great mass of pious Protestants, in total unconsci  ousness of their incompatibility.   What should we
think of a professor of law, who begins his course
of lectures to a class of students by telling them,
they should not enter upon their legal studies with
the assumption that they have learned nothing of
law already, and that everything is to be learned
from their books and teachers, for in so doing they
would be likely to adopt very erroneous notions?
What would be thought of a professor of medicine,
who commences his instructions by warning his
pupils against the danger of studying the nature
and treatment of diseases without having first form  ed their own opinions in regard to these matters?
Yet I well remember that, in opening his course of
lectures upon theology when I was a student, the
professor warned his class against starting from the
position, that no religious truth is already known
by them, and that everything is to be learned as
they advance; saying that he had known several
instances in which students had done so with the
most honest intentions, expecting one doctrine to
.pe....    [.o.e after another. just as one demonstration
*.A:-.':.,
too 
Gropinfgs after Truth.
follows another in geometry; but the result was,
that they left the seminary as infidels.   In reflecting upon this statement, I was convinced that his
words of caution were wise, and might be necessary
to some persons; for I was conscious that I admitted the truth of the doctrines held by myself,
not because I was sure they could be proved from
the Bible, but simply because, after my long period
of scepticism, I felt the necessity of having some
religious creed, and had resolved by a mere act of
the will to believe what seemed most likely to be
the truth.
(c.) Protestants hold as revealed truth what is
not taught at all in the Bible.
Here you will probably open your eyes in amazement, wondering what I can mean; but I think
you will be compelled to acknowledge, after having
read what I am about to write, that you do yourself believe now, and have always believed, as of
divine authority, doctrines which have not a shadow
of support in the Scriptures.
You admit that the Decalogue is a universal law,
desigied for all men and all times, not abrogated,
as was the Jewish ceremonial law, by the coming of
Christ, and that you are now required to obey that
law just as much as if no Messiah had ever appeared.  Now read your Fourth Commandment and tell
IOI 
Gropings after Truth.
me whether you are obeying it; whether you ever
obeyed it in your life: "The seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt do
no work." You have set aside a plain command
of that terrible law, given by Jehovah amid the
lightnings and thunders of Sinai, a law written with
his own finger upon the tables of stone; and you
certainly would not dare to do this, unless you have
ev idence the most conclusive, evidence which cannot
be questioned, that God has himself consented to
its abrogation. Search your Bible for this evidence,
and what do you find?  Nothing except the statement, in Acts xx. 7, that on a certain occasion the
disciples came together on the first day of the week
to break bread, and that Paul preached to them.
You certainly cannot regard the record of this
event, which may have been, for aught which you
know to the contrary, an extraordinary meeting,
caused by the intended departure of the apostle on
the morrow, as furnishing a sufficient ground for
habitually disobeying one of the commands of the
Decalogue. The first day of the week is nowhere
called the Sabbath; this name is always used to
designate the seventh, and you admit that you are
bound to observe the Sabbath as much as were the
Israelites, except that you have taken the liberty of
changing it from the dav appointed by God him.
102 
Gropings after Truth.
self to another day appointed by nobody, st far as
can be ascertained from Scripture.
In order to show the force of this argument, let
us suppose that Christians in all parts of the world
had always, down to the present day, observed the
seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, in accordance with the law of Mount Sinai, and that now,
for the first time in the world's history, some selfstyled reformer should endeavor to persuade them
that their Lord intended to change the Sabbath
from the seventh to the first day, and, when asked
to furnish his evidence of this, should refer to the
above text in the Acts of the Apostles, and to that
in the Revelation of St. John, which shows that some
day was known to the Christians of his time as the
"Lord's day," though whether it'was a particular
day of the week, oi of the month, or of the year,
we have no means of deciding. Suppose, on no
better evidence than this, he should attempt to
change the practice of the church, how much success do you think he would have? Would not his
reasoning be met with a universal laugh of cointempt?  Would he not be regarded as i crazy fa
natic, unworthy of a serious answer?  fet this argument would be just as sound then, when urged in
support of a proposed change, as it is now, when
offered in explanation of a change actually existing.
103 
Gropings after Truth.
If it would be ridiculous in the former case, it is
equally ridiculous in the latter. Have I, then, or
have I not, proved my point, that in be!ieving the
first day of the week is to be observed as the Sabbath, your faith is not founded on the Bible?
Again, the same admission must be made in regard to your belief in the validity of infant baptism.
Not a syllable in support of the doctrine can be
found in the Bible; and this is so palpably true, that
theologians of the very sects which insist most
strongly upon trying all doctrines by Scripture
alone, are obliged to abandon their principle so far
as this is concerned, and to acknowledge that it
rests wholly upon the practice of the church in all
ages.  When fairly driven to the wall, they bring
forward the absurd argument, that in two or three
instances persons are said to have been baptized
with their households, and the probability is that
there were infants in some of these families; and
as the sacred writers do not say that these infants
(supposing that there were any) were not baptized,
it follows, of course, that they were. This is just
about as logical as it would be for you to infer,
fiom my saying that Mr. A. and Mr. B. and Mr.
C., with their families, partook of the sacrament,
last Sunday, that it is customary in WN      to give
fle sacramental bread and wine to infants; for the
104 
Gropings after Truth.
piobability is that there is at least one infant in
these three families, and, as I have not said these
infants did not receive the sacrament, I must be
understood as implying that they did. The persons to whom, or for whom, the apostles wrote,
knew whether it was customary to baptize infants,
as well as you know whether it is usual to take
them to communion;  and if they were excluded
from the former rite, it was no more necessary for
the sacred penman to say so in order to avoid being misunderstood, than it would be for me to qualify my statement in the same way in my supposed
letter to you.
The weakness of this argument from Scripture
in support of infant baptism may be shown by trying it by the same test which I just now applied to
that in defence of the Christian Sabbath. Suppose
that, down to the present day, baptism had been
confined to adults; and that now, for the first time,
same one should propose to exteil i the rite to infants, urging the texts to which I have referred in
evidence that such persons were baptized by the
apostles; how many proselytes do you think he
would obtain? You, and every person of ordinary
intelligence, would reply: "Prove to us, first, that
there were any infants in the household of Stephanus,
and then prove that the Corinthian Christians were
1o5 
Gropings after Truth.
so ignorant that St. Paul, in order to avoid being
misunderstood, would consider it necessary to tell
them whether he was, or was not, in the habit of
baptizing such persons-prove to us these two
things, first, and then we may think what you say
worthy of serious consideration; but not till then."
What I have said with regard to the practice of
infant baptism applies with equal force to that of
baptism by sprinkling. In every instance in which
the rite is so spoken of that we can form an opinion
as to the manner in which it was performed, we
know positively that it was not by sprinkling.  Yet
you believe such baptism to be valid without a par
tidcle of Scripture evidence in favor of your opinion.
Have I not, then, proved my proposition, that Protestants believe things as articles of religious faith
which are not taught in the Bible at all?
(d.) Protestants reject doctrines which ale plainly
taught in Scripture.
This proposition will be received by you with
still more incredulity than the preceding, and you
will suppose I am about to refer to what you would
call the popish doctrines of auricular confession,
purgatory, extreme unction, and other such things.
But though all these can be better supported from
the Bible than some of those which you profess
to believe on Scripture authority, yet I need
1o6 
Gropings after 7ruth.
not allude to them at all in order to prove my position. There is one religious duty taught so plainly,
in the Bible that I do not see how any Christian can,
deny it; yet it is denied by almost all Protestant,
sects.  I refer to the practice of fasting.  Tile'
Episcopal Church has appointed her days of fasting, but leaves the observance of them wholly to,
the private judgment of her members, and few pay
any regard to them. Christians of other denomi —
nations seldom even pretend to fast. Their argument is, that there can be nothing pleasing to God'
in a mnian's going without his dinner, and that the,
practice is a superstitious one. But that any per —
son can read the New Testament, and see how,
constantly prayer and fasting are spoken of togetheras equally important and equally efficacious as
means of grace, and then reject the one without at.
the same time renouncing the other, is marvellous..
There is no need of my quoting texts to you in
order to prove what I say; they are perfectly
familiar to you now; and I am confident that, if'
you reflect upon this question with the Bible open'
before you, you must admit that there is no duty'
more plainly taught by our Lord than that of fasting.   Yet you will confess that you have never
fulfilled this duty any further than perhaps to make
a light dinner once a year at the appointment of
o07 
Gropings after Truth.
the civil government, and of late years very fen
Chi istians do even this. I acknowledge that I have
never myself been in the habit of observing these
annual fast-days, because I have never recognized
the right of the governor of the state to prescribe
to me my religious duties. At the same time, I
have never doubted that our Lord did expect his
disciples to fast after he should be taken from
them as much as he expected them to pray; and
as it is evident the Christians of the first ages so
understood his commands, and practised in accordance with this understanding of them, it has always
been a mystery to me why modern Christians should
consider themselves relieved from this duty, and
should have come to regard it as not only useless,
but childish and semi-heathenish.
