D

'/give rhefe Backs

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

Wir.MWMM.lf. .

GROUP OF FOREIGN DELEGATES, BOSTON INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERALS

FREEDOM AND FELLOWSHIP
IN RELIGION
PROCEEDINGS AND PAPERS OF THE
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
OF RELIGIOUS LIBERALS
HELD AT BOSTON, U.S.A., SEPTEMBER 22-27, i9°7
EDITED BY
CHARLES W. WENDTE

' Freedom is re-created year by year
By hearts wide open on the Godward side." J. R. Lowell

WITH FIFTY-FIVE PORTRAITS

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL
BOSTON, MASS.

CEO. H. ELLIS CO., PRINTERS, 272 CONGRESS. ST., BOSTON, U.S.A.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE
Table of Contents   i
Foreword . .  i
Committee of the International Council of Unitarian and Other
Liberal Religious Thinkers and Workers, 1907-10 . . 4
Committee of the Fourth International Congress of Religious
Liberals, in Boston, 1907  5
List of Honorary Vice-Presidents of the Boston International
Congress of Religious Liberals  6
List of Foreign Delegates  9
List of Associations sending Official Delegates  13
Program of the Boston International Congress of Religious
Liberals, September 22-27, 1907  18
The International Congress op Religious Liberals in Boston, 1907, 25
Opening Exercises of the International Congress at Symphony
Hall, September 22, 8 p.m. :
Original Hymn by Rev. Frederick L. Hosmer, D.D  31
Original Hymn by Mrs. Julia Ward Howe  32
Address, "Glory to God!" by Rev. Thomas R. Slicer, D.D. ... 33
Address, "Peace on Earth," by Rev. Edward Everett Hale, D.D. . 39
Address, "Good Will to Men," by Dr. Booker T. Washington . . 43
First Session of the International Congress, in Tremont Temple,
September 24, 10 a.m. :
Original Hymn by Rev. Seth Curtis Beach, D.D  47
Address of the President, Rev. Samuel A. Eliot, D.D  48
Report of the General Secretary, Rev. Charles W. Wendte .... 53
Address, "The Unitarian Movement in England," by Rev. W. Cope-
land Bowie, of London, England  66
Address, "The Protestantenverein of Germany," by Rev. Max
Fischer, D.D., of Berlin  76
Address, "The Situation of the Churches in France after the Separa
tion of Church and State," by Professor Jean Reville, D.D., of
Paris . . . •  89
Second Session of the International Congress, in Tremont Temple,
September 24, 2 p.m. :
Vice-President Frederick W. Hamilton's Address  98
Address, "The Religious Situation in Germany, and the Freunde der
Christlichen Welt," by Professor Martin Rade, D.D., of Mar
burg  IO°

Address, "The Liberal Outlook in Denmark and Norway," by Mr.
Theo. Berg, of Copenhagen  IXS
Address, "The Condition of Religious Liberalism in Sweden," by
Professor O. E. Lindberg, of Gotheburg  I24
Address, "Prospects of Religious Liberalism in Australia," by Rev.
Charles Strong, D.D., of Melbourne  *3°
Address, "Liberal Religion in New Zealand," by Miss Mary E.
Richmond, of Wellington  136
Address, "Liberal Religion," by Professor Goldwin Smith, of Canada, 139
Third Session of the International Congress, in Tremont Temple,
September 25, 10 a.m. :
Original Hymn by Rev. Benj. R. Bulkeley .... 141
Address, "The Religious Situation in Austria," by Professor Thomas
G. Masaryk, of Prague  142
Address,"TheIdealsof Hungary," by Rev. Nicolas Jozan, of Budapest, 153
Address, "The State of Religious Liberalism in Holland," by Professor
H. Y. Groenewegen, of Leiden  . . 165
Address, "Religious Liberalism in Romance Switzerland," by Rev.
Ernest Rochat, D.D., of Geneva  173
Address, "The Progress of Theology in Scotland," by Rev. Alexander
Webster, of Aberdeen  184
Fourth Session of the International Congress, in the Old South
Church, September 25, 8 p.m. :
Religious Services by Rev. George A. Gordon, D.D  199
Address, "Modernism and Modernists in Italy," by Rev. L. E. T.
Andr6, D.D., of Florence  200
Address, "The Protestants of France, their Past History and Pres
ent Condition," by Professor Gaston Bonet-Maury, D.D., of
Paris  '  218
Address, "The Crisis in the Catholic Church," by Abbd A. Houtin,
of Paris   232
Fifth and Closing Session of the Boston International Congress,
Sanders Theatre, Harvard University, September 26,
10 a.m. :
Address by Hon. John D. Long  240
Address of Welcome by President Charles W. Eliot, LL.D  240
Address, "John Calvin and the Reformation Monument at Geneva,"
by Professor Edouard Montet, D.D., of Geneva. . . .244
Address, "The Tendency of Positive Religions to Universal Religion,"
by Professor Otto Pfleiderer, D.D., of Berlin  255
Text of Resolutions offered by Rev. Valentine D. Davis, of London,
and Dr. J. M. Whiton for the Committee . . . 242, 233
Addresses Delivered at the National Conference of Unitarian
and Other Christian Churches, Tremont Temple, Septem
ber 23, Morning and Afternoon :

Ill PAGE
Opening Address, "The New Comity of Nations," by President Car
roll D. Wright, of Worcester, Mass  274
Address, "The Freedom of Churches in the United States as regards
Property-holding and Self-government," by President Charles
W. Eliot, LL.D., of Cambridge, Mass  281
Address, "The Good and Evil of Denominationalism," by Profes
sor Francis A. Christie, of Meadville, Penn  291
Address, "Faith as Affected by Freedom," by Rev. George A. Gordon,
D.D., of Boston, Mass  301
Address, "Our Free Churches in Relation to Theological Develop
ment," by Professor William W. Fenn, D.D., of Cambridge, Mass., 309
Address, "The Separation of Church and State," by Hon. Marcus P.
Knowlton, of Fall River, Mass  317
Address,"The Liberal Outlook," by Rev. Paul Revere Frothingham,
of Boston  325
The Congress Sermon, preached in Arlington Street Church,
September 24, at 8 p.m., by Rev. John Hunter, D.D., of
Glasgow, Scotland  332

DEPARTMENT MEETINGS:
I. Department of Religious History and Philosophy, in Pilgrim
Hall, Congregational House, September 24, 3.30 p.m. :
Address, "A Protestant Declaration of Faith," by Rev. Gottfried
Schoenholzer, of Zurich, Switzerland  359
Address, "The Relation of Christianity to Religion," by Christopher
J. Street, M.A., of Sheffield, England  368
Discussion.
Address, "What does a Free Christianity require to become Vic
torious?" by Professor Rudolf Eucken, of Jena, Germany . . 379
Address, " Remonstrantism and Remonstrants," by Professor H. Y.
Groenewegen, D.D., of Leiden, Holland  390
Address, "Mennonitism in its International Relations," by Rev. F. C.
Fleischer, of Makkum, Holland  398
Address, "The Burden and Blessing of Tradition," by Professor
Martin Rade, D.D., of Marburg  . . 418
II. Department of Religious Education, in King's Chapel,
September 24, 3.30 p.m. -.
Opening address of Rev. Franklin C. Southworth, of Meadville, Pa., 442
Address, "The New Education," by Rev. Henry F. Cope, of Chicago, 445
Address, "The Psychology of Conversion," by Rev. Philip H.
Hugenholtz, Jr., of Amsterdam, Holland  456
III. Department of Press and Publication, in Unitarian Build
ing, September 25, 4.30 p.m. :
Opening Address of Rev. Frederick A. Bisbee, D.D., of Boston, . . 464

IV PAGE
IV. Department of Comity and Fellowship :
Opening Remarks of Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, of Chicago .... 469
Address, Dr. J. M. Whiton, of New York  471
Address by Henry W. Wilbur, of Philadelphia  474
Address by Rev. J. B.Weston, D.D., of Stanfordville, N.Y  481
Address by Rev. Charles F. Carter, of Lexington, Mass  484
Address by Rev. Charles G. Ames, of Boston  486
Address by Rev. Arthur Heron, of London, England  488
Address by Rev. W. G. Puddefoot, of Boston  491
Closing Remarks by Rev. J. L. Jones  493
V. Department of Social and Public Service, Old South Meet
ing-house, September 25, 3.30 p.m. :
Opening Remarks by Rev. Joseph H. Crooker, D.D., of Boston . . 494
Address, "Religion and Social Reform," by Fred Maddison, M.P.,
of London, England  495
Address, "The Ethical Basis of Liberal Christianity," by Rev.
Leonhard Ragaz, of Basel, Switzerland  502
Address, "The World War with Intoxicants," by Rev. William G.
Tarrant, of London, England  510
Address, " Good Will," by Rev. Charles F. Dole, of Boston . ... 521
VI. Department of Oriental Religion, in Second Church, Sep
tember 25, at 8 p.m. :
Religious Service by Rabbi Charles Fleischer, of Boston  523
Introductions and Remarks by Hon. James M. Morton  524
Address, "Religious Forces of Japan," by Rev. Saichiro Kanda, of
Tokyo  525
Address, "The Ideals of the Brahmo-Somaj of India," by Professor
G. Subba Rau, of Calicut  530
Address, " Religious Opportunities in India," by Rev. S. L. Joshi, of
Bombay  536
Address, "The Liberal Mohammedanism," by M. Barakatullah, of
Bhopal  S42
VII. Department of Woman's Work, in Ford and Channing Halls,
September 25, 3.30 p.m. :
Address, "The Postal Mission in Holland," by Miss D. Van Eck, of
Leiden  ».»
Remarks of Mrs. R. H. Davis, of Boston  551
Address by Rev. Miss Gertrude von Petzold, of Leicester, England . . 551
Remarks by Lady Bowring, of Liverpool, England  552
Remarks by Miss Mary E. Richmond, of New Zealand  552
Remarks by Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, of Boston  552
Overflow Meeting in Channing Hall  SS2
VIII. Department of New Americans, in Ford Hall, September 24,
at 3.30 P.M. :
Opening Remarks, by Rev. Edward E. Hale, D.D  SS3

V PAGE
Address of Rev. Nicolas Jozan, of Budapest, Hungary  555
Address of Rev. L. E. T. Andr6, of Florence, Italy  557
Remarks of Dr. Hale  560
Address of Rev. Francis W. Holden, of Milford, N.H  561
Address of Professor Thomas G. Masaryk, of Prague, Bohemia . . 563
Address of Rev. Amadeus H. Norman, of Hanska, Minn  566
Address of Senator Hinds, of Mississippi  569
Remarks by Mrs. Julia Ward Howe  570
Address of Mr. Meyer Bloomfield, of Boston  572
Closing Remarks by Dr. Hale  573
Reception of the Congress at Hotel Somerset, September 23, at
8 p.m  575
Introductory Remarks by President S. A. Eliot, D.D  576
Address of Welcome by his Excellency, the Governor of Massachu
setts, Hon. Curtis Guild, Jr  576
Response by Sir William Bowring, of England  579
Introductions of Foreign Delegates by Rev. Charles W. Wendte . 582
Response of Professor Otto Pfleiderer, of Germany  583
Response of Professor Jean Reville, of France  585
Response of Professor Meyboom, of Holland  587
Response of Professor Edouard Montet, of Switzerland  588
Response of Professor S. C. K. Rutnam, of Ceylon  591
Supplementary Reception at Channing Hall  575
The Banquet  593
Excursion and Neighborhood Meetings  594
Visit at West Newton, September 22, p.m  594
Cambridge Day Hospitalities, September 26  595
Pilgrimage to Concord, September 23, p.m  596
Excursion and Proceedings at Plymouth, September 27 .... 597
Original Hymn by Chas. W. Wendte  598
Address of Welcome by Hon. Arthur Lord  598
Response by President Samuel A. Eliot, D.D  601
Address by Professor H. Y. Groenewegen  603
Excursion and Proceedings at Hingham, Mass., September 27,
p.m.  6°5
Address of Welcome by Francis H. Lincoln  605
Address by Rev. Louis C. Cornish  606
Excursion and Proceedings at Fatrhaven, Mass., September 28 . 609
Address of Welcome by Rev. Frank A. Phalen  609
Response by President Samuel A. Eliot, D.D  611
Address by Rev. J. Tyssul Davis  613
Address by Rev. John A. Kelley  615
Address by Rev. L. E. T. Andre'  617
Address by Rev. W. W. C. Pope  617
Address by Professor Jean Reville  619

VI PAGE

Meeting of the Ministerial Union at Channing Hall, Septem
ber 30, Rev. S. C. Beach, D.D., presiding  622
Address of Greeting and Good Will from the Ministerial Fellowship,
by Rev Charles Roper  °22
Addresses by Rev. Frederick Summers, C. J. Street, and Rev. V.
D. Davis  624
Congregational Ministers' Meeting in Pilgrim Hall  625
Welcome of International Delegates  625
Addresses by Various Delegates  625
Twentieth Century Club Luncheon, September 28  625
Addresses by delegates  625
After-meetings conducted by the International Congress . . 626
In Ann Arbor  626
In Chicago  626
At the Connecticut Valley and Worcester County Unitarian Con
ferences  628
At Pittsburg, Cincinnati, and St. Louis German American Churches, 629
At Berkeley, Cal., and elsewhere  629

APPENDIX.
Foreign Letters and Communications Received by the Committee :
From England:
Professor J. Estlin Carpenter, D.D  630
Mrs. Humphry Ward  631
Rev. Stopford Brooke, D.D  631
Ion Pritchard, Esq  631
From Belgium:
Senator Count Goblet d'Alviella  631
Rev. James Hocart  632
From France:
Rev. J. fimile Roberty  622
Pere Hyadnthe and Madame Loyson  633
Rev. Charles Wagner  5,,
Rev. Camille Rabaud  g,.
Rev. Emile Bruniquel  g,.
Rev. J. Joye  6^
Professor Paul Sabatier, D.D  g,.
G. Benoit-Germain  g-.
From Germany:  **
Deutscher Protestantenverein  5,.
Cablegram of Invitation to International Congress  635
Professor Rudolf Eucken, Ph.D  5,-
Professor H. H. Wendt, D.D  63fr
Professor H. Weinel, D.D  6 &

Vll PAGE"
Professor W. Bousset, D.D  636
Professor E. Troeltsch, D.D  637
Professor E. Simons, D.D  637
Rev. O. Veek, D.D  637
Oberlehrer Th. Schneider  638
Pastor Jatho  639
Free Religious Congregation of Koenigsberg  639
Rev. C. Schieler, D.D  639
Rev. Georg Schneider  640
From Norway:
Professor Johannes Ording  640
Rev. Herman Haugerud  641
From Holland:
The Remonstant Society  641
Dutch Congregation, St. Petersburg, Russia  641
From Hungary:
Geza Schulek, Budapest, Protestant Reformed Theological
Seminary  642
Unitarian Bishop Joseph Ferencz  642
From Switzerland:
Swiss Association for a Free Christianity  642
L. Mare'chal: Geneva Section for a Free Christianity  643
From New Zealand:
Rev. W. Tudor Jones  643
From India:
Brahmo-Somaj Committee of India, Professor B. Nath Sen . . 643
Theistic Conference of India, H. C. Sarkar  643
Pundit S. N. Sastri  644
Prarthana Samaj of Bombay  644
Akbar Masih  645
V. R. Shinde  645
J. C. Ganguli  646
Khasi Hills Unitarian Union  646
From South America:
Seiior John Trumbull  646
Seiior Ricardo Palma  647
The United States:
First German Evangelical Congregation, Duquesne Heights,
Pittsburg  647
Rabbi David Philipson, President Central Conference American
Rabbis  647

Index of Illustrations  649
Index of Speakers  65°

FOREWORD.
The present volume contains the proceedings, addresses, and
papers of the Fourth International Congress, held in Boston, Sep
tember 22-27, under the auspices of the International Council
of Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious Thinkers and Workers-
This Council was organized in Boston in May, 1900, at a meeting
in Channing Hall, called and presided over by Rev. Samuel A.
Eliot, D.D., president of the American Unitarian Association, of
which Rev. Charles W. Wendte was secretary, and which was par
ticipated in by a number of representative foreign liberals. Its
purpose is "to open communication with those in all lands who
are striving to unite pure religion and perfect liberty, and
to increase fellowship and co-operation among them."
This International Council seeks to bring into closer union, for
exchange of ideas, mutual service, and the promotion of their com
mon aims, the historic liberal churches, the liberal elements in all
churches, the scattered liberal congregations and isolated workers
for religious freedom and progress in many lands.
It aims to be a source of encouragement and strength to them in
their struggles against dogmatic intolerance and ecclesiastical tyr
anny. It cultivates large and fraternal relations with the great liberal
movements in religion now going on under various names and au
spices throughout the world.
To promote these ends, it holds a biennial or triennial Congress
in some acknowledged seat of religious enlightenment and freedom,
the general arrangements for which are intrusted to the liberal bodies
and communities which have extended the invitation. Such Con
gresses have been held in London (1901), Amsterdam (1903), and
Geneva (1905), attended by from 500 to 1,000 members, representing
fifteen nationalities and some twenty-five religious fellowships.