In denying, therefore, the necessity of fasting,
Protestants deny what is plainly taught in the
Bible.
To this I may add, so far as non-Episcopal sects
are concerned, the rejection of the doctrine of
regeneration by baptism, of which I have spoken
already. If our Lord did not refer to regeneration
when he said, "Except a man be born again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God;" and if he did
not refer to the water of baptism when he said,
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,"
o08 
Gropiiztgs after Yruth.
then this doctrine may be false. On any other
supposition, I see not how it can be.  Yet I do not
doublt that, if I should read this text to you on Mon clay, and  ask whether the words  "born again"
denote regeneration, you would reply, "Yes, certainly;" if another person should read the same
text on Tuesday, and ask you what the words "of
water" mean, you would say, "Baptism, of course;"
and if a third should ask on Wednesday whether
you believe regeneration takes place in baptism,
you would reply, with soli me wonder at the question,
No, certainly not."  Try the experiment on some
of your church members, and see if the result is not
just what I have said.
(4.) The doctrine, that the Bible alone is a sufficient rule of faith, has given rise to hundreds of
sects, which must, in the very nature of things, go
on multiplying, so long as there is no recognized
authority to which disputes may be referred.  This
division began when the authority of the church
was first set aside, in violent and bitter quarrels between the leaders of the so-called "Reformation,"
Luther, and Calvin, and Zwingle, and it has continued and been fruitful in the propagation of new
divisions ever since; and that it will still continue
to be so is as certain as it is that what are now the
terminal twigs of a tree will, if it continue to grow,
log 
Gropings after Truth.
branch into two or three new shoots, tlienselves to
become stems for other branches. That this is an
evil few persons calling themselves Christians can
deny, and just at this time attempts are making in
some quarters to remedy it.  The leaders of the
Old and New Schools of the Presbyterian Church
are endeavoring to unite these two sects. They
will probably fail; but even if they seem to succeed, the general result will amount to nothing.
It is much as if a gardener should imagine that,
by grafting together two terminal branches of a
tree, he is beginning a process by which the whole
tree-top may ultimately be reduced to a single
trunk.  He may possibly, by careful nursing, induce two twigs to grow into one; but the operation is contrary to nature, and they will immediately begin to divide again. So it is, and so it always
must be, with religious sects, as long as every mall
has an indisputable right to form his own opinions
in regard to the teachings of the Bible, and to persuade as many persons as he can to adopt them.
If a man wishes to be at the head of something,
and can draw a crowd after himself in no other
way, he can generally do it by striking out some
new system of religious faith.
(5.) This doctrine has led vast numbers of persons to the conclusion that, since there are very
I-IO 
Gropiigs  azfter  TruthI.
few articles of the Christian creed which can be
established with certainty, it is of no importance
what a man believes, so long as he is sincere, and
acts according to his own convictions of duty. I
have shown, in a former part of these pages, that
this conclusion seems to be logically deduced from
premises which cannot be disputed, and. that I was
myself greatly perplexed at seeing no means of escape from it, though I knew it could not be true.
(6.) The doctrine is absurd; for it cannot be
proved from the Bible, and must, therefore, be
condemned when tried by the standard set up by
itself. That all which the Bible teaches is to be
received as God's truth, no one disputes; but that
the Bible anywhere teaches that its own pages
contain everything which men ought to know and
do, no one who has any regard for his own reputation would dare say to an intelligent audience. He
would be required to produce chapter and verse,
and this he would be totally unable to do.
(7.) The doctrine is absurd, because it is imnpossible to ascertain from the Bit-le what writings constitute the Bible.  Protestants are so in the habit
of thinking and speaking of the New Testament as
a complete whole, that one would suppose, fromi
their manner of expressing themselves, that the
Gospels and Apostolic Epistles were collected to
I I I 
Gropings after T[uth.
gether by the writers themselves in their present
form, and were so handed down by themn to succeeding generations. But every person acquainted
w'th history knows, that for three hundred years
these writings existed as separate, detached manuscripts, and that there were mixed with them a
large number of others which were thought by many
learned men to be equally apostolic with those
which now formn the canon of the New Testament.
These manuscripts were collected and carefully examined by the fathers of the church, and it is from
them that Protestants have received their Bible. In
one respect, if in no other, they recognize the authority of the Catholic Church; that is, in receiving as
sacred scripture just what the church has declared
to be such, and rejecting everything else.
There seems to me something positively ludicrous
in the implicit faith which Protestants have in the
correctness of writings which have been handed
down, for fourteen hundred years, by successive
copyists, all of whom were devoted adherents of
the very church which, according to them, has been,
thliroughout this whole period, introducing corruption after corruption into both the faith and the
practice of its members.   Every ancient copy of
the New Testament scriptures, to which Protestant
commentators now appeal for the settlement of
1I2 
Gropings after Truth.
disputes in regard to the text, was written by, and
has been preserved by, the disciples of the men
who have introduced all these corruptions; yet no
one suspects them of having corrupted these writings.  The reason is plain:  as Protestants have
rejected the authority of the church, they are compelled to defend the correctness of the Scriptures;
otherwise, they would have no rule of faith whatever; and the church owes it to this necessity, and
to nothing else, that she has never had this accusation made against her. None of the original gospels or epistles are in existence, and the oldest
existing copies were made from preceding copies,
and no one knows how many generations of such
transcripts there were between the original manuscripts and the oldest now extant. No one, therefore, can know, with certainty, that we have a single epistle of St. Paul just as it came from his hand.
It would certainly have been far easier to introduce
corruptions into these manuscripts, which were almost exclusively in the hands of the clergy, than
into the faith which was the common possession of
the whole body of the people.  Yet the church is
accused of having done the most difficult of the
two things, and is not suspected of having attempted the easiest.
I have already said that there is internal evi
II3 
Gropings after Teuth.
dence in the Scriptures themselves that the sacred
writers had no idea they were composing a "sole
rule of faith" for all future ages. The same thing
is proved by the fact that no care seems to have
been taken in a single instance to preserve the original manuscript. If one of St. Paul's epistles,
written or signed with his own hand, were now in
existence, it would be guarded as carefully as were
the original tables of the law by the Jews. So they
would all have been preserved by the primitive
church, if she had regarded them in the same light
in which they are regarded by Protestants now;
and if the apostle had so viewed them, he would
undoubtedly have given directions for their preservation. But they were probably worn out by frequent reading and handling, even before his death,
leaving the care of perpetuating them in the hands
of copyists, whom nothing but a miracle could secure against more or less mistakes; and that they
did make mistakes in abundance, a comparison of
ancient manuscripts sufficiently proves.
So much in justification of the first conclusion to
which my examination led me; namely, that the
Bible alone is not a sufficient rule of faith.
It is evident that, if I had stopped with an admission of the truth of the preceding proposition, I
should have been like a ship in a fog, without chart
r I4 
Gropings after Truth.
or compass-unable to decide in what direction lay
the rocks which I knew were somewhere about me,
or what course I should steer in order to avoid
them. I did rot make this admission, therefore,
until I was satisfied of the truth of the second proposition; which is, that our Lord established a
body of living teachers, by whom he designed that
his religion should be taught orally throughout all
ages; and that the apostles, who were commissioned directly by himself, were only the first in a series
which was intended to be perpetual, and which has
continued down to the present day, and will continue to the end of the world.
The words addressed by our Saviour to the
eleven before his ascension admit of no other interpretation: "Go, teach all nations," etc.: "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway,"
or, as it is in the Greek, "all days, even uinto the
end of the world." It is impossible to doubt that
the promise in the last clause has reference to their
proper fulfilment of the duty enjoined upon them
in the preceding, they were to teach, and he would
be with them to direct their teaching until-when?
-the day of their death?  No! but until the end
of time.
I am almnost ashamed to acknowledge that I have
I15 
Gropings after TrutIh.
been reading the Bible all my life, and have always
put a wrong interpretation on this text. I have
never attached any other meaning to the words,
"the end of the world," than the furthest limits of
the earth; and, if I am not much mistaken, this idea
is very commonly attached to them by Protestants.
It comes naturally from associating this passage
with the parallel one in St. Mark's Gospel: "Go
ye into all the world," etc.  The same English word
being used in both places, those who can read the
Bible in English only, will almost necessarily understand it in the same sense in both. I ought to
have known better, for I had read the text in Greek
often enough to have corrected the error, and my
not having done so shows how persistently first
impressions retain possession of the mind. I had
heard these words quoted scores of times in evidence of the perpetuity of a teaching church, and
had never recognized their force because of my
wrong understanding of them.  At length, on one
:tlch occasion, it suddenly occurred to me that they
might not mean what I supposed; and, on referring
to the Greek, I found, to my surprise, that they
could not have such a meaning; that they signify
'until the completion or termination of time," and
can by no possibility signify anything else.