The papers and proceedings of these Congresses have been pub
lished in three volumes.*
The next session is to be held in Berlin, Germany, in 1910, by
invitation of several liberal associations of that country.
A general description of the Fourth Congress, held in Boston, the
most largely attended and successful thus far held, will be found on
page 18 of this book. The present volume includes the papers,
addresses, and record of proceedings of all its meetings, except two
or three of the smaller gatherings and the banquet. The speeches
at the latter, while delightful, were mostly of a post-prandial nature,
«,nd were fully reported in the Boston Christian Register of Oct.
10, 1907.
The papers and addresses before the Boston Congress were all
read in English, save three, but many of them were translated from
their originals in foreign tongues. Various hands were engaged in this
task. The essay of Professor Otto Pfleiderer, and Professor Martin
Rade's paper on "The Burden and Blessing of Tradition," were
.rendered into English by Rev. J. F. C. Meyer, of South Natick.
Rev. E. W. Lummis, at present pastor in Fuldera, Switzerland, made
the English version of the address by Rev. L. Ragaz on " The Eth
ical Basis of Liberal Christianity." Miss Lilian Muldowney ren
dered into English the address by Rev. E. Rochat. The editor of
•this volume is responsible for the translation of papers by Professor
R. Eucken,Rev. G. Schoenholzer, and Abb6 Houtin,and the revision
of all the addresses of non-English-speaking delegates. Most of
the speakers were able to look over the proofs of their own articles
•before their inclusion in this volume. It is believed, therefore, that
substantial accuracy has been attained, — a somewhat difficult task in
* " Liberal Religious Thought at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century." 354 pp. Ad-
<dresses and Proceedings of the First Congress of the International Council of Unitarian and
Other Liberal Thinkers and Workers, held in London, May 30 to June i, 1901. Edited by W.
Copeland Bowie, London. Two shillings. Fifty cents.
"Religion and Liberty." 555 pp. Addresses and Proceedings of the Second Congress of
the International Council of Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious Thinkers and Workers,
'held in Amsterdam, Holland, Sept. 1 to 4, 1003. Edited by P. H. Hugenholtz, Jr, Leiden. Two
shillings. Fifty cents.
" Actes du III me Congrfes Internationale du Christianisme Lib&al et Progressif. " 350 pp.
Octavo. Addresses and Proceedings at the Third Congress of the International Council of
Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious Thinkers and Workers, held in Genera, Aug. 28-31, 1905.
.Edited by E. Montet, Geneva. Ten of the papers in English. Two shillings. Fifty cents.
These volumes are on sale by Philip Green, 5 Essex Street, Strand, London, and the American
Unitarian Association, 35 Beacon Street, Boston, U.SA.

view of the many languages spoken by the representatives of sixteen
nations who participated in the meetings and the brief space of time
(three months) which has elapsed since the adjournment of the Con
gress. It is hoped that the portraits and other illustrations scattered
throughout the book may add to its interest. To our regret, certain
others we desired to include were unobtainable.
The editor returns his sincere acknowledgments to the authors
of papers, the President and committees of the Congress, and to
his fellow-workers in all departments of its activity for their counsel
and aid in the preparation of this book.
CHARLES W. WENDTE.

THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF UNITARIAN
AND OTHER LIBERAL RELIGIOUS
THINKERS AND WORKERS.
®{je €ommitttt, 1907-10.
Rev. Samuel A. Eliot, D.D., Chairman,
President of the American Unitarian Association, Boston, U.S.A.
Rev. Charles W. Wendte, General Secretary,
Minister First Parish, Brighton (Boston), 25 Beacon Street, Boston, U.S.A.,
to whom correspondence may be addressed.
Professor Gyorgy Boros, D.D.,
Dean of the Unitarian Seminary, Kolozsvar, Hungary.
Rev. William Copeland Bowie,
Secretary of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, London, England.
Principal J. Estlin Carpenter, D.D.,
Principal of Manchester College, Oxford, England.
Professor B. D. Eerdmans,
Professor in the University of Leiden, Holland.
Rev. Max Fischer, D.D.,
Pastor of St. Mark's Church, Berlin, Germany.
Rev. George A. Gordon, D.D.,
Minister of the Old South Congregational Church, Boston, U.S.A.
Rev. Philip H. Hugenholtz, Jr.,
Minister of the Free Congregation, Amsterdam, Holland.
Professor Fjjouard Montet, D.D.,
Dean of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Professor Otto Pfleiderer, D.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology in the University of Berlin, Germany.
Professor Martin Rade, D.D.,
Professor of Theology in the University of Marburg, Germany.
Professor Jean Reville, D.D.,
Professor of the History of Religions in the College de France, Paris.
Rev. J. Emile Roberty,
Minister at l'Oratoire du Louvre, Paris, France.
Rev. Gottfried Schoenholzer, D.D.,
Pastor of the New Minster, Zurich, Switzerland.
Miss Marie B. Westenholz,
Kopenhagen, Denmark.

5

THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF
RELIGIOUS LIBERALS.
local UTommitttts.
BOSTON.
Executive Committee.
SAMUEL A. ELIOT, D.D., President.
CHARLES W. WENDTE, Secretory.
GEORGE WIGGLESWORTH, Treasurer.
Frederick A. Bisbee, D.D. George A. Gordon, D.D.
Paul Revere Frothingham. Edwin D. Mead.
Franklin C. Southworth.
Committee cm Finance.
GEORGE WIGGLESWORTH, Chairman.
Edwin F. Atkins. Arthur F. Estabrook.
William Endicott. Richard C. Humphreys.
Walter Hunnewell. George Hutchinson.
Arthur T. Lyman. Horace S. Sears.
Moses Williams.
Committee on Excursions.
PERCY A. ATHERTON, Chairman.
William Brewster. Lyman K. Clark.
Prescott Keyes. Edgar H. Nichols.
Paul S. Phalen. Walter P. Winsor.
Wm. S. Kyle. Wm. Brewster.
Horace Hildreth.
Committee on the Supply oj Pulpits.
ALFRED MANCHESTER, Chairman.
Committee on Press and Publication.
JOHN L. SEWALL, Chairman.
Committee on Hospitality.
MRS. PERCY G. BOLSTER, Chairman.
Reception Committee.
WILLIAM CHANNING BROWN, Chairman.
Official Reporter.
FRANK H. BURT.

BOSTON INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF
RELIGIOUS LIBERALS.
Honorary Vice-Presidents.
Rev. Lyman Abbott, D.D., editor of the Outlook, New York.
Rev. John Coleman Adams, D.D., minister Universalist church, Hartford,
Conn.
Professor Felix Adler, Ethical Culture Society, New York.
President Edwin A. Alderman, president of the University of Virginia.
President James H. Baker, president of the University of Colorado.
Rev. George Batchelor, editor of the Christian Register, Boston, Mass.
Mrs. Henry W. Bellows, Boston, Mass.
Hon. Henry N. Blake, Helena, Mont.
Samuel Bowles, Esq., editor ofthe Republican, Springfield, Mass.
Rev. Amory H. Bradford, D.D., president of the American Missionary Asso
ciation.
Hon. William E. Chandler, ex-United States senator from New Hampshire.
Samuel L. Clemens, Esq., author, New York.
Rev. Robert Collyer, senior pastor of the Church of the Messiah, New York.
General Selden Connor, ex-governor of Maine.
Francis Cutting, Esq., Oakland, Cal.
Hon. W. Murray Crane, United States senator from Massachusetts.
Hon. Horace Davis, former member of Congress, ex-president of the Univer
sity of California.
Professor Samuel C. Derby, ex-president of Antioch College, Ohio.
Hon. William L. Douglas, ex-governor of Massachusetts.
Hon. Eben S. Draper, lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts.
President Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard University.
Dr. Edward W. Emerson, Concord, Mass.
President W. H. P. Faunce, president of Brown University.
John Fret well, Esq., Boston.
Principal Hollis B. Frissell, principal of Hampton Institute, Hampton, Va.
Horace Howard Furness, Esq., author, Philadelphia, Pa.
Hon. James R. Garfield, United States Secretary of the Interior, Washington,
D.C.
Hon. Paris Gibson, ex-United States senator from Montana.
Richard Watson Gilder, Esq., editor of the Century Magazine, New York.
Dr. Daniel C. Gilman, ex-president of Johns Hopkins University.
General A. W. Greely, United States Army.
Mrs. Frederick T. Greenhalge, Lowell, Mass.
Hon. Curtis Guild, Jr., governor of Massachusetts.

President Almon Gunnison, president of St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y.
Hon. Wallace Hackett, Portsmouth, N.H.
Mrs. C. B. Hackley, Tarrytown, N.Y.
Rev. Edward Everett Hale, D.D., chaplain of the United States Senate.
Rev. Frank O. Hall, minister of the Church of the Divine Paternity, New
York.
President G. Stanley Hall, president of Clark University, Worcester, Mass.
President Frederick W. Hamilton, president of Tufts College.
President George Harris, president of Amherst College.
Miss Caroline Hazard, president of Wellesley College.
Henry L. Higginson, Esq., Boston, Mass.
Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Cambridge, Mass.
Dr. Emil G. Hirsch, rabbi of Temple Sinai, Chicago, 111.
General Oliver O. Howard, major-general United States Army, retired.
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, Boston, Mass.
Hon. Charles E. Hughes, governor of New York.
Charles L. Hutchinson, Esq., Chicago, 111.
President William De Witt Hyde, president of Bowdoin College, Brunswick,
Me.
Hon. John P. Irish, Oakland, Cal.
Rev. Charles E. Jefferson, D.D., pastor of Broadway Tabernacle, New
York.
President Richard H. Jesse, president of the University of Missouri, Columbia,
Mo.
Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, Abraham Lincoln Centre, Chicago, 111.
President David Starr Jordan, president of Leland Stanford Jr. University,
Palo Alto, Cal.
Hon. William W. Justice, Philadelphia.
Mrs. Henry P. Kidder, Boston.
Hon. Hiram Knowles, Missoula, Mont.
Hon. Marcus P. Knowlton, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Massa
chusetts.
Hon. Henry W. Lawrence, Salt Lake City.
Henry C. Lea, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa.
Hon. James P. Leather, justice of the Superior Court of Indiana.
Hon. John D. Long, former governor of Massachusetts and ex-Secretary of
the Navy.
Miss Alice M. Longfellow, Cambridge.
Hon. William Caleb Loring, justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusettts.
Miss Emma C. Low, president of the National Alliance of Unitarian Women.
Rev. Clay MacCauley, Boston, Mass.
St. Clair McKelway, Esq., editor of the Brooklyn Eagle.
Professor George F. Moore, D.D., professor in Harvard University.
Hon. Thomas J. Morris, D.D., United States Circuit Judge, Baltimore, Md.
Hon. James M. Morton, justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts.

8
Rev. Philip S. Moxom, D.D., minister of the South Congregational Church,
Springfield.
Rev. Theodore T. Munger, D.D., New Haven, Conn.
Professor Charles E. Norton, professor emeritus in Harvard University.
Hon. Thomas W. Palmer, ex-United States senator from Michigan,
Hon. George C. Perkins, United States senator from California.
President Henry S. Pritchett, president of the Massachusetts InsHtute of
Technology.
Hon. Frank S. Roby, judge of the Appellate Court of Indiana.
Jacob H. Schiff, Esq., New York, N.Y.
Professor Nathaniel Schmidt, professor of Semitic languages and literature,
Cornell University.
President Jacob G. Schurman, president of Cornell University.
President L. Clark Seelye, president of Smith College, Northampton, Mass.
President William F. Slocum, president of Colorado College, Colorado Springs,
Col.
Albert K. Smiley, Esq., Lake Mohonk, N.Y.
Hon. Goldwin Smith, Toronto, Canada.
Edmund Clarence Stedman, LL.D., New York.
Hon. Oscar S. Straus, United States Secretary of Commerce and Labor,
Washington, D.C.
Rev. Josiah Strong, president of the American Institute of Social Service, New
York.
Rev. J. J. Summerbell, D.D., Dayton, Ohio.
President Joseph Swain, president of Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania.
Hon. William H. Taft, United States Secretary of War, Washington, D.C.
President James M. Taylor, president of Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
President Charles F. Thwing, president of Western Reserve University, Cleve
land, Ohio.
Dr. Benjamin F. Trueblood, secretary of the American Peace Society, Boston.
President Charles R. Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin.
Judge Reuben E. Walker, justice of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Hon. William D. Washburn, ex-United States senator from Minnesota.
Rev. John B. Weston, D.D., president Christian BibUcal Institute, New York.
President Benjamin I. Wheeler, president of the University of California,
Berkeley, Cal.
Hon. Alfred T. White, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Dr. James M. Whiton, chairman New York State Conference of Religion.
Henry W. Wilbur, general secretary Friends' General Conference, Philadel
phia, Pa.
Hon. Willard A. White, Boise\ Ida.
Mrs. Roger Wolcott, Milton, Mass.
Dr. Robert S. Woodward, president of Carnegie Institute, Washington, D.C.
Hon. Carroll D. Wright, president of Clark College, Worcester, Mass.

FOREIGN DELEGATES IN ATTENDANCE ON THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF RELIGIOUS
LIBERALS.

GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.

Rev. Alexander O. Ashworth, Belfast,
Ireland.
Mrs. Alexander O. Ashworth, Belfast,
Ireland.
John W. Barlow, Bury.
Thomas Beaumont, Sheffield.
Arthur V. Billson, Ashleigh.
Rev. W. Copeland Bowie, London.
Mrs. W. Copeland Bowie, London.
Miss Clara Copeland Bowie, London.
Sir William Bowring, Bart., Liverpool.
Lady Bowring, Liverpool.
Henry R. Bramley, Sheffield.
Rev. Jabez A. Brinkworth, Saffron
Walden.
Miss Ethel Brooks, Wilmslow.
Miss Fanny Brooks, Wilmslow.
Miss Lucy Brooks, Wilmslow.
Miss Jane E. Brown, Leeds.
Miss Carstairs, Liverpool.
Herbert S. Carter, Parkstone, Dorset.
Rev. Benjamin C. Constable, Stock
port.
Miss Emily Cooke, Liverpool.
Rev. Gordon Cooper, London.
Mrs. M. Evelyn Crompton, Bolton.
Miss Edith Cropper, Bolton.
Dr. W. Evans Darby, London.
Rev. J. Tyssul Davis, Chatham.
Rev. Valentine D. Davis, London.
Rev. A. H. Dolphin, Sheffield.
Miss Jane Duncan, Richmond, Surrey.
Rev. Thomas Dunkerley, Comber,
Ireland.
Rev. T. E. M. Edwards, London.
Rev. John Ellis, Halifax.
Rev. E. D. Priestley Evans, Bury.

Rev. E. Gwilym Evans, Dukinfield.
Rev. James Forrest, Glasgow.
Mrs. James Forrest, Glasgow.
Miss Rebecca Gardner, Horsham.
Miss M. Goodyer, Wilmslow.
Rev. J. L. Haigh, Liverpool.
Mrs. J. L. Haigh, Liverpool.
Miss E. Hankinson, Wilmslow.
Rev. F. Hankinson, London.
Simon Harris, Hull.
Mrs. Simon Harris, Hull.
Rev. Wilfred Harris, Bolton.
Rev. Charles Harvey-Cook, Warring
ton.
Miss Helen Brooke Herford, London.
Rev. E. Savell Hicks, London.
Rev. J. Crowther Hirst, Liverpool.
Rev. W. Holmshaw, Manchester.
Mrs. W. Holmshaw, Manchester.
Rev. John Hunter, Glasgow.
Rev. Arthur Hurn, London.
Rev. T. J. Jenkins, Hinckley.
Miss Harriet M. Johnson, Liverpool.
Rev. E. Ceredig Jones, Bradford.
Rev. J. A. Kelly, Belfast, Ireland.
Rev. W. H. Lambelle, Middles
brough.
Herbert B. Lawford, London.
T. Oliver Lee, Birmingham.
Miss E. Rosalind Lee, Stourbridge.
Fred. Maddison, M.P., London.
Rev. John McDowell, Bath.
H. B. Melville, Kirkcaldy, Scotland.
Mrs. H. B. Melville, Kirkcaldy,
Scotland.
Miss Dorothy A. Nicholson, Hale.
George J. Notcutt, Ipswich.

IO

Mrs. E. M. Ormrod, Bolton.
Rev. A. Ernest Parry, Birkenhead.
Rev. Thomas Paxton, Birmingham.
Mrs. Thomas Paxton, Birmingham.
Rev. Charles Peach, Manchester.
Rev. J. Arthur Pearson, Oldham.
Mrs. J. Arthur Pearson, Oldham.
Rev. Gertrude von Petzold, Leicester.
Col. Thomas Phillips, Aberdare,
So. Wales.
Rev. J. Channing Pollard, Lancaster.
Rev. W. W. Chynoweth Pope, London.
John Preston, Stockport.
Mrs. John Preston, Stockport.
Rev. W. G. Price, Dukinfield.
Rev. Henry Rawlings, M.A., London.
Rev. H. D. Roberts, Liverpool.
Mrs. H. D. Roberts, Liverpool.
Reuben Robertson, Lytham.
Rev. Thomas Robinson, Altrincham.
Rev. Charles Roper, London.
Rev. J. Ruddle, Sheffield.
Mrs. Henry Rutt, London.
Rev. Matthew R. Scott, Bolton.
Miss A. Elizabeth Shaen, London.
Rev. William R. Shanks, Leeds.
William Shaw, Dukinfield.
Miss Fanny A. Short, London.
Rev. H. Bodell Smith, Manchester.
Rev. Thomas P. Spedding, Stockport.
Miss Elizabeth J. Spencer, Southamp
ton.

Rev. James E. Stead, Manchester.
Rev. Christopher J. Street, Sheffield.
Rev. Frederick Summers, London.
Mrs. Frederick Summers, London.
Miss E. E. Talbot, London.
Rev. W. G. Tarrant, London.
Rev. Hugon S. Tayler, Chesterfield.
Rev. Felix Taylor, Richmond.
Miss Harriet Taylor, Bolton.
Rev. A. Hermann Thomas, Lough
borough.
Rev. T. Arthur Thomas, Llandyssul,
Wales.
Rev. Charles Travers, Preston.
Rev. William L. Tucker, London.
Rev. Ellison A. Voysey, Northampton.
John A. Wadsworth, Halifax.
Rev. Alexander Webster, Aberdeen,
Scotland.
Miss Christine Wells, St. Albans, Scot
land.
Ernest J. White, Bath.
J. Harrop White, Mansfield.
Mrs. J. Harrop Wliite, Mansfield.
Louis N. Williams, Aberdare, So.
Wales.
Jeremiah Wigley, Manchester.
Miss Robina Winn, Hull.
Rev. J. J. Wright, Manchester.
Rev. C. M. Wright, Birmingham.
Rev. Isaac Wrigley, Stourbridge.

AUSTRIA.
Professor Thomas Garrigue Masaryk, Dr. Philos., University of Prague;
Mrs. Olga Masaryk, Prague; Miss Masaryk, Prague.
DENMARK.
Mr. Theo. Berg, Copenhagen, editor Lys Over Landet.

FRANCE.
Professor A. Gaston Bonet-Maury, D.D., LL.D., University of Paris; Abbe"
A. Houtin, Paris; Professor Jean Reville, D.D., College de France, Paris;
Madame Reville, Paris; T. R. Slattery, Paris.

II

GERMANY.

Rev. Max Fischer, D.D., pastor St. Mark's Church, Berlin; Fraulein
Margarete Fischer, Berlin; Professor Otto Pfleiderer, D.D., University of Berlin;
Professor Martin Rade, D.D., University of Marburg; Frau Rade, Marburg;
Dr. Janet Perkins, Berlin; Dr. Wilhelm Cohnstaedt, Frankfort-am-Main.