Now, to whom did our Lord give this commission
I I6 
Gropings after Truth.
and this promise?   To the eleven apostles only?
If so, what did he mean by it? In what sense has
he been with them as a guide in their teachings
since their death? In what sense will he so be
with them until the end of the world? The only
intelligible explanation of the words is that which
supposes there were to be, until the end of the
world, living teachers, who should occupy the position then occupied by the eleven, having the same
commission and the same authority; that they were
to perpetuate their order by adding to their number,
as circumstances might require.   We know they
began this process almost immediately, by enrolling
Matthias among themselves, in the place of Judas,
and there is no reason to doubt that they continued
to do the same thing, at least as fast as vacancies
occurred.
It may seem a very uncharitable thing to say,
but I cannot avoid the suspicion that the translators of our English Bible knew they were obscuring
this text by their version of it. The proper English
equivalent of the preposition which they have rendered "unto," when followed, as in this case, by
woids denoting a future event, and, therefore, markiilig the limit of a period of time, is until, and so it
is generally, if not always, translated in the New
Testament. As I have no Greek concordance, J
117 
Gropings after Truth.
cannot say positively that this is the only passage
in which, when so used, it is rendered "unto;" but
I know of no other. Neither is it in accordance
with present English usage to say that a thing shall
continue "unto" the occurrence of some future event,
nor was it, as I think, in accordance with usage in
the days of James I. At all events, the meaning
of the text would have been perfectly clear if the
Greek word had received its ordinary translation of
"until."
How  this passage is explained by Protestant
commentators, I have no means at hand of judging, as I have no commentary on the New Testament except that of Dr. Bloomfield, who says not
a word in regard to it. As he must have known it
to be one of the strong texts of the Catholic
Church, I can only infer that he did not know how
to explain it in harmony with Protestant ideas.
He has a closely printed, double-columned, octavo
page of comments on the eighteenth, nineteenth,
and first half of the twentieth verses, but the last
half of the last verse seems not to have been in his
Bible.
In the second place, I believe in the perpetuity
of an order of living teachers, because such teachers are absolutely necessary. They are necessary
to individual Christians, who are in general unable
II8 
Gropintgs after Truth.
to ascertain, from a study of the Bible alone, w hat
they are required to believe and to do. If there
are living men authorized to instruct them in these
matters, as the apostles were authorized to teach
the Christians of the first age, the whole difficulty in
the case is removed at once. I need not dwell on
this point, having spoken of it sufficiently already.
Such recognized teachers are also necessary to
the church, as affording the only means by which
the present divisions in the "body of Christ" can
be healed. There should be unity in the church
of Christ; this seems a self-evident proposition.
Common sense tells us our Saviour never intended.
that those calling themselves his disciples should
be divided and subdivided as they now are into
numberless factions, holding different faiths, practising different baptisms, each party excluding all
others from the Lord's table, and all contending
quite as zealously against one another as against
the wickedness which exists in the world. Parents
and children, husbands and wives, brothers and
sisters, all professing to be children of the same
Heavenly Father, yet refusing to kneel before him
at the same altar, to worship him in the same temple, to receive his sacraments from the same ministers. These things are shocking; yet they must
continue until all are convinced that there is some
~.I9 
Gropings after Truth.
where on the earth a body of teachers, who have
authority from the Master himself to declare what
he would have them believe and do. I am, and
have long been, of the opinion that, if the leaders
in the so-called "Reformation" of the sixteenth
century could have anticipated the numerous divisions that would in future years spring out of their
rejection of the authority of the church, they would
have been filled with dismay at the prospect, and
would have seen then, what is plainly to be seen
now, that they should have been satisfied with endeavoring to bring about any needed reforms in the
church itself, and not have gone deliberately to
work to rend it to pieces. If by no other means
than this could abuses be corrected, they should
have left the matter to the disposal of the Lord of
the church, waiting for him to order events in his
own time and way, not daring to lift their sacrilegious hands against an organization which he had
himself established, and which St. Paul declares to
be the "body of Christ," he being the Head of that
body. What kind of a body Protestants have made
of it is apparent to every one; each limb declaring
itself to be the only one in union with the Head,
aid reflising to act in harmony with any other.
The testimony of the Bible to the necessity of
oneness in the church is so abundant that page
I20 
Gropings after Truth.
after page might be filled with quotations to that
effect. "There shall be one fold and one shepherd."  "That they may be one as we are;" a
niost remarkable text; as truly one as the Father
and the Son are one! "Neither pray I for these
alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word; that they all may be one."
"That they may be made perfect in one;" that is, in
unity, for the Greek word "one" in this passage is
neuter, and does not mean one person. All these
are the words of our Lord himself. The Epistles
of St. Paul are full of exhortations to unity: "Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace. One body, and one Spirit; as ye are
called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one
faith, one baptism." It would be a waste of time
to go on quoting such texts, as you can find them
in abundance on turning over the leaves of your
New Testament; and the chief object of St. John in
his First E'stle seems to have been to exhort
Christians to love one another.  Yet, in the face of
the Bible and in defiance of common sense, some
theologians are found who have the hardihood to
justify the divisions in the church on the ground
that they promote Christian zeal. They might as
rationally argue that it would be a good thing for
the right hand to be constantly acting in opposition
121 
Gropinigs ajte. T?7th.
to the left, because it would promote a development of the muscles.
In the third place, that there is a body of living
teachers, speaking with divine authority, has always
been believed in the Christian church, and until
the "Reformation" was never denied by any body
of men calling themselves Christians. I do not intend to produce evidence of this, as the burden of
proof rests upon those who assert what I deny. I
merely state it as a fact of which I have no doubt,
and which I think no one can doubt who will can
didly investigate the matter.
Finally, this is really the doctrine of the very
sects which most stubbornly insist that they have
received their faith from the Bible alone. The
Lutherans condemn every departure from the
dogmas of their founder, as if it were equivalent to
a rejection of the revealed will of God. The follow..
ers of John Calvin used formerly to view in the
same light every variation from his teachings; but
il later times so many have cut themselves loose
firom him, that different bodies have now very different authorities to which they appeal. The Preslyterians generally receive as authoritative  the
doctrines of the Westminster Assembly. The Congregationalists appeal, some to one and some to anotl.er noted theologian, living or dead, and require
122 
Gropihigs after Trnth.
all their church members to receive his opinions as
decisive.   Those who  know not where else to go
conform their faith to the creed of their minister,
judging that he ought to know better than they
what is to be believed. He has been educated to
teach them religion, just as their physician has been
educated to heal their bodily diseases, and they trust
their souls to the fornmer with the same confidence
with which they commit their bodies to the care of
the latter. I have no doubt that ninety-nine out of
every hundred persons professing to be Christians
would admit without hesitation that they recognize some body as havinig authority to teach them
religious truth, provided they were questioned in
such a way as not to arouse a suspicion in their
minds that the question was designed to entrap
them into a confession that their faith is not founded on the Bible alone. It is practically the doctrine
of all sects that Christians are t, be taught orally,
by lining teachers; and this is good Catholic doctrine, which has come down to them from the apostolic church, and which has lived through the three
hundred and fifty years of separation from the only
authorized living teacher, and which, in God's good
time, will carry them back to her.
The doctrine, that religious truth is to be taught
by the mouths of living men, is so consistent with
123 
Gropings after Truth.
reason, and supplies so exactly the want of which
every one must be conscious who endeavors by his
own efforts to ascertain what that truth is, that undoubtedly many persons have wished there were
such teachers, divinely authorized to instruct them,
and have wondered why there are none. On the
other hand, it is so unreasonable, so apparently absurd, to expect the ignorant masses, the commor
people, whom our Lord declares he came express y
to teach, to learn this truth from the study of a
book which very many of them cannot even read
in theii vernacular tongue, and the meaning of
which cannot be agreed upon by the wise and
learned-this expectation is so unreasonable that
no sensible person would entertain it for a moment,
if he were not absolutely compelled to do so. But,
as I have said several times before, there is no
escape from it when the authority of a teaching
church is thrown aside.
This point being established to my entire satisfaction, that our Lord founded a church which was
to endure throughout all time, and which, therefore,
exists now, and one of the prerogatives of which is
authority to teach all things whatsoever he has
coilmman(led, and whose teachings all men are required to receive, it only remained for me to find
this church. It must, of course, be "visible," feor
I24 
Gropings after Yrl(uth
an ilavisible chuich cannot be a teach-ng church.
Whatever other attributes it may possess, it certainly cannot have this, and this is the very one of
which 1 was in need.
Except the "Roman" Church, there is but one
in this country that makes any pretence to speak
with authority; this is, the Protestant Episcopal.
Her claims were, therefore, the only ones which I
was required to examine, and I did this with a perfect willingness to acknowledge their validity if I
could discover it, and a hope that I nmight be able
to do so; for I had no desire to take a step which
would be viewed with indignation by some of my
friends, and with contempt by others; a step which
some would attribute to knavery, and others, by a
stretch of charity, to nothing worse than foolishness.
With one single exception, I had not a relative or
friend to welcome me into the Roman Catholic
Church; all were outside; almnost all would, and
all might, withdraw their confidence from me the
moment they should learn that I had crossed its
threshold.
But the very first question which I was called t(o
consider in relation to the Episcopal Church was,
Does she claim authority to teach the Gospel?
Some of her ministers certainly claim it for her'
but does she claim it for herself? I presume the
I25 
G,7pipzags after 2Wuth.
rector of the church which I had been attending
would endorse everything which, down to this very
page, I have hitherto said, merely premising that
the word "Protestant," wherever I have used it,
does not include his church, and that the word
"Catholic" does. He, and those who agree with
him, who  are  commonly  called  "High-Church
Episcopalians," maintain the divine right of their
church to "teach all nations;" but, as I asked before, does the Episcopal Church claim it? If so, I
do not know where.  The Twentieth "Article of Religion" does, indeed, say, "The church hath authority in controversies of faith;" but the same article
admits the possibility of her teaching error, and if
she can do so, who is to decide whether she does
or not?  She has authority to teach so long as she
teaches truth, but her authority ceases when she
promulgates error. So has every other church this
authority; so has Martin Luther, or Emanuel Swedenborg, or Joseph Smith, or any, other man. The
authority is vested in the truth which is taught, not
in the persons who teach it.  A church which can
teach error has no authority at all in herself; the
truth which she teaches must be received because
it is truth, not because she teaches it, an(l, whether
it is truth or not, every man must judge for himself.
126 
Gropings after Truth.
This throws me back upon my own resources as
much as if there were no such church.
But what is meant by "the church " in this Twentieth Article?  As I have before said, a teaching
church must be a visible church; probably no one
will deny this; and the Nineteenth Article declares
that "the visible church of Christ is a congregation
of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God
is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered
according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things
that of necessity are requisite to the same."  Is
this the church which "hath authority in controversies of faith," and to which I am to apply for a
solution of my doubts? If so, she would be of no
use to me, even though she could speak with the
authority of Gabriel, for I should never know whether I had found her. But this cannot be what is
meant by "the church " in the Twentieth Article,
for it would make as many churches, all having authority, as there are suck congregations; and it is
not probable that the compilers of the Book of
(;ommon Prayer intended to imply that there is
only one such church, or even a small number of
them.  \What, then, is meant bv "the church" that
hathli authority?
I can find no definition of ally such body in the
Prayer-Book,but in the Creeds mention is made of
127 
Gropings after Truth.
a church to which the dcfinition given in tile Nine teenth Article will not apply, and this is undoubtedly
the one referred to in the Twentieth. "I believe in
the holy Catholic Church;" "I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church."  What church is this?
Is it the Protestant Episcopal? In what sense is
this church one?   Almost as many varieties of
doctrine are taught in it as by all other Protestant
sects put together. The English and American
churches, even, have not the same Creeds-the American Prayer-Book not containing the Athanasian,
which is retained in the English. It is useless to
argue this point. What I was in want of was, not
a church in which I could quietly settle myself
with all my own opinions left undisturbed, but a
church which would decide for me the questions
which I was unable to decide for myself, and whose
decisions I could believe of divine authority. The
want of unity in her teachings at different times. 
and even in different places at the same time, firnished most convincing evidence that this church
has no such authority. I was also satisfied that
neither the compilers of the English Book of Com
mon Prayer, nor the American bishops who revised
it for use in this country, ever thought of claiming
for their church a right to teach religious truth with
divine authority. This is altogether a recent idea,
128 
Gropings after Trzttl.
as is correctly maintained by the "Low Church'
controversial writers.
In order that you may understand my objections
to the Episcopal Church, it is necessary for you to
keep distinctly in mind, that I had already decided
that there is, somewhere on the earth, a church establishled, in a rudimentary form indeed, by Christ
himself, and to which still belong, as truly as to the
persons to whom they were first addressed, the
command to preach the Gospel, and the promise
that our Lord would guide them in so doing; and it
is this church which 1 was seeking. The doctrines
of the Episcopal Church might appear Scriptural,
her worship might be pleasing; her clergy learned
and sincere; her laity possessing every Christian
virtue; all these things I might and did admit. But
I required something more than all these; this was,
such unity and such distinctness in her teachings
as should afford satisfactory evidence that she
speaks merely as the audible voice of God. But
these are wholly wanting.   Her own clergy hold
opinions and preach doctrines as totally diverse as
are those of any conflicting sects, and which of
these are the doctrines of "the church" there is
no authority to decide. If the true church is "one,"
she cannot be this church.
But she does not possess the other attributes of
129 
Gropings after Tiruthi.
the Nicene Creed any more than she possesses
unity. She certainly makes no pretension to catholicity.  The English Church is the "Church of
England," and never pretended to be anything else;
and the American never claimed to be anything
more than an offshoot from the English, and cannot possess properties not possessed by that from
which she has derived her existence.
Just as little can  she claim  to be apostolic,
without at the same time either claiming to be one
with the "Roman" Church, or admitting that there
are two apostolic churches, teaching very different
doctrines.   She  confesses  necessarily that the
"Church of Rome" was the apostolic church
through all ages down to the time of her own separation from it; for it is from it that she professes
to have derived her own apostolicity; and, so far as
I know, no churchman pretends that, in imparting
this quality to her, the Catholic Church lost it
herself. "High-Church" writers endeavor to avoid
this difficulty by calling their organization a
"branch" of the Catholic, Apostolic Church.  But
if this is a branch, where is the trunk?   If the
Roman Church is that trunk, we have the anomaly
of a dead tree bearing a living branch.  If that
church is herself only a branch, then again, I ask,
where is the trunk?  I see no answer to this
13o 
Gropings after Trith.
question, except by falling back upon that "insvisible church," to which we may attribute every possible invisible excellence, but which cannot have
the practical quality of an ability to teach the
ignorant.   I have never heard repeated  those
words  of  the  Nicene  Creed, "I believe one
Catholic, Apostolic Church," without wondering
what idea is attached to them by the people around
me, or whether they attach any meaning to them
whatever. It appears to me now, that any intelligent Episcopalian, who will seriously ask himself
the question, "What do these words mean which I
am repeating almost every Sunday?" must come
to the conclusion that he is declaring his belief in
a different church from his own.
If, therefore, there now exist any church having
authority to teach the religion of Jesus Christ, and
to require that her teachings be received and obeyed it can be no other than the Roman Catholic
Church; if any has come down in an unbroken line
of succession from the apostles, it is this; if any
has consistently taught the same doctrines throughout the whole period of her existence, it is this; if
any can claim to be the church of the entire Christian world, it is this; if any, by the adoption of all
others into herself, would form a consistent, harmonious, and united whole, it is this, and this only. If
131 
G(roping v after Truth
she has no commission to teach the Gospel, mand no
assurance that she shall herself be taught by Infinite Wisdom, then no church has, and all which I
have said falls to the ground; I am again thrust
back into the ocean of doubt and perplexity, with
no pilot but my own unaided sagacity, just as I
thought I had found a secure harbor.
Now, you start up with the objections always
urged by Protestants against the teachings of this
church: that they are contrary to the Bible, or that
they cannot be found in it; that they are idolatrous
and immoral; that many of them are innovations,
introduced at various periods since the days of the
apostles; that of the ceremonies of the church, some
are frivolous and childish, and others are adaptations of heathen rites; that some of the popes have
been very wicked men and have sanctioned gross
abuses. All these objections I should have urged
myself not long ago with the same coufidence with
which you urge them now, and some of them are
true, as I now acknowledge. Yet my belief that
this is the "One Catholic and Apostolic Church"
of the Nicene Creed is unshaken by the necessity
of making this acknowledgment.
I will take up some of these objections, and give
you the replies that seem satisfactory to me. In
doing this I expect to say nothing new; nothing
132 
Gropings after Trieth.
that has not been said hundreds of times before;
but what I say will probably be new to you, as
you have never read anything written by a Catholic in defence of his religion, and are induced to
read this, as I suppose, merely by curiosity to learn
what the considerations are which have made a
Catholic of me.
And first, to the charge that the Catholic Church
teaches doctrines which are contrary to the Bible,
my only reply is: Prove this to my satisfaction, and
I will abandon her at once; the burden of proof
rests upon those making the assertion. She herself tells me that the Bible is the word of God, and
is to be received and obeyed as such.