GUIANA, DUTCH SOUTH AMERICA.
Mr. Rudolphus L. Worst, Paramaribo. HOLLAND.
Rev. F. C. Fleischer, pastor Mennonite Church, Makkum; Professor H. Y.
Groenewegen, D.D., University of Leiden; Rev. P. H. Hugenholtz, Jr., pastor
Free Congregation, Amsterdam; Professor H. U. Meyboom, D.D., University
of Groningen; Miss Meyboom, Groningen; Miss A. Opwyrda, The Haguej
Miss Theodora van Eck, Oegstgelt; Miss Agnes Henny, Zutphen.
HUNGARY.
Rev. Nicolas Jozan, pastor Unitarian Congregation, Budapest.
INDIA.
M. Barakatullah, Bhopal; S. L. Joshi, Calcutta; D. L. Joshi, Calcutta,
Professor Sakharan Ganesh Pandit, Bombay; Professor G. Subba Rau, M.A.,
Calicut; S. C. K. Rutnam, M.A., Ceylon; B. M. Sehanavis, B.A., Calcutta.
ITALY.
Rev. L. E. Tony Andre-, D.D., pastor Evangelical Reformed Church, Florence.
JAPAN.
Rev. Saichiro Kanda, Tokio; Sakyo Kanda, Tokio; Miss Catherine Osborn,
Universalist Mission, Tokio; Sakusuke Momekura, Tokio; T. Watanabej
K. Kanokogi. NEW ZEALAND.
Miss Mary E. Richmond, Wellington. SWEDEN.
Professor O. E. Lindberg, Gotheburg.

12

SWITZERLAND.
Professor Edouard Montet, D.D., dean Theological Faculty, University of
Geneva; Rev Leonhard Ragaz, pastor at the cathedral, Basel; Mrs. Ragaz,
Basel; Rev. Ernest Rochat, D.D., pastor, Geneva; Rev. G. Schoenholzer,
pastor New Minster, Zurich. UNITED STATES.
The enrolled members of American nationality in the Boston International
Congress numbered over twenty-two hundred. The names of many who
took a prominent part in the meetings will be found scattered through
the pages of this volume.

x3

OFFICIAL DELEGATES TO THE INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERALS AT
BOSTON, SEPTEMBER, 1907.
Note. — Names marked with an asterisk are those of delegates who, so far as
known, were unable to attend the Congress.
DELEGATES FROM ASSOCIATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.
1. American Unitarian Association: S. A. Eliot, D.D., President; Rev.
Charles E. St. John, Secretary; Mr. Francis H. Lincoln, Treasurer.
2. National Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches :
Hon. Carroll D. Wright, President; Rev. Paul Revere Frothingham, Chair
man of the Council; Rev. Walter F. Greenman, Secretary.
3. National Alliance of Unitarian and Other Liberal Christian
Women: Miss Emma C. Low, President; Mrs. Emily A. Fifield; Mrs. R. H.
Davis. 4. Western Unitarian Conference: *Rev. Wilson M. Backus, Secretary;
Rev. Miss Mary A. Safford, Secretary; Rev. Minot O. Simons; Rev. John W.
Day. 5. Unitarian Sunday School Society: Rev. Edward A. Horton, Presi
dent; Rev. W. I. Lawrance.
6. Unitarian Conference of the Middle States and Canada: Rev.
Thomas R. Slicer, D.D.; Rev. George H. Badger, Secretary; Rev. William S.
Barnes. 7. Southern Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian
Churches: Rev. William H. Ramsay; Rev. Clifton M. Gray, Secretary.
8. Pacific Unitarian Conference: *Hon. Horace Davis, Rev. W. G.
Eliot, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Henry F. Spencer.
9. Young People's Religious Union: Mr. Fred. G. Melcher, Miss Eliza
beth Loring.
10. Ministerial Union: Rev. Henry C. De Long, Rev. Roderick Stebbins,
Rev. Eugene R. Shippen.
11. Faculty of Divinity in Harvard University: Professor William
Wallace Fenn, Dean; Professor George F. Moore, D.D.
12. Meadville Theological School: Rev. Franklin C. Southworth,
President; Professor Francis A. Christie; Professor George L. Cary, D.D.;
Professor H. H. Barber.
13. Pacific Unitarian School for the Ministry: *Rev. George W.
Stone, *Mr. and Mrs. Francis Cutting.

14
14- Boston Association of Ministers: Rev. W. H. Lyon, D.D., Mod
erator; Rev. James Huxtable, Scribe.
15. Benevolent Fraternity of Churches: Rev. P. R. Frothingham,
President; Mr. Courtenay Guild; Mr. Ernest Jackson, Secretary.
16. Children's Mission: Mr. Parker B. Field, Mr. Henry M. Williams.
17. Society for Ministerial Relief: Mr. Thomas Minns, Mr. Arthur T.
Lyman. 18. Unitarian Club, Boston: Mr. Solomon Lincoln, President; Mr. Charles
W. Birtwell, Secretary.
19. Channing Club: Mr. Geo. H. Ellis, President; Mr. Henry C. Noble;
Mr. Frederick W. Porter, Secretary.
20. Harvard Unitarian Club: Rev. E. M. Slocombe, Mr. Paul S.
Phalen. 21. The Norse Unitarian Association of America: Rev. Amadeus
Norman, Prof. J. J. Skoerdalsvald, *Hon. A. O. Owen.
22. Ministers' Institute: Rev. Augustus M. Lord, Rev. Frank W. Pratt.
23. Universalist General Convention: Rev. J. C. Adams, D.D.; Rev.
M. D. Shutter, D.D.; Rev. Lee S. McCollester, D.D.; Rev. George L. Perin,
D.D.; Rev. W. C. Selleck, D.D.; Rev. Florence K. Crooker; Mr. Henry M.
Dodge; Mr. Hosea Ballou.
24. Women's National Missionary Association of the Universalist
Church: Mrs. Cordelia A. Quimby, Mrs. Marion D. Shutter, Mrs. Adelaide
B. Kimmel, Miss Catherine Osborne, Miss Emma F. Foster.
25. Massachusetts Universalist Convention: Rev. R. Perry Bush,
D.D.; Rev. George F. Knight, D.D.
26. Crane Theological Seminary, Tufts College: F. W. Hamilton,
D.D., President; Rev. George F. Knight, D.D.
27. Theological Faculty of St. Lawrence University: Rev. Henry P.
Forbes, Dean.
28. General Conference of the Religious Society of Friends:
Joseph J. Janney William G. Brown, Elizabeth Powell Bond, Susan W. Janney,
R. Barclay Spicer, Sarah T. Miller, Bertha Janney, Sarah Gardner Magill,
Ruth C Wilson, Eliza M. Wilbur, Elwood Roberts, Samuel Livesey, Mary
TraviUa, George A. McDoweU, Harry A. Hawkins, Rachel W. UnderhiU, Anna
M. Jackson, Norwood P. HaUowell, Dr. Joseph Swain, Elizabeth G. Haviland,
John W. Hutchinson, EUwood Burdsall, T. O. Atkinson, Benjamin H. MUler,
Edward A. Pennock, Edward H. MagiU, Isaac Wilson, Henry W. Wilbur,
Phebe Wilbur Griffin, Mrs. Elwood Roberts, Mary R. Livesey, Edward P.
Thomas, Jane C. McDoweU, Charles F. UnderhiU, WiUiam M. Jackson, Job
H. Wilbur, Sarah H. HaUoweU, James S. Haviland, Martha G. Haviland, E.
Eliza Hutchinson, Luella M. Burdsall, EUen D. Smith.
29. American Christian Convention: Rev. J. J. SummerbeU, D.D.;
Rev. J. B. Weston, D.D.; Rev. Alva H. MorriU, D.D.; Rev. George A. Coni-
bear. 30. German Evangelical Churches of Pittsburg, Cincinnati, and

15
St. Louis: Rev. Hugo Eisenlohr; *Rev. Charles Voss; *Rev. J. H. Asbeck,
D.D.; *Rev. Pedro Ilgen, D.D.
31. Free Religious Association of America: Colonel Thomas Went-
worth Higginson, Rev. Charles W. Wendte.
32. Congress of Religion: Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, *Rev. C. A. Osborne,
Miss Mary E. Hawley.
33. New York State Conference of Religion: Dr. J. M. Whiton, *Rabbi
Silbermann, Rev. Thomas R. Slicer.

GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
(32 Associations.)
34. British and Foreign Unitarian Association: Sir W. B. Bowring,
Bart.; Rev. W. Copeland Bowie; Rev. V. D. Davis, B.A.; Rev. C. J. Street,
M.A., LL.B; Rev. W. G. Tarrant, B.A.
DISTRICT SOCIETIES, ENGLAND.
35. East Cheshire Christian Union: Rev. B. C. Constable.
36. Eastern Union of Unitarian and Other Free Christian Churches: Mr.
G. J. Notcutt.
37. Liverpool District Missionary Association: Rev. H. D. Roberts.
38. London District Unitarian Society: Rev. E. Savell Hicks, M.A.
39. London and South Eastern Counties Provincial Assembly: Rev. T. E. M.
Edwards. 40. Manchester District Association: Rev. W. Holmshaw, Rev. C. Peach.
41. Midland Christian Union: Rev. I. Wrigley, Mr. T. Oliver Lee.
42. Midland Sunday School Association: Rev. Thomas and Mrs. Paxton.
43. North and East Lancashire Unitarian Mission: Rev. J. J. Wright.
44. North Lancashire and Westmoreland Unitarian Association: Rev.
Charles Travers, Rev. J. C. PoUard.
45. North Midland Presbyterian and Unitarian Association: Rev. A. Her
man Thomas, Mrs. Harrop White.
46. Northumberland and Durham Unitarian Association: Rev. W. H.
LambeUe. 47. Provincial Assembly of Lancashire and Cheshire: Rev. T. P. Spedding.
48. Southern Unitarian Association: Mr. H. S. Carter, Miss E. J. Spencer.
49. Western Union of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches: Rev. John
McDoweU. 50. Yorkshire Unitarian Union: Mr. H. Bramley, Mr. T. Beaumont.
DISTRICT SOCIETIES, WALES.
51. South Wales Unitarian Association: Rev. T. A. Thomas.
52. South-east Wales Unitarian Society: Mr. L. N. Williams.

i6

SCOTLAND.
53. Scottish Unitarian Association: Rev. James Forrest, M.A.
IRELAND.
54. Association of Irish Non-subscribing Presbyterians and Other Free
Churches: Rev. T. Dunkerley, B.A., Rev. J. A. KeUy.
GENERAL SOCIETIES, GREAT BRITAIN.
55. The National Triennial Conference: Sir William B. Bowring, Mr. J.
Harrop White.
56. General Baptist Assembly of Messengers, Elders, and Representatives r
Rev. J. A. Brinkworth.
57. Missionary Conference: Rev. W. R. Shanks, Rev. H. BodeU Smith.
58. The Ministerial FeUowship: Rev. A. H. Dolphin, Rev. J. C. Hirst.
59. Central Postal Mission: Miss E. Talbot.
60. National Unitarian Temperance Association: Miss Harriet Johnson.
61. Laymen's Club: Mr. H. B. Lawford.
62. Women's Social Club: Mrs. Copeland Bowie.
63. Manchester CoUege, Oxford: Rev. V. D. Davis, B.A.
64. Unitarian Home Missionary CoUege, Manchester: Rev. J. A. Pearson.
65. The Sunday School Association: Rev. J. J. Wright, Rev. H. Rawlings,
M.A. 66. Manchester District Sunday School Association: Rev. W. G. Price,
Rev. J. E. Stead, Mr. Jeremiah Wigley.
GERMANY.
67. Der Deutsche Protestantenverein : Rev. Max Fischer, D.D.
68. Freunde der Christlichen Welt: Professor Martin Rade, D.D.
69. Deutsche Freie Gemeinden zu Koenigsberg, Dantzic, Tilsit, und Frank-
fort-am-Main: *Dr. Julius Rupp, *Rev. Carl Schieler, *Rev. Georg Schneider.
HOLLAND.
70. Nederlandsche Protestantenbond: Professor H. Y. Groenewegen, D.D.;
Rev. P. H. Hugenholtz, Jr.
71. Remonstrantsche Broederschap: Professor H. Y. Groenewegen, D.D.
72. De Vrije Gemeente, Amsterdam: Rev. P. H. Hugenholtz, Jr.
73. Commissie voor de Zondagschulen von den Nederl. Protestantenbond:
Miss Theodora van Eck.
HUNGARY.
74- The Hungarian Unitarian Churches: Rev. Nicolas Jozan.
75. The Body of Professors of the Budapest Reformed Theological Academy
(Budapesti reformatus theologiai tanari kar): *Professor Farkos Szoets.

i7

SCANDINAVIA.
76. Det Fri Kerkesamfund of Denmark and Unitarian Congregations of
Norway: Mr. Theo. Berg. SWITZERLAND.
77. Schweizerischer Verein fuer freies Christentum: Rev. G. Schoenholzer.
78. Section de Geneve de I'Union Suisse du Christianisme Liberal: Rev.
E. Rochat, D.D., *Rev. Louis Maystre. FRANCE.
79. Union des figlises R^formees Unies: Professor Jean ReviUe, D.D.
80. Faculty Libre de Theblogie Protestante, Paris: Professor G. Bonet-
Maury. 81. La Revue Chr&ienne de Paris: Professor Vienot, Directeur; Rev. L. E.
Tony Andr6, D.D. ITALY.
82. figlise fivangeTique Reformee de Florence: Rev. L. E. Tony Andre', D.D.
(unofficial). INDIA.
83. The Brahmo-Somaj Committee of India, Calcutta: Mr. Binay Mohon
Sehanavis, B.A.
84. Bombay Prarthana Somaj Mandir: *Mr. V. A. Sukthanker, Mr. G.
Subba Rau.
85. Religio-Philosophical Assocation (Kashi Tattva Sabbha) of Benares:
Mr. Sakharam Ganesh, Pandit.
86. Khasi Hills Unitarian Union, Assam: *Kynjro Singh.
JAPAN.
87. The Japanese Unitarian Association: Rev. Saichiro Kanda.
88. The Universalist Mission in Japan: Miss Catherine Osborn.
89. The Unity Club, Tokio: Mr. Saseko.
AUSTRALIA.
90. The Australian Church: *Rev. Charles Strong, D.D.
91. Unitarian Churches in Australia: *Rev. R. B. Lambley.
92. The Unitarian Churches of New Zealand: Miss Mary E. Richmond.

i8

PROGRAM.
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 22.
10.30 a.m. Members of the Congress conduct services in dif
ferent city and suburban churches.
[A special circular announcing the churches, preachers, and limes of
services.] 4 p.m. Public organ recital in the First Church. Mr. Arthur
Foote, organist.
8 p.m. Opening meeting of the Congress in Symphony Hall,
The music led by a chorus of 300 from the Handel and Haydn So
ciety. Mr. Emil Mollenhauer, conductor; Mr. H. G. Tucker, or
ganist. Addresses by Rev. T. R. Slicer, All Souls' Church, New
York; Dr. Edward E. Hale, chaplain United States Senate; Dr.
Booker T. Washington, Tuskegee, Ala.
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23.
9 a.m. Morning prayer in King's Chapel, led by Rev. Lewis G.
Wilson, of Boston.
10 a.m. Meeting in Tremont Temple of the National Conference
of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches.
MORNING SESSION..'
10 a.m. Opening devotional meeting. Address by the Presi
dent, Hon. Carroll D. Wright, LL.D., president of Clark College,
Worcester, Mass. Appointment of committees and introduction of
business. Report of the Council, by Rev. Paul Revere Frothing
ham, Chairman, Boston, Mass. Address, "The Property Rights
and Duties of American Churches," Charles W. Eliot, LL.D., presi
dent of Harvard University. Address, " Faith as Affected by Free
dom," Rev. George A. Gordon, D.D., minister of the Old South
Congregational Church, Boston.
12.30. Adjournment.

19

AFTERNOON SESSION.

2 p.m. Opening devotional meeting. Address, "Our Free
Churches in Relation to Theological Development," Professor
William W. Fenn, A.M., B.D., dean of the Harvard Divinity School.
Address, "The Good and Evil of Denominationalism," Professor
Francis A. Christie, Meadville Theological Seminary, Meadville, Pa.
Address, "The Separation of Church and State," Hon. Marcus P.
Knowlton, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts.
Address, "A United Liberal Church," Rev. Marion D. Shutter, D.D.,
minister of the Church of the Redeemer (Universalist), Minneapolis,
Minn. Reports of committees and final business.
4.30. Adjournment. Concord Excursion.
The foreign guests on Monday afternoon make an excursion to
Concord. A special train from the North Station at 2 p.m. At
Concord the train met by carriages, and guests taken to view
the various historic and literary landmarks of Concord, — the scene
of the Concord fight, the homes and graves of Emerson, Hawthorne,
the Alcotts, Thoreau, and other liberal thinkers. Afternoon tea
served at the First Parish Meeting-house. The return train for
Boston at 4.45 p.m.
8 p.m. Reception at the Hotel Somerset. Admission restricted to
members of the Congress. Special ticket furnished free to members
on registering. Brief addresses by Hon. Curtis Guild, Jr., governor
of the Commonwealth; Professor Montet, the retiring President of
the International Council; Sir William B. Bowring, Bart., presi
dent of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association; Dr. Mey
boom, of Groningen; Professor ReVille, of Paris; Professor Pfleiderer,
of Berlin; Rev. S. Kanda, of Tokio; and other friends. Music and
refreshments. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24.
9 a.m. Morning prayer in King's Chapel, conducted by Rev.
Wm. G. Eliot, Jr.
10 a.m. First Session of the International Congress in Tremont
Temple. Opening devotional meeting. Mr. F. O. Nash, organist.