But the church teaches things that are not clearly
taught in the Bible. This charge, I confess, is wellfounded. She teaches, for example, that the first
day of the week is for ever to be kept sacred as a
day of rest from labor, and of special religious observance; she teaches that the rite of baptism is
to be administered to infants, and that baptism
by aspersion  is valid.   You, also, hold  these
doctrines to be true, and you receive them on
her authority alone. If you reject some of her
teachings for no other reason than that they
cannot be proved from the Bible, consistency requires that you should apply the same rule to
all.'Fhe plairn answer to this objection is, our
133 
G[4opiiigs after Tlth.
Lord sent his disciples to preach, not to write
They preached all things whatsoever he had commanded them, and they transmitted to their successors their commission to do so; but there is no
evidence whatever that they wrote, or ever pretended to write, "all things." With the exception of
St. Paul, who was not one of the eleven, none of
them have written to any extent, and he probably
wrote many letters which have not been preserved.
Two, certainly, he speaks of himself: one to the
Corinthians anterior to that which we call the first,
(I Cor. v. 9,) and one to the church of Laodicea,
(Col. iv. i6,) which last he considered of so much
importance that he desired the Laodiceans to send
it to Colosse after having read it themselves. It is
also the opinion of commentators, Protestant as
well as Catholic, that the two Epistles tb the Thessalonians were written before any others now extant; yet, in closing the second of these, he says,
that it may be known as coming from him by the
greeting which it contains,written with his own hand,
"which is the token in every epistle."  These words
show plainly that he had been in the habit of writing
before this time. Once admit into y,our mind the
possibility that the sacred writings were not designed to take the place of oral instruction in religolous truth, but are to be regarded as only sub
134 
Gropings after Truth.
sidiary to it, and the objection, that the church
teaches things which are not contained in the written word, disappears at once. She teaches orally
what was so taught to her by the apostles, and what
has been so taught by successive living preachers
from their days to the present.
A more important objection to the Catholic
Church is, that many of her doctrines are corrupt
innovations, introduced at various times since the
early and confessedly pure days of the Christian
faith. I have carefully examined the evidences
urged in support of this charge-for, if it is true, it is
fatal to her claims-and have come to the conclusion, not only that it is not proved, but also that
the introduction of such innovations is now, and
has always been, impossible. Protestant writers
are not agreed as to the precise time when any of
these supposed novelties first made their appearance. They assume with regard to some, that they
were new in the age in which they are first found
alluded to in the writings of the early fathers.
But mere silence in regard to any doctrine does not
prove that it was unknown. They find detached
passages in some of these writings which appear to
indicate that the writers did not hold a certain doctrine; but, on the other hand, Catholic controversialists can find quite as many which show that they
I35 
Giopinirs after Truth.
did.  These passages are not, in themselves, conclusive. If the New Testament writers were treated
in this way, one man might find evidence enough to
prove that they did not believe Jesus Christ to be
God; another might collect equally convincing
proof that they did not believe him to be man
Almost all the truths of Christianity, like the personality of Christ, have a twofold aspect; and it
does not follow that a writer who speaks of them
under one aspect is therefore ignorant of or rejects
the other. If, however, the doctrines now held by
the Catholic Church were not held by the Christians of apostolic days, there was a time in the past
history of the church when they were first introduced as novelties, and there would be, not such negative evidence as is now adduced, but positive contemporaneous proof of the fact. But Protestant
historians have failed to find a syllable of such proof.
They cannot produce a word from any of the fathers to show that these novelties were being intToduced at the time at which they wrote;  not a
word of objection to them as innovations; not a
w,ord defending them against such a charge.
Take, for example, the doctrine of transubstantiation. The present doctrine of the Protestant
churches, the Lutheran excepted, is, that the bread
and wine of the Eucharist is nothing but bread
136 
Gropings after Truth.
and wine from beginning to end, and that the conmunicant, in taking it into his mouth, takes nothing but bread and wine.   The  doctrine of the
Catholic Church is, that, after consecration, it is,
verily and substantively, the body and blood of
Christ, and that this body actually comes into communion with the body of the recipient. These two
doctrines are as far apart as the north and south
poles of creation.   A change of faith in regard to
this one point is a radical change, altering the
whole system, internal and external, of religion.
It is claimed by Protestants that.the church in
the first century held the same opinion in regard
to this matter which is now held by themselves.
We know that after the lapse of a few centuries the
entire church held the other opinion; yet, during
the whole interval, no one seems to have been
aware that such a change was going on.   Is this
credible? Protestant writers speak of the change
as gradual; but what gradation can there be between these two doctrines? What intermediate
resting-place is there between a belief that a piece
of bread is nothing but bread, and a belief that it
is the veritable body of Christ? I can conceive
of none, except an absence of all belief in regard
to it.
Equally incredible is it that this change of opin.
I37 
Gropings after Truth.
ion was gradually adopted, by one religious teacher
after another, and one local church after another.
We should, then, have one of these two doctrines,
so diametrically opposed to each other, maintained
by one father of the church, and the other by another; one taught to their people by the clergy in
one place, and the other in another, without any
controversy having arisen between the supporters
of the two doctrines. We know that there has
been an uninterrupted succession of Christian
writers for and against many of the doctrines of
the church; that one heresy after another has
arisen, and has been made the subject of abundant
contention, until its final condemnation by some
general council; that controversies have sprung
up which have agitated the whole Christian world
in regard to religious questions of far less vital
importance than this.   Can any sane man believe
there was ever a time when the faith of the church
was divided between these two opinions, without
any contention having arisen to mark such division?  Yet Protestant writers do not pretend
there ever was such a contention. Some, indeed,
refer to the famous controversy of the ninth century, as if it were caused by the first introduction
of this novel doctrine of transubstantiation.  More
candid historians, however, freely admit that the
138 
Gropings afte,' Truth.
question then in dispute was not whether the
sacramental bread and wine became, after consecration, the veritable body and blood of Christ,
but had reference simply to the mode in which
this change should be explained.   The fac itself,
as they admit, was believed by the disputants on
both sides; the explanation of the fact was fairly
open to discussion, as it had not then been defined
by the church. It was not the custom of the
church to define matters of faith until a controversy regarding them rendered such definition ne
cessary. The doctrine of the Divinity of Christ
was never distinctly defined until this was made
necessary by the Arian heresy in the fourth century; yet no one pretends to argue from this that
it was then a new doctrine.
Again, the fathers of the church have always
insisted, as the strong point of their defence in all
disputes, that whatever is new is heretical; that
their doctrines have been handed down from the
apostles, and have always been the faith of the
church; and that this is the test by which the true
is to be known from the false, constantly quoting
the words of St. Paul: "Though we, or an angel
fiom heaven, preach any other gospel unto you
thin that we have preached unto you, let him
be accursed." But such a change as that of which
139 
Gropings after Truth.
I am speaking would be the introduction of a new
doctrine, not a mere explanation of an old one.
The change, as I have before said, goes to the
very bottom of the religious system, and modifies
more or less every article of the Christian creed.
In order to the successful introduction of such
an innovation, therefore, it must have been presented to the people as no novelty at all, but as
something which had always been taught them;
and they must have been induced to receive it, not
merely as a truth, but as a truth with which they
had always been familiar, and which had been believed and taught them by their fathers before
them, though they knew that neither they nor any
of their friends or acquaintances had ever heard of
it. There must have been, also, a general agreement among all Christian teachers, to begin thus
simultaneously to preach a new doctrine as if
it were not new; and, while this extraordinary
process was going on, of inducing all people
throughout the Christian world to believe they
had always been taught something which not one
of them had ever been taught, not a single sincere
Christian arises to protest against such an impious
fraud; not a single opponent of the church uses it
as an argument against her claims to reverence
and obedience.
14O 
Gropings after Truth.
And remember that all this must have occurred
not once only, but over and over again; for the
same argument will apply to the introduction of
every one of those doctrines which Protestants call
corrupt innovations into the faith of the church,
and which no one pretends were introduced at any
one time.   To me, however, it seems less incredible that there should have been one such change,
and only one, to any conceivable extent, than that
there should have been a succession of them, each
in itself of sufficient magnitude, one would suppose,
to stir up a strife that would agitate all Christendom.