20
Address of the President. Appointment of committees and intro
duction of business. Report of the General Secretary, Rev. Charles
W. Wendte, Boston, U.S.A. Address, "The Unitarian Movement
in England," Rev. W. Copeland Bowie, secretary of the British
and Foreign Unitarian Association, London, England. Address,
"The Protestantenverein of Germany," Dr. Max Fischer, minister
of St. Mark's Church, Berlin, Germany. Address, "The Religious
Crisis in France," Professor Jean Reville, professor in the College
of France, Paris, France.
12.30. Adjournment. AFTERNOON SESSION.
2 p.m. Opening devotional meeting. Address, "The Relig
ious Situation in Germany," Dr. Martin Rade, professor in the Uni
versity of Marburg, Germany. Address, "The State of Religious
Liberalism in Romance Switzerland," Dr. E. Rochat, Geneva,
Switzerland. Address, "The Liberal Oudook in Denmark and
Norway," Mr. Theo. Berg, Copenhagen.
3.30. Adjournment. DEPARTMENT MEETINGS.
1. King's Chapel, 3.30 p.m. Department of Religious Education,
Rev. Franklin C. Southworth, president of Meadville Theological
School, presiding. A conference concerning the materials and
methods of Religious Education in family, school, and church. Ad
dresses by Rev. Henry T. Cope, secretary of the Religious Education
Association, on "The New Education," Rev. P. H. Hugenholtz, Jr.,
Amsterdam, Holland, on "The Psychology of Conversion," and by
others. 2. Pilgrim Hall, Congregational House, 3.30 p.m. Department
of the History and Philosophy of Religion. Rev. George A. Gordon,
D.D., presiding. Addresses by Rev. Christopher J. Street, Man
chester, England, on "The Relation of Christianity to Universal
Religion," Professor R. Eucken, of the University of Jena, Germany,
on "What does a Free Christianity require to win the Victory?"
Rev. Gottfried Schoenholzer, Zurich, Switzerland, on "A Protestant
Declaration of Faith," and others.

UNITARIAN BUILDING, BOSTON
Headquarters of the International Congress

21
3. Channing Hall, 3.30 p.m. Department of New Americans.
Dr. Edward E. Hale presiding. A conference concerning the
ways of helping people of European origin who are making their
homes in America. Addresses by Professor T. G. Masaryk, of
Prague, Rev. L. E. Tony Andre", of Florence, Rev. N. Jozan, of
Budapest, Rev. Amandus Norman, Hanska, Minn., and others.
EVENING SESSION.
8 p.m. Religious services in Arlington Street Church. The ser
vices conducted by Rev. Paul Revere Frothingham, minister of the
church, and others. The sermon by the Rev. John Hunter, D.D.,
minister of the Trinity Congregational Church, Glasgow. Music
by the choir of Arlington Street Church, Mr. Lewis G. Thompson,
organist. — At the Second Church. Overflow religious services.
The sermon by Rev. U. G. B. Pierce, minister of the Unitarian
church in Washington, D.C. The services conducted by Revs.
H. D. Roberts, of Liverpool, and Thomas Van Ness.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25.
9 a.m. Communion service in King's Chapel. The address by
the Rev. Charles Gordon Ames, D.D., of Boston.
10 a.m. The Third Session of the International Congress, Tremont
Temple. Opening devotional meeting. Address, "The Relig
ious Situation in Austria," Professor T. G. Masaryk, University of
Prague, Bohemia. Address, "The Ideals of Hungary," Rev. N.
Jozan, minister of the Unitarian church, Budapest. Address,
"The Condition of Religious Liberalism in Holland," Professor
H. Y. Groenewegen, Leiden, Holland. Address, "The Progress of
Theology in Scotland," Rev. Alexander Webster, minister of the
Unitarian church, Aberdeen, Scotland.
12 m. Adjournment.
2.30 p.m. Reception of the members of the International Council
by the Governor of the Commonwealth at the State House.
DEPARTMENT MEETINGS.
1. King's Chapel, 3.30 p.m. Department of Comity and Fellow
ship. Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, of Chicago, an honorary Vice-

22

President of the Congress, presiding. A conference on the pos
sibilities of closer co-operation among the organized Christian fellow
ships represented in the Congress. Addresses by Dr. James M.
Whiton, secretary of the New York Conference of Religion, Mr.
Henry W. Wilbur, secretary of the Society for the Promotion of
Friends' Principles, Rev. J. B. Weston, D.D., New York, and others.
2. Old South Meeting-house, corner Washington and Milk
Streets, 3.30 p.m. Department of Social and Public Service. Rev.
J. H. Crooker, D.D., presiding. Addresses by F. Maddison,
Esq., M.P., London, England, on "Religion and Social Reforms,"
Rev. L. Ragaz, minister of the cathedral, Basel, Switzerland, on
"The Ethical Basis of Liberal Christianity," Rev. W. G. Tarrant,
London, England, "The World War with Intoxicants," Rev. Chas.
F. Dole, and others.
3. Channing Hall, 3.30 p.m. Department of Women's Work.
Miss Emma C. Low, president of the National Alliance of Unitarian
and Other Christian Women, presiding. Addresses by Rev. Gertrude
von Petzold, London, England, Miss T. van Eck, Amsterdam,
Holland, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, Lady Bowring, Miss Mary E.
Richmond, of New Zealand, Mrs. R. H. Davis, and others.
4. Library, 4.30 p.m. Department of Press and Publication.
Rev. Frederick A. Bisbee, D.D., editor of the Universalist Leader,
presiding. A conference of the editors and publishers of the liberal
religious papers and periodicals.
8 p.m. Fourth Session of the International Congress. Old South
Church, corner Boylston and Dartmouth Streets. Opening de
votional meeting, conducted by Rev. George A. Gordon, D.D. Ad
dress, "The Religious Situation in Italy," Rev. L. E. T. Andre",
Florence, Italy. Address, "The Protestants of France: Their Past
and Present Condition," Professor A. Gaston Bonet-Maury, Uni
versity of Paris. Address, "The Crisis in the Catholic Church,"
Abbe" A. Houtin, Paris, France. Music bv the choir of the Old
South Church—The Second Church, Copley Square. Hon James
M. Morton, justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, pre
siding. Opening devotional meeting, conducted by Rabbi Charles
Fleischer, of Boston. Address, "Religious Forces in Japan »
Mr. Saichiro Kanda, secretary of the Japanese Unitarian Associa
tion, Tokio. Address, "The Ideals of the Brahmo-Somaj," Professor

23
G. Subba Rau, Calicut, India. Address by Mr. J. L. Joshi, of
India, on "Missionary Opportunities in India." Address by Mr.
Barakatullah, of Bhopal, India, on "Liberal Mohammedanism."
Music by the choir of the Second Church.
South Congregational Church. Rev. Thomas R. Slicer, D.D.,
presiding. Professor O. E. Lindberg, of Gotheburg, "The Re
ligious Situation in Sweden." Revs. Thomas P. Spedding and
Chas. Peach of England, "The Van Mission in England."
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26.
9 a.m. Morning prayer in King's Chapel.
10 a.m. Fifth Session of the International Congress in Sanders
Theatre, Harvard University, Cambridge. Hon. John D. Long
presiding. Address of welcome by President Charles W. Eliot,
LL.D. Address, "John Calvin and the Reformation Monument at
Geneva," Professor E. Montet, dean of the Theological Faculty at
the University of Geneva. Address, "The Tendency of Positive
Religions to Universal Religion," Professor Otto Pfleiderer, D.D.,
University of Berlin. An illustrated description of Harvard Uni
versity by Professor Francis G. Peabody, D.D.
12.30 p.m. Foreign guests and delegates invited by the Univer
sity to lunch at the Harvard Union, admission by red or white badge.
American delegates and members invited to lunch by the First Parish
of Cambridge in the Parish House, admission by blue badge.
2 to 4 p.m. Personally conducted visits to the university grounds,
buildings, and museums and to the historic and literary landmarks
of Cambridge.
From 4 to 5 afternoon tea served at the residence of the President
of the Congress, 25 Reservoir Street.
8 p.m. A banquet at the Somerset Hotel by invitation of the Uni
tarian Club of Boston. Admission by special ticket. Rev. Samuel
M. Crothers, D.D., presiding. Addresses by distinguished guests.
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27.
Excursion to Plymouth. A special train from the South Station
at 9 a.m. A special ticket required. At Plymouth the com
pany proceed to the First Parish Meeting-house. An address of

24
welcome by Hon. Arthur Lord, president of the Pilgrim Society.
Address, "The Remonstrants of Holland," by Professor H. Y.
Groenewegen, of the University of Leiden. Lunch served to the
guests and foreign delegates at the Universalist church at i p.m.
Visits to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrim Hall, and other places of interest.
At 3.10 special train for Boston. A stop of one hour at Hingham.
A visit to the oldest place of public worship now in use in the United
States, the Meeting-house of the First Parish. Afternoon tea served
in the First Parish House by the ladies of the three Hingham Par
ishes. Addresses of welcome by Francis H. Lincoln and Rev.
Louis C. Cornish. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28.
Excursion to Fairhaven. A special train from the South Station
at 9 a.m. Exercises in the Memorial Church at Fairhaven. Music
and addresses. Luncheon in the Parish House adjoining. The
special train to Boston at 4 p.m.
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 29.
Members of] the Congress conduct services in the different city
and suburban~churches. (See special circular.)
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30.
Meeting of the Ministerial Union, Channing Hall, 10 a.m.
Rev. Seth C. Beach presiding. Morning address by Rev. F. C.
Fleischer, Makkum, Holland, "The Mennonites, in their Inter
national Relations." The afternoon address by Rev. Valentine
D. Davis, London, England. The greetings of the English Min
isterial Association presented by its president, Rev. Charles Roper,
•of London. Luncheon at 12.30.

25

THE BOSTON INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF RELIG
IOUS LIBERALS, SEPTEMBER 22-27, i9°7-
The Fourth Congress, held in Boston under the auspices of the
International Council of Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious
Thinkers and Workers, was in every respect a worthy successor of
the great meetings previously held in London, Amsterdam, and
Geneva. In point of attendance it exceeded them all, and was be
yond the anticipation of the Local Committee. Provision had been
made for the accommodation of fifteen hundred persons, but nearly
twenty-four hundred registered themselves as members, paying the
Congress fee, while a much larger number took part in the proceed
ings of the Congress. The halls engaged often proved too small for
the great audiences which presented themselves, and overflow meet
ings had hurriedly to be arranged. At times four or five well-attended
and even crowded meetings were being held at the same hour, evinc
ing the remarkable interest in the Congress taken by the general pub
lic. The supply of badges, reception tickets, programs, guide-books,
and other souvenirs also fell short of the demand. But all short
comings were graciously borne, as inevitable under the circumstances,
the general satisfaction over the success of the Congress overcoming
all individual annoyance. The centre of the week's hospitalities
was the Unitarian Building on Beacon Street. From the window
boxes that stood on every outer window sill of the building gay
blossoming plants and long trailing vines waved a welcome to all
comers. Between them hung great laurel wreaths, and on each side
of the front steps were decorative plants. At each side of the entrance
stands of great silken flags of various nations proclaimed the inter
national character of the Congress almost as clearly as the greeting,
"Welcome to the International Congress," on the front wall. With
in, brilliant autumn flowers gave an air of festivity, and here, as in
the churches, Symphony Hall, Tremont Temple, and at the hotels,
and even in the streets, the wearers of the Council badges, red or
blue, were most hospitably received.

26
All speakers, and all delegates from foreign countries, approximat
ing two hundred in number, were tendered the hospitalities of the
Local Committee, many of them being entertained at the Hotel Belle-
vue, next door to the Unitarian Building, as well as at other hostelries
and in private families. The chief places of assembly, Tremont
Temple, King's Chapel, Channing, Pilgrim, and Ford Halls, and the
State House, were all within five minutes' walk of the Congress
headquarters, which proved a great convenience. The great rush
of delegates occurred on Saturday, the 21st. The arrangements for
their reception at the Unitarian Building had been carefully planned.
With a reception committee of ladies of the Women's Unitarian
National Alliance in daily attendance, with bureaus of registration
and information, post-office facilities, a corps of guides, mostly young
clergymen, speaking several languages and assiduous in their atten
tions, rest-rooms and refreshments, every possible want of the dele
gates, American or foreign, seemed to have been provided for. In
this connection the devoted and efficient service of Mr. George W.
Fox, for fifty-three years assistant secretary of the American Uni
tarian Association, of Rev. W. Channing Brown, its Field Secre
tary for New England, of Miss Helen F. Pettes, assistant of Presi
dent S. A. Eliot, Mrs. Percy G. Bolster and Miss Florence Everett
of the National Alliance, of Miss Henrietta S. Rogers and Mr.
Paul Phalen are gratefully remembered.
The names of the clerical helpers were Revs. John H. Applebee,
Alfred W. Birks, Louis H. Buckshorn, Albert W. Clark, Arthur H.
Coar, F. R. Griffin, C. W. Heizer, Carl G. Horst, R. F. Leavens,
Samuel R. Maxwell, John F. Meyer, A. E. Mullett, William W. Peck,
George H. Reed, F. S. C. Wicks.
Besides the serious business of the sessions ample opportunities
were given for recreation by a series of social gatherings and excur
sions to neighboring places of interest. These are treated of in
their appropriate places in this volume.
On Sunday, the 22d of September, according to arrangements
previously perfected, some fifty clergymen from abroad, chiefly
British, occupied Boston and suburban pulpits, a special printed
circular announcing the appointments. This was repeated on the
foUowing Sunday, the 29th inst., and proved an interesting and
valuable feature of the session.

27
The opening meeting in Symphony Hall, spoken of elsewhere,
was all that its projectors had anticipated. No one who witnessed
it will ever forget the scene: the great audience of between four thou
sand and five thousand persons, with other thousands trying vainly
to obtain entrance; the platform crowded with distinguished men
and women belonging to many different nationalities and religious
fellowships, and the Handel and Haydn chorus of three hundred;
the mighty outburst of song as the great congregation uplifted the
beautiful hymns written for the occasion by Rev. F. L. Hosmer and
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe or stood reverently during the rendering of
the "Hallelujah Chorus"; the rapt attention with which the audience
listened to the "Greeting and Message of the Congress," "Glory
to God in the Highest," "Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men,"
voiced by Rev. T. R. Sheer, Dr. Edward Everett Hale, and Dr.
Booker T. Washington. All felt it to be a worthy and auspicious
opening of the week's proceedings.
Tremont Temple, the scene of most of the meetings throughout
the week, and itself a beautiful and ornate audience-room seating
twenty-five hundred persons, was decorated with festoons of the na
tional colors and foreign flags massed about the organ and choir-
loft. Appropriate texts in large lettering were posted conspicuously:
"After the way that is called heresy, so worship we the God of our
fathers," "The truth shall make you free," "Where the spirit of the
Lord is, there is hberty," "One is your father, even God, and all ye
are brethren." In great gold letters on blue background, running
entirely around both galleries, were displayed the names of the best-
known saints and heroes of liberal rehgion in all countries, — a glori
ous company. They were as follows: —
Servetus, Socinus, Penn, Fox, Hicks, Francis David, Kossuth,
Vane, Biddle, Lindsey, Priestley, Martineau, Bowring, Armstrong,
Herford, Kuenen, Tiele, Coquerel, A. Reville, Fontanes, Mazzini,
H. Lang, Bluntschli, Bouvier, Agassiz, Schleiermacher, Rothe,
Ritschl, Rammohun Roy, Mozoomdar, Fukuzawa, Mayhew, Free
man, Channing, Emerson, Parker, Murray, Ballou, Gannett, Hui-
dekoper, Peabody, Alexander Campbell, Ware, Walker, Dewey,
Chapin, Furness, Bellows, Clarke, Hedge, Bushnell, Phillips
Brooks, Starr King, May, Isaac Wise, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams,

28
Everett, Webster, Sumner, Story, Bancroft, Curtis, Andrew, Park-
man, Mann, Hawthorne, Bryant, Longfellow, Whittier, Dorothea
Dix, Howe, Louisa Alcott, Lowell, Holmes.
The speakers announced on the Program of the Congress were
worthy successors of these departed heroes of the liberal faith. In
intellectual and scholarly value their papers and addresses were equal
to the occasion. Collected, for the most part, in the present volume,
they afford an excellent summary of the principles and aims of relig
ious liberalism, as well as a comprehensive survey of the present
conditions of liberal religion in the leading countries of the world.
Very noteworthy was the spirit — considerate, conciliatory, and
charitable — which characterized the utterances of the week. Differ
ences of opinion were often expressed, but never in a dissonant or
unkind manner. There was an almost entire absence of bitterness
or denunciation, even when dogmas, institutions, and courses of
action most hostile to the liberal cause were treated of. Through
out the great affirmations of the liberal faith were emphasized rather
than its incidental denials. The reports of the liberal situation in
some of the countries represented at the Congress were not always
encouraging, but this did not abate in any degree the fervent faith
of their spokesmen in the principles of liberal religion and its ulti
mate triumph in church and society.
The closing session, held by invitation of the authorities of Harvard
University in the Harvard Memorial Building, Cambridge, was a
most impressive occasion. The action taken indorsing the projected
monument in Geneva to the memory of John Calvin, and that to
Michael Servetus in Vienne, France, was another display of the
large-mindedness and irenical purpose of this International Council
of Religious Liberals.
To American liberals present the spectacle of so many delegates
from foreign lands in attendance at the meetings (over one hundred
and twenty from Great Britain alone) was very inspiring, and gave
them an enlarged idea of the extension and promise of the liberal
religious movement throughout the world. Not less did they felici
tate themselves on the wider fellowship among progressive Chris
tians in the United States which this international gathering brought
to pass. Several American denominations united in welcoming

29
and entertaining the Congress. Among these were the Unitarians,
Universalists, Christians, and Liberal Friends, together with liberal
associations like the Congress of Rehgion, the Free Religious Associa
tion, and independent churches, as well as broad-minded individ
uals, both lay and clerical, in many of the leading denominations of
the land. No such federation of liberal religious bodies had ever
before taken place in the United States. It is hoped that some way
may be devised by which it may be continued hereafter and made to
contribute still more effectively to the cause of religious freedom
and progress in this country. This united action on the part of
religious denominations and individuals through their mutual inter
est in our International Congress is the usual result of its sessions in
different countries, and one of the most valuable services it renders
them. It was so at our meetings in Holland and Switzerland, while,
in extending an invitation to the Congress to hold its next session in
Berlin in 1910, the four or five hberal associations of Germany which
united in it have for the first time in their history joined themselves
together for a common purpose and work, — a fact full of happy
auguries to their cause and their country.
It only remains to say that the Boston Congress was quite fully
reported in the Boston Transcript, Globe, Herald, and other dailies,
and, through the medium of the Associated Press, in the leading
newspapers of the United States. The Christian Register, in four
successive issues, printed many of the papers in full, as did the
Universalist Leader, Chicago Unity, and other liberal organs. Appre
ciative notices also appeared in the Outlook, the Congregationalist,
the Friends' Intelligencer, and a few other religious weeklies. The
delegates from abroad, on their return to their own countries, wrote
elaborate and highly commendatory reports of the meetings. The
British Unitarian weeklies, the Inquirer and Christian Life, devoted
many columns to the proceedings and papers. In three numbers
of the Dutch liberal organ, Hervorming, Professor Meyboom gave an
interesting account of the Congress. Professor Jean ReVille pub
lished a series of comprehensive and laudatory articles in Le Protes
tant of Paris, and Rev. Dr. Max Fischer in the Protestantenhlatt of
Berlin. Professor Martin Rade printed in his paper, Die Christ
liche WeU of Marburg, several most discriminating and apprecia
tive reviews of the Congress. Mr. Theo. Berg, of Copenhagen,

3°
devoted a whole number of his journal, Lys over Landet, to a detailed
report. Prof. H. Y. Groenewegen in six successive numbers of the
Courant of Rotterdam gave a particularly full and excellent
account of the Boston meetings. The Frankfurter Zeitung con
tained full and well-informed letters from its special correspondent
at the Congress, Dr. Coehnstadt. Rev. A. Altherr in his Swiss
liberal organ, and many others in Europe, India, Japan, and Aus
tralia, gave more or less extended accounts of the meetings, thus
spreading its message of emancipation, enlightenment, and good
will throughout the world.