This argument, as you will observe, is the same
as that which I said, in the first part of my narrative, furnished to my mind the most convincing
evidence of the truth of the Christian religion, and
to which I then said I should have occasion subsequently to refer.   The argument, concisely stated,
is this: The doctrines of this religion profess to
have been handed down unchanged from the days
of the apostles.   If they were not so handed
down, there must have been some period in past
time at which the entire body of the people were
induced to receive as old, familiar truths novelties
of which no one, until then, had ever heard. This
would be impossible now, and it has been impos
141 
Gropings after Truth.
sible at every present time, however far that time
may have now lapsed into the past. If this argulment is inconclusive as regards one doctrine, it is
equally so as regards any other. If it proves nothing when applied to those held by the Catholic
Church and rejected by you, it proves notli..ig
when applied to those held by her and retained by
you.   If it is possible, or has ever been possible,
thus to pass off upon the world a novelty as somevhing always taught and known, we can no longer
have any assurance that everything which we now
believe as religious truth may not be a purely human invention.   The doctrines of the Trinity, of
the Incarnation, of the Divinity of Christ, may have
had their origin at some time in the first three
centuries. The sacraments may have been then
introduced for the first time, and men and women
persuaded into a belief that they and their parents
had been baptized in their infancy, though no one
could be found who had any knowledge of such an
event; that they had been celebrating "the Lord's
Supper," at frequent intervals, all their lives,
though no one could remember to have ever heard
of such a rite. The sacred books may have been
written at the same time, and palmed off ipon the
people as books which had been read tc them all
their lives. There may never have been any such
142 
Gropinss after T,-th.
persons as Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Apostle. The narratives of their lives may have been
pure fictions, which some ingenious writer invested
with such an air of truth, that the whole world,
after having once read them, suddenly became
totally oblivious to the fact that they were new, and
received them as a record of events with which
every one had always been familiar.
You will say I am writing nonsense; that such
suppositions are ridiculous.   So  they are.  But
why? Because you know, and every one knows,
that it is impossible to persuade men that they
have always been taught what they were never
taught; that they have always believed what they
never believed; that they have always done what
they never did. Yet this impossibility must have
become an actual occurrence every time a new
doctrine was introduced into the faith of the Christian world; and it must have seemed such a natural, ordinary occurrence that it attracted no notice,
that no writer has thought it worthy of being recorded. Compel me to admit, with my present
knowledge of past history, that the peculiar doctrines of the Catholic Church are corrupt innovations, never heard of in the days of the apostles.,
and you compel me to acknowledge that the entire
143 
Gropinzgs after Trutk.
religion of Christians may be a delusion and a
fable.
Probably all which I have been saying will fail
to produce much effect upor. your mind, because,
being convinced that the doctrines of the Catholic
Church are false in fact and evil in their tendency,
you can more easily believe in apparent impossibilities than in the apostolic origin of such doctrines.
It is scarcely necessary for me to say that, if your
opinions in regard to them are correct, you are
perfectly right in rejecting them. I used to regard
them just as you now do; but an examination of
them satisfied me that, whether they have always
been the belief of the church or not, there is nothing in them contrary to the teachings of our Lord
and his apostles; nothing the natural and legitimate tendency of which is not to make those who
hold them and act upon them pure and holy. I do
not intend to take up these doctrines and argue in
their defence, as it would require a volume to do
this, and such defences are already easily to be obtained by any one willing to.read them. But, by
showing how you can ascertain for yourself that
some of your opinions in regard to the church are
erroneous, I may, perhaps, awaken a suspicion in
your mind that some other things which you have
always taken for granted are equally false.
144 
Gropings after Truth.
1 used to be told, when a young man, and I have
told the same thing to others, never doubting its
ruth, that Catholics had suppressed the second
commandment, because it condemned the worship
of images, and, in order to complete the number of
ten, had made two of the tenth, transposing the
first and second clauses, so as to make an entire
commandment of the second clause. Having perfect confidence in the good faith of those who told
me this, you may imagine my surprise when I found
the missing commandment given entire in all Catholic Catechisms and Prayer-Books, as forming a
part of the first. This fact you can ascertain for
yourself, without receiving it on my assertion.
As to the supposed transposition of clauses in
the tenth, (I am using your method of numbering
them,) you are probably not aware that in the fifth
chapter of Deuteronomy this very transposition is
found, as you may see by referring to it. You will
ask, Why did the Latin Church take the commandments from this book, rather than from the original
text in Exodus? My reply is, She did not. Her
version of the commandments is older than the
Latin Bible, older than the Latin Church, or than
any Christian church.   It comes directly from the
Greek Septuagint, which, except in the service of
the synagogue, was the version in universal use
I45 
Gropings after Truth.
among the Jews in the time of our Saviour, and
from which almost all his quotations, and those of
the New Testament writers, were taken. In this
('reek translation, the tenth commandment reads
in the Book of Exodus just as it does in Deuteronomy.  What was the origin of this discrepancy between the Greek and Hebrew texts I have nevei
been able to discover; but certainly the La+.in
Church is not responsible for it. As regards ti.e
method of dividing the commandments into ten.
this has always been an unsettled point, and one
which has been considered of very little importance;
but the division adopted by the Catholic Church is
the one found in the "received text" of the Hebrew
Bible.
Finally, as to the supposed motive of the church
in suppressing the second commandment, open the
first Catholic Catechism which you can find, and
you may there read, if not in these exact words, in
others equivalent to them, the following question
and answer: "May we pray to relics and images?
We are not allowed to pray to relics or images,
for they have no life nor sense, to hear or help
us."
I used to believe, and you probably now believe,
that it is the doctrine of the Catholic Chuich, that
hlie absolution pronounced by the pr'est always
146 
Gropings after Truth.
confers pardon for past sins, whether the person
making the confession is truly penitent or not.
Open the Catechism again, and you will find it
written thus:  "Will a full confession, but without
sorrow for sin, obtain our pardon in the Sacrament
of Penance? No confession, however full, will obtain pardon for sin, unless we are sorry for having
committed it, and  resolve to amend."   Every
Catholic knows perfectly well that the words of
absolution are of no use to him whatever, unless he
is sincerely penitent, and heartily resolved to sin
no more; and he knows that a pretended penitence, which he does not really feel, only adds
greatly to the sum of his unforgiven sins. Yet you
constantly hear people say, that Catholics cannot
be trusted, because they think the priest can wipe
out all their sins with a few words of his mouth. I
was convinced long ago, years before I thought of
ever becoming a Catholic myself, that this is a
wretched slander, and that a truly sincere Catholic,
who goes regularly to confession and communion,
may be trusted with far more confidence than the
great mass of even professedly pious Protestants.
Those who only call themselves Catholics, without
obeying the precepts of the church, are, of course,
no better than other irreligious people.
it is often said that the Catholic Church 4H
I47 
Gropings after Truth.
holds the Bible from the people.   If you wish to
ascertain the truth in regard to this matter, you
may easily ascertain, that Catholics are directed
by their priests to read the Bible; that Bibles may
be found in their houses as well as in those of
Protestants; that they are for sale in all Catholic book-stores, to any one who wishes to buy;
and that the Scriptures had been translated into all
the principal languages of Europe, for the use of
the people, long before Protestantism was heard
of.
It is said that Catholics are guilty of idolatry,
of deifying the Virgin Mary, and praying to her as
to God. An examination of any Prayer-Book
ought to be enough to convince a candid inquirer
that this accusation is false.  Catholics believe
the Blessed Virgin is allowed to intercede for them
with her Divine Son, and this is all which they ask
of her-that she will pray for them. The most
ignorant Catholic knows that the distance between
her and God is infinite, and he never confounds
the supplications for assistance which he addresses
to her, with the worship which he owes to Jesuls
Christ. If you have any doubt with regard to the
truth of this statement, go about among these benighted woman-worshippers and investigate the
point for yourself. The strongest language used
148 
Gropings after Truth.
by standard Catholic writers, when fairly explained,
does not go beyond what has just been stated as the
Catholic doctrine.
Very many Protestants suppose it to be a doc
trine of the church, that the pope can make definitions of doctrine arbitrarily, according to his own
private opinions, and that these must be received
as infallible. The church teaches no such doctrine. She merely maintains that her divine Founder, in accordance with his promise to be with her to
the end of time, so guides all her counsels that
everything which she announces as an article of
religious faith, or as a doctrine necessarily connected with the faith, is to be received as such.
This she must claim, or renounce all authority to
teach men what they are to believe. As the faith
of the church has always been the same, the only
practical use which she can make of her infallibility consists in defining it more exactly, when a controversy arises in regard to the way in which it is to
be understood, and in defending it against the
heresies to which age after age has given birth,
from the days of the apostles to our own times.
If the pope himself were to turn Socinian, and declare that Jesus Christ is not "Very God of Very
God," it would not change the faith of the church
in the least.
I49 
Gropings after Truth.
You will understand that, in saying no new ot
corrupt doctrines ever have been or could be introduced into the faith of the Catholic Church, I
have had reference only to articles of religious belief defined as such. That many corrupt practices
have crept in during past ages, and that many corrupt men have had the exercise of her spiritual
authority, no Catholic denies. For centuries before the time of Luther, these corruptions were proclaimed and bewailed by hosts of pious writers and
preachers, who exerted all their injfluence to bring
about a reform. But, unhappily, the head of the
church, the pope himself, needed to be reformed
as much as the inferior clergy; and I am not sure
that such a schism as that of the sixteenth century
was not necessary, in the providence of God, in
order to sweep away these abuses. However this
may be, they were swept away; and, since the
Council of Trent, the enemies of the church have
been obliged, in order to substantiate their charges
against her, to go back to the very period when
Catholic writers themselves were loudly calling for
reform. But it is to be observed that these pious
men, while lamenting the wicked lives and corrupt
practices of many of the clergy of every grade,
never intimate that there is anything that needs reform in the doctrines of the church; not a syllable
150 
Gropings after Truth.
is uttered by any one to show that he thinks they
have been corrupted. This appears to me a fact
of wonderful significance. The faith of the Christian world seems, at some periods, to have been
entrusted to the keeping of those who feared
neither God nor man; yet they never dared lay
their sacrilegious hands upon that faith.  Christ
himself must have preserved it pure.
I will mention one other objection to the claims
of the Catholic Church which has always had
more weight in my mind than any other, and
which was one of the last to yield its place. It
is this: The doctrine of the church is, that her
clergy have peculiar authority and peculiar powers
conferred upon them by the Sacrament of Holy
Orders. They are regarded as the immediate representatives of the Lord himself, and as chosen
by him for this office. It seems, therefore, a fair
presumption that they would all be holy men. Yet
several of them in past times, as is admitted by
every one, have been very bad men. How can
this notorious fact be reconciled with the doctrine
that they were his chosen ministers, through whose
hands the gifts of sanctifying grace were to be conferred upon the people? The presumption against
such a supposition would be almost unanswerable,
were it not offset by one fact stated in Scripture
I51 
Gropings after Truth.
itself, which shows it to be ill-founded. I refer to
the apostleship of Judas Iscariot. It is very likely
that you will, at first, fail to see the bearing of his
case upon this point, in consequence of your having never thought of him as an apostle, but only as
a bad man, tolerated for a time by the rest of the
twelve, and admitted among them merely because
it was necessary that Jesus should be betrayed by
one of his pretended friends. It was thus that I
had always regarded him, until it suddenly occurred
to me that there is nothing in the gospel narrative
to justify such an idea. When our Lord sent out
the twelve, he gave them, in proof of their ministry,
miraculous powers to heal the sick and cast out
devils in his name; these powers were evidently
conferred upon Judas just as upon the others. St.
Mark says he sent them by two and two, so that
there is no possibility of supposing Judas was
omitted. Equally impossible is it to suppose there
was any apparent difference between his mission
and that of the rest, for this would have made him
a marked man among them, which he evidently
was not. So far was this from being the case, that
no one seems to have suspected him even at the
last supper, when their Master announced to them
that one of their number was about to betray him.
He even held a sort of official position among
152 
GraVings after Trut't.
them, having charge of the money which was possessed by them in common. Yet it appears from
the words of St. John, that he was a bad rw an, a
hypocrite, and an unbeliever, throughout his whcle
ministry, though no one knew it except the Lord
himself. Here, then, was a man chosen by him —
"Have I not chosen you twelve?"-commissioned
directly by himself to preach his Gospel, gifted
with miraculous powers, in evidence of his mission,
and treated by him precisely as he treated those
whom he knew to be faithful to him, and yet who
never had any love for him, or faith in him as the
Messiah, and who finally betrayed him to a cruel
death. Now, as everything which our Lord did
was designed for the instruction of his disciples in
all ages, is it not likely that he meant by this to
teach us that, even among his own chosen apostles,
we might always expect to find more or less traitors
and hypocrites? Does it not afford, at least, a
possible explanation of the fact, that there have
been wicked priests and bishops and popes, who
have, nevertheless, received authority from him to
preach his Gospel and dispense his sacraments?
Let us now suppose, for the sake of the argumnient, that the peculiar doctrines of the Catholic
Church are as false as you suppose them to be,
how am I the worse for believing them? I hold as
"".'" i*!
I53 
Gropintgs after Truth.
true everything which you consider essential to
salvation. I believe with you the doctrines of the
Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Divinity of Jesus Christ; I believe that "there is no other name
given under heaven, by which we can be saved;"
that I can of myself do nothing to merit eternal
life; that it is the free gift of God through Jesus
Christ, and my daily prayer to him is, "God be
merciful to me, a sinner." As I have already said,
I presume my former rector would agree with me
in all the opinions which I have expressed, except
in my being unable to see how the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, or the "American Catholic" Church, as he prefers to call it, is the "One
Catholic and Apostolic Church" of his own Creed.
You do not think, I suppose, that he and those
who hold sentiments corresponding with his, are
living in any fatal errors; and if I had retained my
connection with his church, you would have felt no
apprehension in regard to my future salvation in
consequence of my religious opinions. What is
there, then, in the doctrines which I now accept
as true, that gives you any alarm?
Some persons will say that I worship a piece of
bread, and call it my Saviour. If you believe this,
you must think me such a fool, that the plea of
.id.iocy sl'oqld[ secure me against any future punish.
:o..: ac.:'.'.
154 
Gropiig's after Tnrth.
mnient. When I bow down before the sacrifice of'
the Mass, I am worshipping the Lord Jesus;
whether he is, or is not, present in the consecrated
wafer, is a matter of no consequence so far as my'
intention is concerned, and he will receive my'
worship just as readily when there is a piece of'
bread before me, as when there is nothing at all..
Even if he be not present in the Host in any pecu4
liar sense, he is so in the same sense in which he'
is everywhere present. Even on the supposition,therefore, that there is nothing but a piece of bread'
held up for my worship, what harm does it do me
to take just that time to prostrate myself before my
crucified Lord?
I bow down and say my prayers before an image
of Christ on the cross; what harm  is there is
that? I am not praying to the image; it is merely an external, visible emblem, which serves to"
bring more vividly before my mind the scene of'
the real crucifixion.   I do not even think of the:
Saviour as being present in any peculiar manner
in the crucifix, but only in the same sense in which
you conceive of his presence in your prayers.
Protestants treat their bodily senses as -spiritual
eneinies, and shut their eyes when they pray, forgetting that the mind sees even when the eyes are
closed. Catholics pray with their eyes wide open,
I$5 
Gropings after Truth
,nd place some object before them which may aid
in the direction of their thoughts, making their
senses minister to their devotions.
It is often said that though the use of images
and pictures may be unobjectionable in theory, yet
practically they lead to idolatry; as the ignorant,
forgetting that they are mere memorials, pay divine
honors directly to them, and come to regard them
as being the realities which they represent. In
,reply to this I will only say: Go out among the
(Catholics who abound all around you-many of
,them are very ignorant-and see how many you
can find who think the image or the picture of
Christ on the cross is anything more than an
image or a picture; how many who believe the
image of the Virgin Mary is the Blessed Virgin
herself. When you have found one such Catholic,
!there will be some reason in the objection. While
you are doing this, perhaps it would be well
enough, at the same time, to see how many bereaved mothers you can find who have gazed at,
and caressed, and kissed the picture of their dead
(larling, until, at length, they have come to regard
the picture as the very child which they had lost.
You will probably find as many of these as of the
others.
I believe that the Blessed Virgin and the angels
a156
i
II 
Gropinigs after Truth.
of heaven and glorified saints take anr interest in
the salvation of men upon the earth, and that they
are permitted to carry our supplications to the
throne of God, and to add their own to ours; and
I pray to them to do so. Supposing this to be all
a mistake, how am I the worse for believing it? I
certainly go directly to God with my prayers noiie
the less because of it, and if any Catholic does, he
knows the church forbids it. If the angels and
saints do not hear my prayers, the worst that can
be said about them is, that they are useless. The
idea that there is anything wrong in asking a dead
friend to pray for us, even on an erroneous supposition that he can know and comply with our re
quest, seems to me absurd. Protestants quote the
text: "There is but one mediator between God
and man, the man Christ Jesus." Yet they have
no hesitation in asking others to pray for them, and
in praying themselves for others.   Praying for
another, therefore, is not assuming to act as mediator between him and God 3 asking the prayers of
another is not asking him to act in any such capacity for us. Indeed, the very chapter from whichi
the above text is taken begins with an exhortation
that "Prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks
be made for all mnen." Now, if it is right and proper in me to ask you to pray for nie, it makes no
157 
Gropings after Truth.
difference where you may be, or how the request
may be sent, provided it can in any way be made
to reach you. If you were in England, I might
despatch it by telegraph, and you would think it
perfectly proper. If you were on the planet Jupiter
and I could send it to you there, you would see no
harm in it. If you were in heaven, and I could
send it to you there, why might I not? You say,
you would not receive it. Very well, then it is
lost, and that is all the harm that has been done.
I certainly am none the worse for having tried to
send it; and if, as you will probably admit, no one
ever asks another to pray for him, without, at the
same time, resolving to pray for himself, I shall
have derived some benefit from the attempt, even
though it has been unsuccessful.