3'

OPENING EXERCISES OF THE FOURTH INTERNA
TIONAL CONGRESS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERALS, IN
SYMPHONY HALL, BOSTON, ON SUNDAY EVEN
ING, SEPT. 22, 1907, AT EIGHT O'CLOCK.
(Note. — The largest haU in the city suitable for such a gathering had been
secured for the opening session of the Congress, but proved to be inadequate to
the popular demands of the occasion. Long before the appointed hour of be
ginning it was filled with a great and expectant company, numbering not less
than 4,000 souls, crowding the platform, aisles, and corridors, while thousands
outside tried in vain to gain access to the hall.)
ORDER OF SERVICE.
Music rendered by the Handel and Haydn Society of Boston.
Mr. Emil MoUenhauer, Conductor; Mr. H. G. Tucker, Organist.
Organ Voluntary.
Choral, "A Mighty Fortress is our God" (Martin Luther), /. S. Bach
Hymn (written for this meeting)  Tune, "Truro"
For he looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose builder and maker is God. —
Hebrews zi. 10.
O Pilgrim city by the sea,
In thee we meet on kindred ground, —
Pilgrims toward better things to be,
By one high faith and purpose bound.
The separating seas are crossed,
Each heart is understood of each;
On this our day of Pentecost
Fade out the Hnes of race and speech.
One heritage alike we share,
Unspeakable and stUl more vast, —
The widening thought, the hope, the prayer,
The nobler life of aU the past.
And one the goal to which we press
By toilsome paths as yet untrod, —
Earth's longed-for reign of righteousness
The shining City of our God.
O Thou through whom our fathers wrought,
From age to age our trust and stay,
StiU keep us open to Thy thought
And speed us on our pilgrim wayl
Frederick L. Hosmee.

32
Responsive Reading from the Scriptures.
Chorus. "And the glory of the Lord shaU be revealed, and aU flesh shaU see it together;
for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."  Handel
Address, "Glory to God"  Rev. Thomas R. Slicer
Chorus, "How lovely are the messengers!" .... Mendelssohn
Address, "Peace on Earth," Rev. Edward Everett Hale, D.D.
Hymn (written for this meeting)  Tune, "Benediction"
Hail! Mount of God, whereon with reverent feet
The messengers of many nations meet;
Diverse in feature, argument, and creed,
One in their errand, brothers in their need.
Not in unwisdom are the limits drawn
That give far lands opposing dusk and dawn.
One sun makes bright the all-pervading air,
One fostering spirit hovers everywhere.
So with one breath may fervent souls aspire,
With one high purpose wait the answering fire.
Be this the prayer that other prayer controls, —
That Ught divine may visit human souls.
The worm that clothes the monarch spins no flaw,
The coral builder works by heavenly law;
Who would to Conscience rear a temple pure
Must prove each stone and seal it, sound and sure.
Upon one steadfast base of truth we stand,
Love lifts her sheltering walls on either hand;
Arched o'er our head is Hope's transcendent dome,
And in the Father's heart of hearts our home. Julia Ward Howe.
Address, "Good Will to Men," Dr. Booker T. Washington
Chorus, "Hallelujah"  Handel
Benediction  Rev. Edward Everett Hale, D.D.

33

THREE ADDRESSES ON THE GREETING AND
MESSAGE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF RELIGIOUS
LIBERALS.
I. GLORY TO GOD.
BY REV. THOMAS R. SLICER, D.D., MINISTER OF ALL SOULS' CHURCH,
NEW YORK.
"In the beginning, God," are the opening words of the Genesis.
That great psalm of praise that is the story of the making of the
world proceeds until God breathes into man's nostrils the breath of
Hfe and man becomes a Uving soul. God and the soul are the only
words essential to rehgion. AU else is the effort to build a bridge
between God and the soul by which the soul shaU find its way to
God and God shall be known to the living soul.
There was with the angel a great company of the heavenly hosts,
saying, " Glory to God in the highest; on earth peace among men of
good wiU." And the centuries that elapsed between that cosmogony
in Genesis and the echoing upon the plains of Bethlehem were cen
turies fiUed with man's attempts to realize that he is a living soul.
I am glad to-night to be assigned this place in which I conceive
it to be my duty to lead, as far as I may, your worship of the living
God as part of that great company that are echoing stiU the angelic
song of the children of God. And I recaU that some thirty years ago,
when I was striving to find my way out of the conditions of a faith
that was taught in terms of definition to a faith which should achieve
for itself the victories of the soul, I opened the pages of John Henry
Newman and found that great CathoHc saying, "Reason and faith
are incompatible in the same mind, or nearly so." And, as I laid
down the book of this man out in search of a religion, trying to find
his way by the "kindly Hght" through the gloom that encompassed
his mind, I opened my mail of the day, and in it there was a letter
from Cyrus Bartol, who for forty-five years was the minister of one

34
church in this city of Boston, and the first line of that letter was,
"Reason is always hospitable to the faith it is twin with." And
between John Henry Newman and his glimmering light shining from
afar, and Cyrus Bartol with that beacon Hght shining from within,
is comprised the history of the difference between the reUgion of
tradition and the religion of the spirit. Ours is a reasoned faith: it
has, for its beginning, God; for its process, God; for its ultimate,
God; for its inspiration, God; and I bring to this great company
of liberal thinkers and workers to-night this ascription of praise to
the Eternal, in confidence that religion was never more firmly
grounded in the thinking mind, nor more constantly achieving for
itself victories through the thinking mind. For we stand, as you
know, for religion as a natural function of the human soul. And it
follows, as the functions that are highest in human life — breathing
and the action of the heart, upon which human life depends — are
automatic, so religion, this highest natural function of the human
soul, is also automatic. Its aspiration and its inspiration are almost
unconsciously its own in the presence of the Hving God. The soul,
this living child of God, sits central, as some ancient merchant might
at the Damascus Gate, and aU the caravans of the world are coming
his way. He sorts the product of the outlying districts of the world,
and assigns to each its place in the trades that he conducts. And the
soul, looking through the gates of sense, — the eye-gate and the ear-
gate and the gate of touch, — is building up from its central position
the power and efficiency of life. The church, therefore, is no sur
vival of the ages of faith. It is a barrier built to shut out the inroads
of despair. It is not a monument over the grave of dead iUusions:
it is a beacon kindled on the headlands of hope. It is dynamic; a
power-house for the accumulated energies of Hfe, that they may be
distributed to re-enforce the human soul in its activities in the world.
It is no sanctuary of uncommunicated mysteries: it is rather the
place for realizing the friendly intimacies of the soul with the Eternal.
Now note what threatens the Church even in our aspect of it,
which is the freest. We must recognize its constant tendency to
lapses from its great ideals. It has heard a voice which has said to
it, "See that thou make aU things according to the pattern that I
showed to thee in the mount"; and it is encouraged to believe that its
highest moment may be made constant, and its highest vision may be

35
permanent. And yet the moment that it loses touch with this central
power, substituting contentions with men for communion with God,
substituting the mere draperies and accessories of reUgion for its
vital principle, the Church turns to some makeshift for the re-enforce
ment of its power. It multiplies its services, it enriches its ritual,
it organizes institutions for men that have forgotten to pray. It
makes its observances more exact, and thus builds about it barriers
between itself and the Hving fact that it adores in the great conscious
Personahty of which its own personaUty is the conscious child.
And so it is also in philosophy. We are just now threatened with
a danger that we shaU be drawn away from these high intimacies
with the Eternal. Men have been so intent upon getting the phi
losophy of the Hfe of the soul down upon the ground, that at Oxford,
the ancient home of the Ideal, a school of "humanism," so caUed,
utters its voice; but it wiU never, I think, see at Oxford in the name
of "humanism" such a scene as in the sixteenth century was wit
nessed when one Oxford martyr said to another, " Be of good
cheer, Master Ridley: we have lit a candle in England to-day that
shaU never be put out." Men are not martyrs for an accom
modation of truth to expediency. It comes to us in the "History
of RationaHsm," by Alfred Benn, as Ophelism, from its root which
means "use." It is stiU the effort to domesticate the celestial
ideals on terrestrial planes in the nameof practical results. And, if I
may dare in the presence of this Boston audience to say it, in this
city there has been at least one attempt to give us the yellow journaUsm
of phUosophy in the name of Pragmatism. "Is it effective? Has
it a cash value ? Does it pay ? Is it coming our way ? " Not what
are its absolute securities, but what are its convertible assets?
These are the test questions on its real examination papers ! AU these
are substitutes for the Ideal that threaten the soul, because the soul
has lost its confidence in itself as the child of the living God.
Now, mark you, this confidence, this sense of divine communion,
this consciousness of rights in God that belong to the soul, reverts
again and again to its idealization of life's energies and life's activi
ties. That for which we have stood is still true, that only transfigured
character can be the effective means of regeneration for the world.
They came to the demon-possessed boy at the foot of the mount
and saw the Master of Life cast out the demon. The disciples had

36
been with him in the mount where the Transfiguration had shown
upon his face and in his word, and where there had sounded a voice,
" This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." There is no
short road, there is no easy path, there is no compromise of the soul
that is possible between the soul and God. And every time, my
friends, that the Church has tried to substitute for the struggle of soul
a compromise of faith, it has enunciated some "analogy of revealed
and natural religion" or some "limits of religious thought." It has
been said that the term "agnostic" is the child of Huxley's brain,
and as such child it has had an honest and a useful purpose. But
there is another agnosticism that was born of the union of Butler's
"Analogy" and Mansell's "Limits of Religious Thought," and
domesticated itself under the forms of religion and with the usages of
faith within the Church when it was baptized. That is the agnos
ticism that preserves the matrix of beliefs, that it may turn out of it
the recurrent senseless archaic phraseology which it never ceases to
rehearse. The very essence of personality is its current, fluent muta
bility. It knows perfectly well that God is, but says with Chrysos
tom, " I know that God is everywhere, but the how of his being I do
not know." It recognizes the diversity of faiths, but says with Saint
Ambrose, "Religions are many, but religion is one." And every
now and then we are startled by the revenges that the soul caUs upon
itself for its own neglect. The strange, peculiar, and unclassified
phases of faith now current and popular are simply the soul's re
venge for its own neglect. Robbed of its ideals, it lapses into vain
idolatries. We read last winter, those of us, perhaps, who knew what was best to
read, the Life and Letters of Leslie Stephen. And when you come to
the year 1875 in that wonderful volume in which Maitland has been
the ideal biographer of a life that is superbly and supremely
interesting, when you come to the year 1875, you find a letter of
Stephen's to our own James Russell Lowell, as the writer stands in the
shadow of a great affliction. His wife, Thackeray's daughter, has
died, and he writes to Lowell, "I thank — something" (this sceptic,
this critic, this clear-minded man who supposed he was abandoning
Christianity when he was leaving a national church),— "I thank
something," he says to LoweU, "that I loved her as heartily as I
knew how to love, that I would have died for her with pleasure that I

37
scarcely ever saw a cloud upon her bright face." And this Alpine
rose blooming on the edges of Stephen's arctic mind, this Alpine
rose of faith and emotion, unfolds a body of divinity. "I thank some
thing," then that "something" is. "I loved her as profoundly as I
can ever love," then this "something" is the source of the divine
affections which have glorified life. "That I would have died for
her with pleasure, " then this " something " is the inspiration of self-
sacrifice. " And that I never saw a cloud upon her bright face," then
this law of love and sacrifice is also the fountain of joy. And Leslie
Stephen, clear of mind and whole of heart and earnest of spirit, comes
back upon the tides of a great emotion to that "something" that still
overshadows him and in whose shadow he sits and quiets himself.
We know perfectly weU that the conditions of the divine life cannot
be known to us in their entirety. But we say with that great liberal
whose bright example stiU haunts the shores of life and faUsas radiance
from the heavens to which he was so lately taken, — we say with Mar
tineau, " The possible always is, and its categories of the right, the
beautiful, and the necessarily true may have their contents defined
and wait for their realization whatever centuries may elapse." And
this, he adds, " is not the work of objective science : it is the work of
self-reflection." It is this transfigured character, this transformed
man, that can take upon his Ups the Gloria with which we began our
meeting, — " Glory to God in the highest." We know there are vast
margins of being unexplored, we know that there are riddles as yet
unguessed, we know that there are mysteries under the shadow of
which we take our way, but nothing of these things shall prevent us
from living a great and beautiful life.
And just here we come upon the difference between the man out in
search of a religion and the man whose heart is set upon reality.
The man in search of a religion inquires eagerly of every passer-by,
going to most strange resorts of inquiry for the confirmation of his
search, asking on every hand, "Is there some rock smitten in the
desert for the thirst of a soul Hke mine?" But the man whose
heart is set upon reality goes into that inner sanctuary of his own
nature and finds the kingdom of heaven aheady beginning there.
And it is for this reason that respecting this great and ultimate
truth of religion, as of all others, the liberal faith refuses to dogma
tize. It knows perfectly weU, as a great European thinker said of

3«
late, that "dogma is not the book of life, but its index"; that some
times, when it supposes that it is struggling for its life, religion " suf
fers the Nemesis of finding that it is only struggUng to preserve this
index." It was long ago said that "the smaU and great, when they
shall stand before God, shaU be judged out of the things written in
the Book of Life." We think they wiU not be judged out of what
is outlined as speculation in the index.
It has been reserved for the great heresy that began in the fourth
century and continues to this day to arrogate to itself the "indexing"
of what the soul may believe and what it may not beheve.
And so we come in this great faith that we hold to give glory to
God for the achievement of our freedom, to give glory to God for the
confidence of our faith, for the fact that we are fronting continuaUy
that Ultimate Reality of which it has been weU said by the great Ger
man educator, Herbart, that we believe that it is, because, "where
nothing is, nothing can appear," and we are not to be misled by the
march of phenomena to suppose that they are the show of what has no
existence behind them, — phantoms real in a universe which has no
final Reality! So with Browning we are continuaUy saying, with
each day's excursion into the unseen, as we shaU say at last when we
make the beginning of the great voyage, —
" Once more I go on my adventure brave and new,
Fearless and unafraid."
We say with Emerson, "Whatever it is that the great Providence
has in reserve for us, it must be something beautiful and in the great
style of his work." This is our faith.
And so what better could we say to-night in this ascription of praise
to the great Author of our being and the Achiever of victories in us
and for us than to take up the ancient word ? " O Eternal, Thou hast
searched me and known me; Thou hast known my downsitting and
my uprising; Thou understandest my thought afar off. Whither
shall I go from Thy spirit, and whither shall I flee from Thy presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; if I make my bed in the
underworld, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of morning
and fly into the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shaU Thy hand
lead me and Thy right hand shall hold me." This is the soul's con
fession to the Great Companion.

39
And so, matching this great word of the One Hundred and Thirty-
ninth Psalm to the words of the Christian apostle, we may well say,
as a company of behevers, as children of the living God: —
"Now unto Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly
above aU that we can ask or think, according to the power that
worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus
forever. Amen."