But it is not true that a belief in this doctrine is
useless, even if it be erroneous. There is a natural
longing in the human heart to bring earth into
closer communion with heaven than the almost infinite distance at which Protestant theology separates them. If you could yourself believe it to be
true that glorified saints and blessed angels are
ever watching over you to guard you against sin,
and are praying to God for you night and day, you
know that such a belief would so encourage you
in your resolves to resist temptation, would so
158 
Gropings after Truth.
strengthen you in every holy purpose, thiat your
life afterward would be very different from what
it was before. You wish, you cannot avoid wishing, that this doctrine were true. If you could be
convinced of its truth, you would clasp it to your
heart and thank God for it. But did not God
know that his weak, erring creatures upon earth
would long for this intimate communion with heaven? Did he not know that they would derive incalculable benefit from it?  Was he not able to
grant it? Why, then, should we doubt that he has
done so? And if, as I have said, men are made
holier by a mere belief in the doctrine, is it credible
that so strange an effect could be produced by their
believing a lie? Is it possible that, by wandering
from the path of God's truth, I become more careful to obey his commands than I was before thus
straying into error? Let those believe this who
can; I cannot.
I believe in the existence of purgatory. Suppose there is no such place; what harm results to
me from a belief in it? What is this doctrine of
purgatory? It is, that very few persons, however
holy their lives may have been in this world, are
fitted at the moment of death to go immediately
into the presence of God, to join the glorified conmpany of heaven. That it is necessary for them to
159 
Gropings after Truth.
pass a longer or shorter period in an intermediate
state of existence, in which, through the suffering
of temporal punishments, they may be freed firm
all the consequences of the sins which have been
pardoned by the grace of God. Am I less likely
to strive after holiness, believing this doctrine,
than if I thought that, no matter how wicked my
life may have been, I should go from my death-bed
directly to the realms of eternal blessedness, provided only that I repent and resolve to amend
when it is too late to put my resolution into practice?
I ask again, therefore, supposing the peculiar
doctrines of the Catholic Church are not true,
what harm shall I suffer from a belief in them?
You will say, perhaps, that it must, in the very
nature of things, be injurious to any one to believe
what is false and to act upon that belief. Admitting that this is so, it is shifting altogether the
question under discussion, and in order to decide
whether it is you or I who will be injured by the
faith we severally hold, it must first be settled
which of us is believing what is false. You claim
that the Bible must decide. So do I. You claim
that each must study the Bible for himself, and
judge for himself what it teaches. So do I. So
far we are agreed. But I find it taught in the
I6o
II
i
I 
Gropings after Trut.          t
Bible that our Lord instituted a church which
should remain through all ages as the authorized
expounder of his truth, which church I am bound
to acknowledge and obey. This you profess yourself unable to find. We differ, therefore, as to the
teachings of the Bible, and who shall decide which
of us believes what is false, and therefore injurious
to his soul? Where is the umpire to pronounce
judgment between us? If we can come to no
other agreement, we must agree to differ, until
God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, shall
mercifully interpose, and show our errors to whichever of us is in the wrong; and that for Jesus
Christ our blessed Saviour's sake he will graciously please so to do, should be your prayer and
mine, day and night.
And now, do not suppose that; in consequence
of having become a Catholic, I no longer regard
you as a Christian, or that I intend to exalt myself
above you in holiness or sincerity of purpose to do
the will of God, or that I accuse you of wilful sin
in having never examined into the claims of the
Catholic Church to your obedience. I know perfectly well that you have never had any more idea
that it was your duty to do so than that you ought
to read the Koran of Mohammed or the New Gospel of Joseph Smith. Jlntil a little more than a year
i6i 
Gropiings after 7ruth.
ago, I have always had precisely the same opinion
myself, and my conscience does not reproach me
for not having done what I never suspected it was
my duty to do. God, in his mercy, as I verily believe, opened my eyes to see that some things were
false which I had been taught with regard to the
Catholic faith. Having thus aroused my interest
in the matter, he has led me on, step by step, to
my present entire confidence in a church which I
had always believed to be utterly corrupt, and
wholly given over to work abominations. If I,
with my present opinions, were to reject the claims
of this church, or neglect to join her communion,
through fear of alienating my friends or injuring
my worldly prospects, or from a repugnance to the
class of worshippers who throng her temples, or
from a want of sympathy with them in some of the
collateral services which may seem to you better
adapted to the tastes of children than of grown
men; if for these, or any other reasons, I were to
refuise her sacraments, I should be guilty of mortal
sin. But the church makes every possible allow
ance for those who, like you, believe and trust in
Jesus Christ, and sincerely desire to know and to
do the will of God, and who are kept from her fold
only by an ignorance so absolute and intense that
nothing but the almighty power of God can dispel
162
I
t 
Gropings after Truth.
it.  She pities you and prays for you, and commends you to the mercy of our loving Lord, but
she pronounces no curses upon you.
At length, my long task is ended. I have been
in no haste in writing these pages, but have taken
time enough to be sure of my convictions before
declaring them to others.  Four and a half months
have passed since I began this writing, and during
this period my mind has been almost constantly
employed upon the questions which I have been
discussing, and every day has added to the assurance which I feel, that I have come to a right
decision. I hope that, having read what I have
written, you will admit that there is, at least, some
show of sense in it. If you think my reasoning
false or my conclusions erroneous, show me where
the error is, and if I see it, I will cheerfully acknowledge and renounce it; for I solemnly declare
and appeal to him who sees my inmost heart as
the witness to what I say, that I believe my only
desire is to do the will of God and my Saviour
Jesus Christ, and to secure the salvation of my
own soul. The moment I find I have made a mistake in joining the Catholic Church, no false shame
or dread of inconsistency will prevent my abandoning it.
Does it not seem to you a singular thing, that so
i63 
Gropings after Truth.
many men, of late years, who have begun to examine the claims and doctrines of this church, with
an honest admission that they may possibly be
well-founded and true, and with a sincere desire
only to ascertain the truth, have ended by entering
her fold, while, so far as I know, not one such person has decided against her? How do you account
for this very extraordinary fact? I believe you
have always given me credit for an average share
of intelligence and good sense; but some of these
men are giants in intellect and learning in comparison with me. Yet, according to your ideas,
they have been induced to adopt as truth falsehoods so apparent to every person of ordinary intelligence that they deserve only to be laughed at.
If error in regard to matters of eternal interest can
so assume the appearance of truth as to deceive
such men, who can be sure that any of his opinions are correct?
Again, does it not seem a singular thing, that no
sooner does a Protestant begin to manifest an interest in the claims of the Catholic Church, than his
friends become alarmed, and some by entreaties,
and others by ridicule, endeavor to persuade him
to banish the subject from his mind? Is this a
reasonable or intelligent way of treating a question
f so much  importance?   If the claims of the
x64
.i
II 
Gropings after Truth.
church are so palpably false as you suppose, cannot you credit your friends with enough common
sense to enable them to see the fact for themselves?
Yet once again: does it not seem to you a singular thing that in every public controversy between
Protestant and Catholic theologians, it has been
admitted by uninterested spectators that the Catholic champion had the best of the argument?  Yet
if you will take the trouble to inquire into this
matter, I think you will find it to be true. The
famous Hughes and Breckenridge controversy occurred when I was at Princeton, and I well remember that the decision of all those students, whom I
heard express an opinion in regard to it, was, that
Mr. Breckenridge was fairly beaten. If he succeeded in answering the bishop's arguments, why
were Protestant papers so careful not to let their
readers know what those arguments were? And
why has no Protestant publisher ever given the
public both sides of the controversy? It appears
to me that, after having demolished an enemy's
fortress, vanity, if nothing else, would induce the
victorious general to show the world how strong it
was.
It is very possible that you will close the perusal
of these pages with no other feelings than those
I65 
Gropzns afitcr Truth.
with which you began it-wonder at my perversion
from the faith of my parents, mingled, perhaps,
with a little contempt of my folly. If so, I shall
have written to very little purpose. For my object
has been, not merely to justify in your eyes the
step which I have taken, but also to arouse in
your mind a suspicion that there must be something worthy of examination in arguments that
have proved convincing to me. If you should be
conscious of any such suspicion, I beseech you not
to shut it out as foolish. I began with such suspicions myself, and they led me to examinations
which strengthened them, and I have now no
doubt that it was the voice of the Blessed Spirit
which was whispering into my ear. He may be
doing the same thing with you; be careful, therefore, how you turn away and refuse to listen.
Your eternal welfare may be put in jeopardy by
so doing.
My prayer for you, and for all whom I love, is,
that God will make known his truth to you. You
can certainly have no objection to this prayer, nor
to making the same for yourself. I hope you will
also unite with me in praying that we may all, brothers and sisters, parents and children, be united in
the one fold of Christ here below, worshipping and
serving him together upon earth, acknowledging
166 
Gropiugs after Truth.
one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and be gathered together hereafter in heaven, to worship, and
praise, and enjoy him for ever.  May God grant
this, in his infinite mercy, for Jesus Christ'r
sake I
167 
U