II. PEACE ON EARTH.
BY EDWARD EVERETT HALE, D.D., OF BOSTON, CHAPLAIN UNITED
STATES SENATE.
Angels are messengers whose duty it is to go on God's errands.
The angels who sang " Glory to God in the Highest" also sang " on
earth peace."
The last session of this International Congress, held two years since
in the city of Geneva, was made glad by the announcement of Peace
among the Nations. "No war nor battle's sound
Was heard the world around."
It was our good fortune in New England that the great Treaty of
1905 which gives dignity and solemnity to the twentieth century
was signed within our borders. An island had been found at the
mouth of one of our rivers where the etiquettes of diplomacy could
be satisfied, and the distinguished envoys of Russia and Japan
could meet in peace at the mediation of the President of the United
States. In the two words "United States" there is good omen for
the world's "united nations." As the "United-States" is one na
tion, the united world is to be one empire of the living God. The
words "Thy kingdom come," repeated every morning in a thousand
miUion prayers, have their concrete and visible interpretation. The
instinct of the early-born Church of Christ is justified when, in the
prelude or overture to the gospel history, the proclamation which
foUows the strain of "Glory to God" is his royal promise of peace
on earth. "When ye enter a house, wherever it may be, and

4°
whosesoever it may be, north, south, east, or west, from this moment
to the end of time, ye shaU salute it, saying, Peace be to this
house." The prophecy of old centuries had called the Saviour of mankind,
in advance of his coming, by the name of the "Prince of Peace."
And that Church which has taken his name, though it has but meanly
foUowed in his footsteps, has been glad to preserve the name as its
noblest tribute in his honor. In ceremony, in poetry, nay, in a sort
of faith, it calls him the "Prince of Peace."
I know very weU, of course, that the superficial people, the light
weights of literature and of society, say glibly, "What are the signs
of his coming?" They say, "Of course, you know men are
developed from wolves and tigers, and in aU human affairs, you
know, there must be a drop of the tiger blood."
I had been speaking on Peace before the professors of a Western
college, and one of them, not the professor of history, asked me
smartly why wars were more and more frequent, why peace reigned
less and less. I was able to answer in a moment, " Because that is
not true." In the last half of the seventeenth century the Ameri
can States were at war nearly half the time. In the seventeenth cen
tury they were at war more than a quarter of the time. In the
eighteenth century, which secured their independence, they were at
war thirty-seven years out of a hundred. In the nineteenth century
they were at war seven years in a hundred. As for this professor and
for the other light-weights, I like to refer them to those chapters of
Gibbon in which he shows that under the Antonines and their pred
ecessors and successors the Roman Empire enjoyed nearly two
centuries of absolute peace. It had a larger population than the
Europe of Gibbon's time. It was in those centuries that the arts and
agriculture and literature of Asia subdued barbarous Europe, be
cause barbarous Europe was at peace. The white linen which puts
us in uniform this evening, the coats on our backs, as we shaU face
this winter's storms, would not be known in Europe to-day but that
in those two centuries of peace Europe learned from Asia the arts
by which she clothes herself.
The light-weights are apt to say that God is on the side of the
strongest battalions, — which is probably true. But, as has been weU
observed, success waits not on the strength of battaUons, but on

4i
Justice, Truth, Honor, and Union. And it is quite certain that God
is with them.
Justice brings in peace : peace foUows justice. That is the gospel
of the beginning; it is the gospel of to-day; it is the gospel of the
future. You and I need not distress ourselves about gunpowder and
torpedoes and the apparatus of war. This is no question of dropping
a spark upon gunpowder or the striking a blow upon dynamite.
We know perfectly weU what the machinery of war means. Some
of us are old enough to remember the end of the Civil War, and we
know perfectly weU that every weapon used at the end of the Civil
War, by sea or by land, is now rusting in the rubbish heap. Not one
weapon of them aU, from the great frigates down to the small swords,
would be of use in any warfare. And we know perfectly well that
the "Dreadnoughts" and the torpedoes, these things on which we are
spending a few hundreds of miUions of dollars every year, will all
be in the waste heap before the next forty years have gone by. Things
always perish: the idea is eternal. "Glory to God in the highest,
peace on earth, and good wiU among men." That is the lesson which
at this moment the United States of America has for its business to
proclaim to the united nations of the world.
Now our new century is to be not so much the century of physical
invention, not so much the century of territorial discovery, as the cen
tury of the reign of Ideas. Man, the child of God, has found out that
he is the child of God, and he means that God's kingdom shaU come.
Man works with God and God with man, that the will of God may
be done on earth as it is done in heaven. In a world thus governed
the nations of the world have met at The Hague in one congress.
Congress, a place to which men go together. They have consulted to
gether for the first time. They are consulting together, have been
to-day, wiU be to-morrow. They are consulting, not how this na
tion shaU be stronger, not how that nation shall be made weaker,
but how aU the nations, great and smaU, may live together in peace,
how this world shaU be one world. " As Thou, Father, art in me and
I in Thee, that they may be perfected into one."
ReaUy, it is enough to know that the distinguished men who ade
quately represent the nations of the world, great and small, are for
the first time together. One might say that for a beginning this is
enough. The nations look each other in the face, and yet they are

42
not on the field of battle. The nations look each other in the face,
and ask each other how they can make a closer union. Might there
be one august tribunal which should represent the wisdom, the his
tory, the religion of the world, and which should be able to issue its
decisions, yes or no, in the great crises of the history of the world ?
Our friends from the older continent, so called, as they arrive in
America (which, the geologists teU us, is the oldest continent of aU),
wiU find that we are united, absolutely united in one determination,
that war shaU cease and peace shaU take its place ! We remember
our own name, — that this nation is caUed the nation of the United
States. Ouf fathers highly resolved that, when these States differed
from each other, as they would differ, they should refer their differ
ences to one supreme tribunal. This tribunal shall proclaim the
difference between right and wrong. Questions of boundary, ques
tions of language, questions of trade, questions of race, should be
referred to the supreme tribunal. Our fathers determined on this.
And to this the United States agrees. If it needed a lesson, it learned
its lesson in its one great failure; and even there and then the power
of union, " that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me and I
in Thee," prevailed. The United States of America is the great
peace society of the world.
The United States of America proposes in this first decade of a
new century that the nations of the world, if they stand for life in
stead of death, for heaven instead of hell, for right instead of wrong,
shall unite just as these States have united. Absolute freedom to
the individual, absolute seff-rule in the smaUest communities, abso
lute self-government in every historical State, but Unity, Union,
Harmony, and mutual life, blending all the nations of civihzation
in one. Harmony instead of discord, union for disunion, — a com
mon life; in place of contest and jealousy, the reign of peace. We
wiU establish Justice, and Peace shall follow.
"TraveUer, lol the Prince of Peace,
Lol the Son of God is come."

43

III. GOOD WILL TO MEN.
BY DR. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON, PRINCIPAL OF TUSKEGEE
INSTirUTE, ALABAMA.
I have been a slave in body, and know its meaning, but there is
no form of physical slavery that is as hurtful as mental and spiritual
slavery. Having, therefore, experienced one form of bondage, I
have long since registered a high and, I trust, holy resolve in heaven
that henceforward no influence shall enslave me in mind or in heart.
Hence as an ex-slave and as an American citizen, I count it a high
privilege to be permitted to share in the duty of extending a welcome
to those who have come here from this and foreign lands to attend
this International Council of ReUgious Thinkers and Workers.
My first introduction to the world of religious thought was in this
wise: one morning, before the break of day, just prior to her de
parture for the work of the day, I recaU the picture of my now sainted
mother bending over my body as I lay upon a dirt floor, wrapped in a
bundle of rags, earnestly praying that Abraham Lincoln might suc
ceed, and that one day she and her boy might be free. I am here
to-night to celebrate with you the answer to that prayer. I join all
the more heartily in this festival of religious freedom of thought and
activity because my race in America, as has been true of the oppressed
in aU lands, owes a pecuUar debt of gratitude to those of the liberal
faith. When fire comes into contact with dynamite or powder, something
happens. The two cannot dweU together in peace, and, when the
religion that is pure and undefiled comes into contact with slavery,
oppression, and ignorance, something always happens. The two
cannot dweU together in peace. So, when the experiment was tried
of having great souls of the liberal faith inhabit the same country
with slavery, the outcome was failure. Slavery, with its results,
could not live in the same country and in peace by the side of Abra
ham Lincoln, James RusseU LoweU, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow,
John Greenleaf Whittier, WiUiam Lloyd Garrison, WendeU Phillips,
Theodore Parker, George WiUiam Curtis, William Ellery Channing,
James Freeman Clarke, and our own living saint and sage, Edward

44
Everett Hale. I repeat that, when slavery touched these great souls,
something happened; and the institution of human slavery was for
ever banished from our land, and the world was convinced anew that
it was impossible for human bondage and oppression to dweU in peace
in the same land with education and religious freedom.
If I correctly understand the meaning and object of this great in
ternational gathering of spiritual thinkers and leaders, it is to im
press upon the world the fact that religion is not meant to estrange
men and races, but to acquaint each with the best that is in the other
and to unite them in a common bond of service. This you wiU do
with aU men, no matter what tongue they speak or in what land
they dwell or to what race they belong.
If I interpret correctly the spirit of this international and inter
denominational organization, it is to impress upon mankind the old
and fundamental truth that there is something in religion, something
in the end at which it aims, that is far above church, name, creed, or
dogma; something that transcends in importance denominational
statistics or church wealth. You would concern yourself with the
vital things of religion, you would foUow the teachings of the Great
Book when it says, in effect, " Not by power nor by might, but by
my spirit shall the world be redeemed." You would put not a mere
name, not a mere formula, but the spirit of Christ into every human
being. It often requires, it seems to me, a great crisis in the affairs
of races and nations to teach us how to rise above aU that is little and
narrowing in our religious life. Within our country and within
recent years we have had two such great lessons. The one was during
the time that the great battle was raging between slavery and. free
dom, between union and the proposed disruption of the nation. The
other lesson came, as a result of the war, when millions of ignorant
and poverty-stricken negroes were suddenly made citizens and re
quired protection and education. On each of these supreme occa
sions men and women lifted themselves into the atmosphere of Chris
tian brotherhood and united Christian service, where aU was forgotten
save the spirit of the Master and the essentials of true religion. If
this can be done once, it can be done again. In this connection
may I suggest, to the credit of American Unitarians, that they
always stand ready to sacrifice the reward for work that shows itself
merely in increased church plants, denominational numbers, and

45
financial statistics, in order that they may perform the higher work
of spreading the spirit of service and religious freedom and tolera
tion: hence it is that Unitarians are likely to find more evidences of
the fruit of their efforts outside of their immediate church circles than
within them.
I do not speak to you as a pessimist. Far from that. My observa
tion and experience firmly convince me that the spread of religion is
making the world better and lifting mankind up to a higher plane of
living. The world is going forward, not backward. Until some one
is able to invent and enforce a law which will stop the progress of the
civilization of the world, the forces of righteousness and justice need
have no fear of defeat. Your work of spreading, defending, and
vitalizing religious thought and effort is not in vain. Christian
civihzation is moving forward, not halting or retrograding, and no
one is in a better position to realize this than one who belongs, as I
do, to what is known as one of the unpopular or disadvantaged races.
It is a long step from a Virginia slave plantation to the platform
upon which I speak to-night. This fact of my personal experience
gives me the right to say and repeat, Your work is not in vain. In
America and in aU countries the spirit of the Master is slowly enter
ing aU the problems that relate to justice and fair play. This is so
in regard to the great problems of labor and capital, of education,
and the adjustment of the relations of race to race, in the securing
to aU the important but sure protection and encouragement of the
law. We have a potent example of this progress in the case of more than
ten miUion negroes in America who, in about forty years, in the face
of difficulties, have accumulated more than $350,000,000 worth of
taxable property, who have acquired nearly half a million homes and
farms, who have moved forward to the extent that 56 per cent, can
read and write the English language, who have 16,000 Christian
ministers and 24,000 church organizations with $27,000,000 worth
of church property. In this connection I want the world to know
that the educated negro is not a rapist, and is rarely a criminal of any
character. In the solution of all these great questions we are far from perfec
tion, and wrong and injustice still exist, and much serious work re
mains before the right shall completely triumph. For one, I Hke

46
a hard, serious, and perplexing problem at which to work. For my
self, I would not care to live in an age where there was no hard prob
lem to be solved or weak portion of the human family to be reached
and lifted up.
In proportion as we reach down and lift up the weakest, we our
selves are made strong. In the degree that we mete out injustice
to the humblest and weakest, in like degree are we degraded and
weakened. In our haste and shortness of vision we are often too prone to de
pend upon the passing of statutory laws to settle serious problems.
The most fundamental and vital things of life are above and beyond
the control of statutory laws.
You remember Saint Paul's letter to the Galatians in which he
says, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, long-suffering, gentle
ness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." And then Saint
Paul adds these pregnant words, "Against such there is no law."
It is away up in Saint Paul's atmosphere, above the reach of man,
where your race, my race, and aU races are to look for the final
solving of all the perplexing questions of the earth.
Let me, again, in the name of my race, our whole country, bid you
welcome and God-speed in your mission of spreading religious free
dom and truth, and knitting together aU the people of the earth in
a common bond of brotherhood and service. Such gatherings as
this are helping to hasten the day referred to by Christ when he said,
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shafl make you free."
If in the midst of denominational rivalry and bigotry, and if in
the midst of racial pride and selfishness, and if in the midst of national
ambition and desire for power, if for a short season the progress of
the world seems to halt or slacken, let us not grow discouraged or
faithless or lose hope in our task, but at all times be ready to ex
claim with one of old, —
"The stormy biUows are high,
Their fury is mighty, but
The Lord is above them, and
Is almighty and almighty."
And He will hasten the coming of the day when there will be good
will toward all men.

47

FIRST GENERAL SESSION OF THE INTERNA
TIONAL CONGRESS.
Held at Tremont Temple, Boston, Tuesday morning, September 24.
The Congress met at 10 a.m., Rev. Samuel A. EUot, D.D., in the
chair. The exercises opened with the singing of a hymn written for the
occasion by Rev. Seth C. Beach, D.D., Scripture reading and
prayer by Rev. Henry Rawlings, of London, England.

HYMN.
BY SETH C BEACH.
Kingdom of God! the day how blest,
When to Thy fold as to their home,
From north and south, from east and west,
Thine own of every name shall come 1
Day of the Lord! Thine hour draws nigh,
We see the radiant dawn afar;
The Ught of truth iUumes the sky,
Resplendent as the morning star.
Not ours the noon, but ours the dawn,
The prelude to the fuU-orbed day;
And ours to bid the clouds be gone,
And give the Ught unhindered way.
AU glory, gracious God, to Thee!
We Uft our eyes unto the hiUs,
And, lo! the blessed prophecy,
By Thy strong arm, its course fulfils.
Rev. George Batchelor, Professor Jean ReviUe, and Rev. W. Cope
land Bowie were appointed a Nominating Committee, and it was
announced that any business introduced would go without discussion
to the Executive Committee.

48

OPENING ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT,
REV. SAMUEL A. ELIOT, D.D.
The significance of this gathering is that it is composed of men and
women who in the pursuit of truth and righteousness dare to com
mit themselves unreservedly to the control of the law of liberty.
This Council is the unfettered servant of truth, freedom, and brother
hood. The type of religious thought and feeling represented here is
broadly inclusive. It is not to be identified with any one form of
sectarian opinion or organization. The universal religious con
sciousness creates here a meeting-place for a score of different races,
traditions, doctrines, names, and allegiances.
The inteUectual characteristic of this company is open-mindedness.
We do not desire to promote uniformity of opinion. We are no one-
ideaed regiment, marching with the dull monotony of a hayfoot-
strawfoot discipline. We are a persistently independent and self-
reliant people, tolerant of exceptionality, eager to recognize and apply
individual power and aptitude. We rejoice that in this gathering
lonely thinkers find themselves least lonely and brave workers find
themselves most positively furthered.
We come together out of our separate and peculiar traditions, our
local or provincial prejudices, our legitimate preferences for certain
familiar beliefs and habits. We come with our little sectarian
jealousies, our misunderstandings, our possible antipathies, and we
discover that our very differences represent not so much the diversities
as the universality of religious faith. Here we come into the atmos
phere of cordial fellowship and good will. We lay aside our nar
rower pursuits, the ambitions that divide us, the cares and fears
that so easily beset us, and refresh ourselves with a nobler reach of
vision. We meet for social intercourse and for the exchange of opin
ion and experience. We enjoy the stimulus of inteUectual variety,
we broaden our horizons, we lift our instinctive prepossessions to the
higher levels of rational and friendly debate. We form enduring
friendships. We discover unexpected identities of spirit and pur-

49
pose. We learn how much of breadth and true liberality there is in
nations or communions we had supposed to be exclusive and des
potic. We emphasize the convictions that all good men hold in
common. We unseal again the fountains of idealism where the thirsty
soul, weary of materialism, has so often refreshed itself. We renew
faith and courage, and we return to our homes re-enforced by a new
sense of the grandeur of our life together and the irresistible attrac
tion of our common hopes and ideals.
But, whUe thus inclusive and hospitable, the field of this Council,
as I understand it, is not unlimited. It is confined by the boun
daries of religious thought and action, and it is practically limited to
the people who believe that theology is a progressive science, and not a
sealed and final "deposit of faith." It commands primarily the alle
giance of people to whom religion is not a matter of outward form or
stated observance, but a sentiment which expresses itself in unpre
tending devotion to the truth, in habitual consideration for others, in
steady adherence to certain well-recognized ideals of private and
pubUc duty.
It is a commonplace to say that immense changes are taking place
in the thought and Hfe of all religious organizations. The adherents
•of the different communions are no longer homogeneous. They not
only tolerate, but acknowledge a great and growing diversity of opinion
within their own ranks. To say that a man is an Episcopalian or a
Presbyterian, a Lutheran or a Calvinist, a Catholic or Protestant or
Jew, no longer defines his spirit or his convictions. He may be- for
ward-looking or backward-looking, conservative or progressive, bound
hy some outward law of constraint or deUvered into allegiance to the
law of liberty. The progressive men of all communions feel them
selves in closer sympathy with men of the same spirit in other com
munions than with those of an opposite temper in their own, while
the reactionaries of aU communions are drawn together by their
common opposition to the theological reconstruction which modern
knowledge demands. The traditional and historic dividing-lines
grow dim, but the new alignments grow more and more distinct.
As the progressives of every name carry forward their principles to
their logical conclusions, the reactionaries relapse toward medievalism
in their doctrines, their habits of worship, and their conceptions of
the religious Hfe. The members of this Council obviously belong

5°
to the progressive wings of the different communions. We are a
people who hold it to be the task of each generation to interpret
religion afresh in the Hght of growing knowledge and experience
and in the thought and speech of their own time. We are a people
temperamentaUy disposed to accept modern conceptions of history,
science, and philosophy.
But, while the members of this Council are liberals, they are in no
sense iconoclasts. They cherish the law of historic continuity.
They have no tendency to mistake restlessness for progress, or revo
lution for reform, or the removal of their neighbor's landmarks for
the enlargement of their own territory. They beUeve that to develop
a nobler future we must use the impulse of the toiling generations
behind us. Amidst the diversities of gift and operation they seek
to discern the one spirit. Reaching for things before, they hold se
curely to something behind.
There is nothing controversial in the purpose of this gathering,
there is nothing polemic in our discussions. Though the statement of
our principles appears sometimes to arouse heat in those who do not
agree with us, we disclaim any desire to criticise or inflame. Our
appeal is never to passion or prejudice, but to reason and good wiU.
Our attention is not given to the defects or failures of other systems
of religious thought or methods of religious organization, but solely
to the development of the creative and constructive forces. We are
concerned with the promotion of certain positive and universal prin
ciples of thought and conduct. Our spirit is affirmative, not nega
tive. We desire not to destroy, but to fulfil.
And, if we are not iconoclasts or controversialists, neither are we
apologists. The great convictions we hold in common rest not on
the authentication of any ancient book, not on any decree of Council
or of Church, but on their appeal to the conscience, reason, and ex
perience of men. We make no unreal distinction between religion
and the world, between things sacred and things secular. Religion,
as we conceive it, is not something apart from life, dependent upon
a special and supernatural revelation, but a part of life, simply the
consummation and transfiguration of human experience.
It follows that the members of this CouncU are, by temperamental
necessity, optimists. They believe in human nature, they have con
fidence in the good purposes of the universe, they commit themselves

to unfaltering trust in the ultimate victory of truth over error and of
right over wrong. They are people who squarely face the unquestion
able and inscrutable tragedies of human life, who have a clear per
ception of the narrow boundaries of human knowledge and the evils
and iUs that oppress and hinder mankind. They do not expect to
fathom the unfathomable, yet they find ample scope, within the
obvious limits, for the exercise of noble faculties, for flights of fine
imagination, for disinterested and prophetic achievement. They
discover no limits to the possibilities of the soul's expansion. They
believe in spite of prevalent discontent, in spite of disappointment
over some of the results of liberty, in spite of the inability of science
to solve the ultimate mystery of existence, that life is eminently worth
hving and that underneath are the everlasting arms.
The leaders of this CouncU do not deceive themselves into thinking
that their ideals are easUy attained or to be immediately realized.
Theirs is the joy of pursuing ideals that ever journey before them.
Their good obtained is only tidings of something better. Their
castles of hope shine ever along new horizons. They rejoice in a
religious confidence which is aUied to, and not at war with, the funda
mental instincts of honor and justice, which is in harmony with the
beauty of the visible universe and with the sweetness of family love.
Theirs is the cheerful faith that knows that this marveUous life is
not a vision that fades, but an everlasting trust. Such a faith jus
tifies an illimitable expectation. The potential kingdom of God
and brotherhood of man is here. In modest confidence, let us
pledge ourselves to our high calling, resolved to do what we can that
freedom and truth may more abound, that men may have life, and
have it more abundantly.
Brethren of the Liberal Faith, our greeting is no empty form, no
merely personal word, no conventional welcome. It is full of proud
and happy memories, of bright hopes, of inspiring challenge to new
courage and loyalty. To greet you, we gather the spirits of the great
departed. Search the careers of the men whose names are inscribed
on these waUs, and you wiU find that they were animated by the ideals
to which this gathering is pledged. These names materialize them
selves into the forms of the Prophets and Poets, the Scholars, States
men, and Seers we have loved to honor and obey. These were men

52
who refused to believe that God has exhausted his creative energies;
men who gave themselves not to any material end or transient object,
but to quickening the primal influences by which character is moulded
and truth perfected and life made more abundant; men who de
serted no righteous cause because it is unpopular; men whose
chosen way was freedom, whose end was righteousness, brother
hood, and truth. These were men who dared after the way called
heresy to worship the God of their fathers; men who foUowed the
truth that made them free, who cherished the love of God and man
that it is the fulfilling of the law; men who mightily beheved and
wrought, that the unity of the spirit which is the bond of peace might
be made real on earth.
If this silent band of heroes could speak to us, who can doubt
what their questions would be ? They would ask us what use we
were making of the freedom they won for us. They would ask if
the blessings of religious liberty were now the common possession
of the people. They would ask if freedom had, as they believed it
would, led on to brotherhood and unity and honorable serviceable-
ness. What answer can we make to such questions? Is our an
swer nothing more than an excuse for our own insufficiency ?
Have we been true to the trust they left to us? It is for us to
determine whether these names shall abide among the immortals.
It is for us to perpetuate their principles and unfalteringly to pursue
the ideals they have set before us.
Thus do pioneers of pure religion and perfect liberty greet you to
day,— in the words of the elder prophets that stiU ring down the
ages, — "Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the
Lord has risen upon you!"
The President.— I spoke just now of the "modest confidence"
that animates the leaders of this Council. What a pale and in
adequate phrase that is to describe the buoyant, inspiring optimism
of the Secretary of this Council! Mr. Wendte is a fountain of inge
nuity, resourcefulness, and fertilizing imagination. You know these
things, but you do not know as I do the amount of hard, patient
daily work that he has put into this thing for the last seven years.
I present to you the Secretary of the International Council.

REV. SAMUEL A. ELIOT, D.D.
President oe the Boston International Congress of
Religious Liberals, 1907

53

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF
THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL.
PRESENTED BY REV. CHARLES W. WENDTE, OF BOSTON, GENERAL
SECRETARY.
The Executive Committee of the International Council of Uni
tarian and Other Liberal Religious Thinkers and Workers, under
whose general auspices these international meetings of religious
Uberals are held, heartily greets its members and friends assembled
for the fourth time in conference. It congratulates them that
through the hospitable invitation of their American feUow-workers
they are enabled to hold a congress on American soil and in the
very city where our International Council itself was born seven
years ago. We meet to-day in a community identified in the world's
esteem with civfl and reUgious Hberty, and with which the life and
labors of Dr. WiUiam EUery Channing, Theodore Parker, Ralph
Waldo Emerson, Hosea BaUou, John Greenleaf Whittier, PhilUps
Brooks, and other eminent advocates of religious enlightenment
and freedom were long associated. The generous activity and
large plans of the Boston committee for the entertainment and
work of the Congress assure a series of meetings of remarkable
scope and interest, whose influence cannot fail to be of enduring
advantage to the cause of "pure religion" held in the spirit of "per
fect Hberty."
The Executive Committee congratulates you on the general in
crease and inspiring promise of this movement for the federation
of the reHgious liberals of aU lands. Organized in Boston in the
year 1900 by a few earnest spirits representing half a dozen of the
more advanced church feUowships of Christendom, its founders
could not foresee its timeliness and adaptation to the needs of the
liberal reHgious community throughout the world. With faith and
hope they sowed the seed of religious enlightenment and fraternity
in the dawning light of the new century, and have been rewarded

54
beyond their most ardent expectations by its surprising growth and
early fruition. At our Congress to-day are assembled the repre
sentatives of four of the great world-reUgions; namely, Judaism,
Christianity, the Theism of India, and Mohammedanism. Men
and women of 4 distinct races and 16 different nationaHties par
ticipate in it. The members of 33 separate church feUowships wiU
address us, and 88 religious associations, other than single churches,
have sent us official delegates. If we were to take into considera
tion the church affiliations of the 106 honorary Vice-Presidents who
have cordiaUy permitted us to affix their names to the invitation to
this Congress, our exhibit of sympathizers and friends would be stiU
larger. 2391 persons have enrolled themselves as members of the
Boston Congress, paying the Congress fee. A stiU larger number
of persons will attend its various sessions. Of these 172 belong
to foreign, mostly European countries. 122 delegates from Great
Britain are in attendance on the Congress, while the reHgious
liberals of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, HoUand, Hungary,
Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland, as weU as Australia, New Zealand,
India, and Japan, are also, and for the most part officiaUy, repre
sented. Such results may well encourage the promoters of this international
endeavor to bring into closer union for exchange of ideas, mutual
service, and the promotion of their common aims the historic lib
eral churches, the liberal elements in aU churches, the scattered
Hberal congregations, and isolated workers for religious freedom and
progress in many lands.
This purpose is being more and more reaUzed as each successive
meeting of our association brings the reHgious Hberals of different
nations into closer personal relations with each other. Our pre
vious Congresses at London, Amsterdam, and Geneva were impres
sive in their exhibit of numbers, the inteUectual and moral weight
of their testimony, and the cathoUcity of their spirit. To aU who
attended them they were profoundly instructive and moving, — red-
letter days in their spiritual history. But the best result of these
Congresses was the brotherhood of soul which they generated, the
mutual personal acquaintance of thinkers and workers for religious
freedom, separated from each other by long stretches of sea and
land, but closely affiliated in thought, in sentiment, in aspiration,

55
and in common labors for the advancement of truth and the practice
of the good. Whatever else this International Council may have
accomplished, it has certainly brought the advocates of religious
freedom in many lands into closer touch and acquaintance with
each other. We are no more strangers: we are friends. We clasp
each other's hands to-day with a warmth bom of confidence and
gratitude; we look into each other's faces with affectionate interest;
we listen to each other's words with eager expectation. We wiU
teU each other of our individual experiences since last we met, — our
trials and defeats, our triumphs and gains, our undying trusts and
hopes for "pure religion and perfect liberty." When we return
to often difficult and lonely posts of duty in far distant countries,
the memory of these days of spirit-communion wiU remain with us
as an encouragement and an inspiration. Truly, it is good for us
to be here. This is to us none other than the house of God, and
this is a gate to heaven!
But, in the midst of our mutual feUcitation, a shadow faUs across
our minds as we recaU tenderly and sorrowfuUy those brave and
ardent spirits among us who, since last we came together, have
ceased their faithful labors on earth and been caUed to more glorious
service in heaven. The past year has deprived us of the companion
ship and counsel of one of the most widely honored and influential
of our feUow-workers, Professor Albert ReviUe, of Paris. Eminent
as a scholar and theologian, he was stiU more distinguished as the
eloquent champion of a free and rational Christianity and for the
loftiness of his moral and spiritual ideals. At our last Congress
in Geneva his voice was still vibrant for reHgious freedom and unity,
and its echoes can never die out of our hearts.
One of the first to acclaim the formation of our International
CouncU was Signor Fernando Bracciforti, of Milan, who pleaded at
our London meeting with aU the impassioned earnestness of his race
for rehgious Hberty and progress, and later translated into Italian
several of the papers of the Congress. A brave Garibaldian soldier,
he stood for years almost alone in his native country for the Uni
tarian form of Christianity. He fought nobly for us, and we rev
erently render him the tribute of our grateful remembrance.
At the Geneva meetings in 1905 the proceedings were impressively
opened by a prayer from the venerable lips of Pasteur L. Audemars,

56
of Lausanne, a patriarch of ninety-two years, a devoted adherent
of liberal Christianity. In the fulness of his years and labors
he has since been gathered to his fathers, and confides the never-
completed task of religious emancipation to our loyal hands and
hearts. Rev. Richard Lyttle, a Unitarian clergyman of Monyrea, Ireland,
was a delegate to our Congress at Geneva. His early death called
out a remarkable demonstration of regard and sorrow on the part
of his compatriots. The whole community gave itself up to mourn
ing. Protestants and Catholics, liberals and orthodox, priests and
ministers, walked side by side in long procession at his funeral, thus
testifying to a noble life spent in the service of his country and his
kind, and affording a striking iUustration of that reHgious breadth
and concord for whose promotion our International CouncU was
organized. The lamented death of Ananda Mohun Bose, the eminent Hindu
lawyer and statesman, a leader in the Brahmo-Somaj, or association
of Hindu Theists, affiliated with our Council, is a misfortune to us
as well as to modern India. So, too, in recaUing the comparatively
early decease of the briUiant preacher and writer, Rev. Albert Kalt-
hoff, of Bremen, we unite with our German feUow-beUevers in de
ploring the loss of one who, whtte often at variance with us in re
ligious science and philosophy, was ever faithful to the fundamental
verities of freedom, truth, and God.
The interval of time between our biennial Congresses is usefuUy
occupied by your officers and Executive Committee in labors for
the cause it represents, in carrying out so far as possible the deci
sions of previous meetings, and preparing for the next one. Dur
ing the past two years a large correspondence with feUow-liberals
the world over has been conducted by the General Secretary, by
President Edouard Montet, and various members of the committee.
By this agency the knowledge of our aims and methods has been
much extended and our acquaintance with the conditions and needs
of religious liberals in other lands enlarged, whUe we, in turn, have
been enabled to reinspire many brave and devoted laborers for re
ligious enlightenment and progress who suffer from the isolation
and material privation which often attend their lot, or who are the
victims of dogmatic intolerance and ecclesiastical oppression. Nor

57
have we always contented ourselves with words alone. Despite
the fact that our CouncU has as yet no treasury, no funds, and no
stated income, means have been found, in some cases, to make a
modest contribution for the relief of individuals and agencies repre
senting our principles and needing our help. An interesting instance
of such international co-operation is to be found in the organization
a year or more since, at Geneva, of a society for promoting general
Protestant, and more especiaUy French Protestant, interests in the
present religious crisis in that country, — a society whose aims our
CouncU was glad to further in both material and moral ways. The
happy results attending this practical co-operation with our fellow-
workers in other lands makes the creation of a central caisse, or
treasury, for our association seem more than ever desirable. As
a rule, radical thought and poverty of material resources seem to go
together, whUe orthodoxy and wealth are almost synonymous terms.
Dean Swift once sarcasticaUy remarked that the Lord showed what
He thought of great wealth by the people he gave it to. Would that
we could be sure that our poverty is an outward and visible sign of
inward and spiritual grace! In many communities there is no
way in which our struggling cause could be more surely established
than by a timely and needed grant of money for the support of a
minister, the maintenance of a religious journal, or the dissemination
of Uberal Hterature.
This leads us to acknowledge with gratitude the large help our
cause is receiving from the liberal religious journals of the world.
Papers like the Christian Register and Universalist Leader of Bos
ton, the Inquirer and Christian Life of London, Das Protestanten
hlatt and Die Christliche Welt of Germany, Le Protestant and La
Vie Nouvelle of France, De Hervorming of Holland, give large
space to the announcements of our International Council, and ex
press great sympathy with its spirit and purposes. The journals
named have recently issued as supplements two large buUetins giv
ing information concerning the approaching session of the Boston
Congress, thus assuring the latter a wide-spread and effective ad
vertisement. Besides these journals, however, there are twenty
others in the various countries of Europe, America, and Asia, which
are in accord with our aims and cordiaUy second our endeavors.
It should be our constant effort to repay this countenance and sup-

58
port by furnishing original contributions and inteUigence to the
columns of these journals, securing subscribers and advertisements
for them, and in every way in our power aiding them to increase
in their own country and vernacular the sway of enlightened and
Uberal religion.
Of our last Congress at Geneva over four hundred reports ap
peared in the European newspapers. Many of them were friendly
notices of the stately and admirably arranged volume of Proceed
ings and Papers of that Congress, of which its president, Professor
Edouard Montet, was the conscientious editor, and which has had
quite an extensive circulation. Under the careful supervision of
one of our committee, Professor G. Boros, of Kolozsvar, a transla
tion of sixteen of these papers into Hungarian has recently been
published. It suffices to say that next to our Congresses themselves
there is no better agency for attaining the objects for which our
CouncU was organized than the propaganda through the printed
page. We rejoice, therefore, over the great literary activity dis
played by the members of our association, the numerous and im
portant books and articles in reviews they are constantly producing,
and their effective service for reHgious truth and freedom as journal
ists, lecturers, teachers, and preachers.
In this connection we may aUude to three recent literary events
of characteristic importance to our cause: first the institution
of a new theological and phUosophical review, the Harvard
Journal of Theology, to be edited by the theological faculty of
Harvard University; second, the appearance of a new definitive
American edition, in sixteen volumes, of the writings of Theodore
Parker; and, third, the issue in Germany and other countries of
several distinct series of popular handbooks on theological, phUo
sophical, and religious topics, written by eminent scholars, and which
enjoy already a very large circulation, — a gratifying proof that
the conclusions of modern historical and critical science are no
longer to be the exclusive possession of the learned classes and the
university, but are to be brought increasingly to the knowledge
and comprehension of the plain people of God. When this shall be
successfully accomplished, a religious revolution, or rather trans
formation, of Christendom will not be far away. Surely, in view
of all this public service we do not claim too much when we say

59
that no association of our day represents more scholarly, gifted,
earnest, and devout minds than ours, no school of religious
thought receives greater encouragement from modern science, schol
arship, and criticism, is so identified with the social progress of our
time, or has greater reason to recaU trustfuUy the Master's saying,
"Fear not, Httle flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give
you the kingdom."
During the past two years interchanges of sentiment and service
between the religious associations which make our CouncU the
organ of their larger and international relations with each other
have been increasingly frequent. A striking instance of this was
the presence of some twenty foreign delegates, representing ten differ
ent countries, at the last annual meeting of the British and Foreign
Unitarian Association. At recent sessions of the Protestantenbond,
or Union of Dutch Liberals, the Swiss Verein fuer freies Christentum,
the Protestantenverein and the Freunde der Christlichen Welt in
Germany, the American Unitarian Association, the Brahmo-Somaj
of India, greetings were brought by envoys from liberal bodies in
other and foreign countries. At a number of these gatherings our
International CouncU was represented in person or by letter. We
trust the day may come when this CouncU shaU be enabled to main
tain an agent constantly in the field, who shaU regularly visit the
more important of these meetings of religious liberals in all coun
tries and become an intermediary between them in the interest of
their common aims.
Concerning the important events in the religious world since last
we met in councU, and their effect on the twin causes of reHgious
Hberty and enlightenment, the various speakers from abroad who
are to address this series of meetings wiU give weU-instructed and
comprehensive reports. A careful Hstening to their statements,
supplemented by a reading of the volume of Proceedings and
Papers of the Congress, which is to appear forthwith, wiU yield
the latest and best information of the condition and prospects of
religious Hberty and progress throughout the world.
One of the votes of the Congress at Geneva was that its Execu
tive Committee should coUect, edit, and present to the next Congress
the creeds, declarations of behef, working principles, statements
of purpose, etc., in present use by the varioiis associations and church

oo
feUowships affiliated with this International Council. It was felt
that such an exhibit of present-day faith and purpose among re
ligious liberals the world over would be of mutual interest and help
ful to our common cause. In accordance with this decision a cir
cular asking this information was sent to a large number of asso
ciations and churches. Many replies have been received, but, as a
number of the parties addressed have not yet reported and the ma
terial in hand needs careful sifting and editing, your committee
advises that the matter be recommitted to them for further con
sideration and as early publication as possible. The one general
and gratifying conclusion which we have derived from the reading
of the statements of faith thus far submitted is that it is not essential
to unity of action among religious liberals that there should be uni
formity of belief among them; that the ideal we should keep in mind
is not similarity of opinions, however advanced, but the Unity of
the Spirit amidst large diversities of gifts and operations.
Each of the Congresses we have thus far held has had its own
characteristics and made its peculiar contribution to our cause. At
London we discovered each other and ourselves. We laid the
foundation for a lasting fellowship of the spirit and learned to know
the opportuneness and promise of our international movement. At
Amsterdam we came into touch with the Teutonic element, repre
sented there especiaUy by the sturdy Dutch nation, the historic
champions of civil and religious liberty. Here, too, we solved the
linguistic problem of our Congress, four different tongues — Dutch,
German, French, and English — being used by the delegates, but
mediated to our understanding by one Pentecostal spirit of truth
and fraternity.
At our Third Congress in Geneva we beheld the surprising irony
of history by which this ancient stronghold of Calvinism has been
transformed into a seat of freedom and enhghtenment, an acknowl
edged centre of liberal religion. Here we came into closer relations
with the Latin races, especiaUy with those using the French idiom,
while liberal Roman Catholics as well as Protestants participated
in our conferences.
The Boston Congress is the heritor of the insight and experience,
the brotherly spirit and moral momentum; acquired through our
previous gatherings. The names of tried and honored friends and

6i
feUow-workers appear on its programmes side by side with aUies
new gained for our cause.
It is a matter of disappointment to our Council that some of its
most devoted members have not been able this year, for various
reasons, to undertake the long journey across the ocean and par
ticipate in the proceedings of the Congress in Boston. The list of
these is too long to enumerate, but we may at least express our re
gret that Dr. Herbert C. Smith, of London, to whose initiative
is largely due the splendid action taken by which the transatlantic
journey of so large a number of our British delegates to the Congress
was assured, is unable, because of slender health, to be one of the
cheerful company of pilgrims over sea which his zeal has made
possible. We sadly miss at this meeting also Dr. John Estlin Carpenter, of
Oxford, and Dr. Henricus Oort, of Leiden, the Presidents of our
First and Second Congresses, respectively; Mrs. Humphry Ward de
tained at home, "to her great regret," by literary engagements;
Revs. Stopford Brooke, James Drummond, P. H. Wicksteed, and
James Harwood, of London; Professor Chantre, of Geneva; Revs.
James Hocart, of Brussels, Loenen-Martinet, of HoUand, Altherr,
of Basel; J. EmUe Roberty, of the Oratoire, Paris, and Rev. Charles
Wagner, the weU-known author of "The Simple Life" and other
books; Father Hyacinthe Loyson and Professor Paul Sabatier, of
France, — aU of whom have been deeply interested members of our
previous Congresses. Until the last moment we had hoped for the
presence of Professors B. D. Eerdmans, of Leiden, and George Boros,
of Kolozsvar, active members of our Council, but prevented by
home duties from attendance. Professors Rudolf Eucken and Hein
rich Weinel, of the University of Jena, had promised to read papers
at our Boston Congress, but are unable to come because of unex
pected professional engagements. The former, however, sends an
important paper which wiU be read. Many letters of regret have
been received, by prominent scholars, thinkers, and divines of aU
branches of the Church the world over, which wiU be printed in the
volume of the Proceedings and Papers of the Congress. To these
and aU friends and allies of our international movement we send
greeting and good-wiU and our appreciation of their earnest and
effective services to the cause of religious freedom and progress.

62
In accordance with a general desire we have given at this Congress
a larger place on our programmes to the practical aspects of liberal
religion, as these are expressed in the ethical aims, the social reforms,
and philanthropic endeavors of our day. The very name of our
association is a constant reminder to us that we are religious
"workers" as weU as "thinkers," and should give large and in
creasing attention at our meetings to those practical applications of
reHgious truth and duty which are the best fruits of our religion
and the glory of our time. The subjects of some of the addresses
to which we are to listen, — addresses on personal and social ethics,
industrial justice, temperance, and international peace, — as weU as
the acknowledged competence of those who are to speak on these
themes, will, we trust, indicate our interest in these urgent questions
of our day.
Our Boston Congress is held under the auspices of the Interna
tional CouncU of Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious Thinkers
and Workers, but calls itself simply a Congress of Religious Liberals.
The explanation of this lies in the fact that it is one of the fun
damental principles of our International Association not to interfere
with the local conditions and preferences of the reHgious commu
nities which invite us to be their guests. They are better judges
than we of their own situation and needs, and how best to secure
the co-operation of the liberal elements among them for the recep
tion and work of our Council. Thus at Amsterdam our general
gathering caUed itseh a "Congres van Vrijzinnig-godsdienstigen," —
a "Congress of Rehgious Free-thinkers." At Geneva we met as a
"Congres du Christianisme Liberal et Progressif,"— a "Congress of
Religious and Progressive Christians." FoUowing this example,
the committee who have had in charge the organization of the Boston
session thought it advisable to caU it a Congress of ReHgious Lib
erals. The best evidence that they acted wisely in this matter is
the wider and more inclusive feUowship it has made possible. On
our Ust of officers and reception committees, as weU as on the pro
gramme of our meetings, are to be found the representatives of
many different branches of Christendom and the Church Universal.
Once again the rehgious world is afforded the edifying spectacle
of a great body of men and women, belonging to some thirty
different households of faith and distinguished by large varieties

63
of opinion, coming together in peace and good wiU to exchange
ideas, and to consort and worship together in the spirit of freedom,
reverence, and charity.
Even the Roman CathoHc Church, of all existing feUowships
surely the least likely to sympathize with the aims and methods of
a body Hke ours is to-day represented at our Congress by one of its
most scholarly and courageous priests, while weU-informed Protes
tant divines, laying aside aU prejudice, are to treat of the higher
interests of this ancient and mother Church of Christendom in a
profoundly sympathetic spirit. The inter-reUgious and inter
racial character of our gathering is stiU further evidenced by the
presence and participation in it of eminent representatives of other
great world-reHgions and branches of the human family, the Brah
min, the Jew, and the Mahometan, — the sons of Asia and Africa as
weU as of Europe and America — while at our opening session last
Sunday evening at Symphony HaU, with mighty unison of heart
and voice, the great congregation sent forth to the reUgious world
the greeting and message of our Congress, that angehc song which
to-day, as ever, brings glad tidings of deliverance to mankind, —
"Glory to God in the highest; on earth peace, good wiU toward
men!" For, whfle we caU ourselves Hberals, we are religious liberals.
It is in the truest sense a reHgious movement which we have inaug
urated, — a movement which finds its chief inspiration in the positive
affirmations of faith, and not in criticism and negation. Doubts
and denials we are not unfrequently compeUed to give free and fear
less utterance to, but they are only incidental to our main purpose,
which is to cherish and develop the reHgious Hfe. We believe that
the reHgious sentiment is natural to man and of surpassing im
portance; that, whatever may befaU its accidental and transitory
embodiments in dogma, sacrament, and ritual, reUgion itseh wiU
endure forever, the very life-blood of the soul of man, the inner
power which lifts him above the solicitations of the senses and the
distractions of the world into communion with God and seU-sacri-
ficing devotion to mankind.
Furthermore, we are hberals in religion, not because we maintain
this or that set of opinions, however advanced; not because we deny
or antagonize other people's opinions, not because we hold our

64
opinions loosely or have no opinions whatever. Liberalism is to us
a temper, an attitude of the mind, a disposition of the heart towards
truth. LiberaUsm is the supremacy of the spirit over the letter in
reUgion. It is the mind in a state of growth, and is thus differ
entiated from orthodoxy, which is the type of a mind that has stopped
growing, which accepts finalities in reUgion and claims that its opin
ions are infallible. We are liberals because we beUeve in freedom,
in growth in evolution in religion, as in aU else; because we beUeve
in sincerity and courage and hope in our treatment of rehgious
questions. But, above aU, we are liberals because we cherish a tolerant and
sympathetic spirit towards those with whom we differ in opinion.
No mind can be truly Uberal which entertains a hateful, scornful
temper towards another type of mind. The true hberal not only
speaks the truth but he speaks it in love. He not only tolerates,
he loves his feUow-men. He is charitable towards their inteUectual
errors and sympathetic with their endeavors after truth. He rev
erences their reverences. He is not impatient with error if it be
error held in the spirit of truth. The only unpardonable sin in his
eyes is uncharity, — a loveless heart, an intolerant mind.
This it is to be a religious liberal, and of such a spirit and purpose
is the International Congress of Rehgious Liberals which invites
you to-day to its deUberations and concerted endeavors for re
ligious freedom, truth, and charity. It is persuaded, Uke the apos
tle, that "where the spirit of the Lord is, there is Hberty." There
fore, it would "serve the Lord in newness of spirit, and not in old-
ness of the letter," striving
"To buUd the Universal Church
Lofty as is the love of God,
And ample as the wants of man."

The President. — I want, my friends, in behaU of your Local Ex
ecutive Committee, to express the regret, not to say the humiliation of
the committee, at their inadequate power of prophecy. Your com
mittee has not been able rightly or justly to estimate the popular in
terest in this gathering. The National Conference of the Unitarian
Churches has not within recent years summoned more than a thou-

65
sand members. The International Council has never had more, I
think, than a thousand members. In arranging for your meeting,
your Local Committee doubled aU previous records. You have
doubled that record. I trust that most of our visitors from abroad
have been suitably cared for, but I am sorry to have to believe that
many people from our own land who have come great distances have
suffered some inconvenience.
You cannot put more than a quart of water into a quart pot. We
have hired the largest rooms that the city affords. That all of you
could not get into the meeting on Sunday night is a matter of regret
to those of you who were left outside, but it is a partial aUeviation to
know that there is so much popular interest in our gathering.
We are to have the pleasure of hearing this morning of the progress
and outlook of this work in England, France, and Germany. I
hardly need to say here that the steadfastness, the sanity, the public
spirit, and the wholesome hfe and tendencies of the Unitarian churches
of Great Britain are embodied in the mind and the person of the
Secretary of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association. This
CouncU is infinitely indebted to Mr. Bowie, for he organized its first
pubhc meeting, and his hand has been on the helm more or less ever
since. I have great pleasure in presenting Mr. Bowie.

66

THE UNITARIAN MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND.
BY REV. W. COPELAND BOWIE, OF LONDON.
The Rev. Alex. Gordon, our most learned historian, observes that
" the history of the Unitarian movement is the key to its meaning."
He has outHned the history, making the year 1198 his first chrono
logical landmark, and indicating three distinct historical stages:
(1) sporadic anti-trinitarianism, native and exotic, dating from 1548;
(2) a theological school of thought, making use of the Unitarian
name, bent on promulgating the doctrine of the unipersonahty of
the Godhead, dating from 1682; (3) the stage of Unitarian church
Ufe, in which worship is decisively Umited to God, the Father, dating
from the opening of Essex Street Chapel, London, by Theophilus
Lindsey, in 1774.
Professor Bonet-Maury finds the sources of EngHsh Unitarianism
in the theological teachings of certain Spanish and ItaHan Protestants
who, about the middle of the sixteenth century, found their way to
the "Strangers' Church" in London. A fusion was afterwards
effected between Socinianism and the more Uberal and rational
elements of Anglo-Saxon Christianity. The writings of John
Bidle, the publication of the Unitarian tracts, aided by the broad
and enHghtened views of Milton, Locke, and Newton, gave a great
impetus to the movement in the seventeenth century. The writings
of Lardner, Lindsey, and Priestley in the eighteenth century prepared
the way for a fuUer and deeper expression of Unitarianism as a
theology, as seen in the discourses of Channing and the works
of Martineau in the nineteenth century. Mr. Gordon has shown,
however, that anti-trinitarianism existed in England prior to the
organization of the Foreign Congregations in London in 1550.
There are also Unitarians who leap the centuries, and claim
Moses and the prophets as the real founders of their faith;
while "Jesus a Unitarian" and "Paul a Unitarian" have been

67
the titles of not a few ably written tracts and eloquent sermons.
If the stricter disciphne of modern schools of history has
chastened and subdued these imaginative flights, we may stiU say
that, while there might be some sense of fitness in calhng Moses and
the prophets Unitarians, it would be grotesque to label them as Trini
tarians; and an orthodox apologist would hardly venture to claim
that Jesus or Paul would have subscribed to the Athanasian Creed.
In his introduction to Professor Bonet-Maury's valuable book,
Dr. Martineau leans to the view that the Unitarian movement
cannot be traced to any single teacher or specific date. It had its
sources in the thoughts of many minds in many lands.
The word "Unitarian," as employed by Unitarians themselves,
does not always mean the same thing. In England it is some
times used (generaUy by those who dislike it and would rejoice
to be rid of it) to indicate a somewhat narrow, dogmatic the
ology of an unorthodox type, which probably no Uving Unitarian
would recognize as descriptive of his reUgious position. Some
times it is used (especiaUy by those who are attached to the name
and who wish to retain it) to indicate a certain attitude of mind and
temper in approaching reHgious problems, with the emphasis placed
upon the idea of "unity," — the unity of nature, the unity of man
kind, the unity of reUgion, and the unity of aU in God. I am not
concerned to-day in discussing which of these interpretations is the
more correct or whether both are wrong. Etymology is an inter
esting and instructive branch of study, but it has its obvious Hmita-
tions. It can teU you what a word once upon a time meant, and
what, according to its derivation, it ought to mean; but, if you wish
to discover its real meaning, it is necessary to learn what it stands
for in the minds of the men who use it as descriptive of their thought
and feeling at the present time. In England, as in America, the
tendency is to make the name "Unitarian" cover the largest and
best reUgious faith which man has attained, with a pubUc notice
to the effect that any larger or better faith which the future may
have in store for man wiU receive cordial welcome.
In what may be caUed its unorganized form the Unitarian move
ment in England is very much alive. It would of course be easy
to quote examples of bigotry, superstition, ignorance, and intoler
ance. The rule of the priest and the social pressure of the Established

68
Church are active, potent forces throughout the land, and they make
the task of the religious reformer, and especiaUy of the outspoken
heretic, arduous and heart-breaking at times. Yet, in spite of aU
difficulties and drawbacks, freedom of inquiry, frankness of expres
sion, largeness of outlook, eagerness to attain a truer theology and
a better religion, are receiving in England to-day fuUer and wider
recognition among aU classes of the community than ever before.
The evidences of this are more apparent in centres of active thought
and hfe than in ancient cathedral cities or remote viUages, though
"voices" even from these latter are becoming more and more fre
quent. The publication of Dr. Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible,
with its mildly rationalistic evangeUcal Christianity, and of the En
cyclopedia Biblica, with its relentless overthrow of the Scriptural
citadels reared with such labor by orthodox divines, — these two
great and notable works show to what lengths scholarship has
travelled on the way to perfect freedom.
At various periods in the history of the Estabhshed Church in
England the charge has been freely made that the theology of not
a few of its clergy and many of its laity was honeycombed by Uni
tarianism. The late Mr. C. H. Spurgeon charged his feUow Baptist
ministers in the "Down-grade" controversy with being tainted with
Unitarianism. Quite recently, the "New Theology" of Mr. R. J.
CampbeU has been labeUed (too precipitately, I think) by its friends
and foes alike as " Unitarian." It may, however, be said with perfect
fairness that the Unitarian movement, in larger or smaUer measure,
may be discovered within the borders of almost every church and
sect in England, not excluding the Salvation Army. The more
extreme clerical party, in fighting for the retention of denominational
religious teaching in pubUc schools, frequently declare that "unsec-
tarianism" is only another name for Unitarianism. In this they
are not so well informed, for much of the so-caUed " unsectarian "
teaching in public schools in England consists of a very narrow
and antiquated orthodoxy. They are, however, right in proclaiming
that an "unsectarian" system cannot exclude Unitarianism.
Probably the majority of the people of England to-day stand
outside aU the churches. The bulk of them are not anti-religious.
Only a small number are avowed secularists. They are mostly in
different to the sayings and doings of churches. These men are not

69
without their dim visions of the eternal. They have their unspoken
thoughts and feelings concerning God and life here and hereafter.
When you get into conversation with the more intelligent of them
and give an outline of what Unitarians beUeve and teach, many are
ready to exclaim: "Why, that is what I think, that is how I feel.
I, too, have been a Unitarian without knowing it."
LegaUy, Unitarians in England are non-conformists. They are
outside the State Church. Theologically, they are often described
as dissenters of the dissenters. But the Unitarian movement in
England is not, and never has been, in organic communion with
non -conformity. In its earUer days the movement found its home,
to a larger extent, inside than outside the Established Church.
John Bidle (1616-1662), whom Joshua Toulmin calls the "father
of the EngHsh Unitarians," had no quarrel on principle either with
episcopacy or a State Church. Thomas Firmin (163 2-1697), Bidle's
friend and benefactor, a member of the Httle society of Unitarian
worshippers formed in 1651, was weU known to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, and reckoned among his personal friends several bishops
and many of the leading clergy of his day. Queen Mary, who ap
proved of Firmin 's benevolence, but was shocked by his heresies,
besought Tillotson to put him right in his theology, but the arch
bishop excused himself by saying that Socinianism had become so
firmly planted in the London merchant's mind that he was not now
capable of a contrary impression. If TiUotson was disposed to be
friendly, there were others who took a different view. The learned
and eloquent Robert South caUed these early Unitarians "impious
blasphemers," and traced their pedigree "back in a direct Une to
the devil himself."
From time to time various attempts were made to obtain a foot
hold for Unitarianism within the Estabhshed Church, and it was
with extreme reluctance that several able men severed their connec
tion with the State Church in the latter part of the eighteenth cen
tury. WiUiam Frend (1757-1841), writing from Jesus CoUege,
Cambridge, September 10, 1788, issued "An Address to the Members
of the Church of England and to Protestant Trinitarians in general,
exhorting them to turn from the false worship of Three Persons to
the worship of the One True God." He pubUshed a second address
a few months later, and an edition was also issued to the inhabitants

70
of Cambridge and the neighborhood. Frend contended that the
doctrine of the Trinity was " a libel on the Scriptures, and an insult
to the understanding of mankind."
Because some of the older chapels bear the designation "Presby
terian," there has been a tendency among Unitarians to credit
Presbyterianism in England with a breadth and tolerance in reUgion
which are not easy to discover. As a matter of fact, the Presbyterian
system has never, in any country, been particularly favorable to free
inquiry in reUgion. Joshua Toulmin, writing in 1789, regarded it
as "a ground of devout thankfulness" that Presbyterianism had
no existence amongst the EngHsh Protestant dissenters of his day,
and that those of them who were improperly caUed by that name
were genuine advocates of hberty. " To walk in aU the ways which
God had made known, or shaU make known to them," was the fine
phrase of an Independent, not of a Presbyterian. To the Baptist
denomination belongs the honor of having consistently repudiated
throughout its history aU coercive power over the minds and con
sciences of men in reference to their reHgious beliefs. The Uni
tarian movement owes a deep debt of gratitude not to Presbyterian
ism, but to many of those to whom the name Presbyterian was given.
The meeting-houses which they erected, after the passing of the
Toleration Act of 1689, were not "Unitarian," for Unitarianism and
Roman CathoHcism were alike excluded from "toleration." Hap
pily, the older trust deeds of dissenters rarely set out in detail schemes
of doctrine. Without reaHzing what it would lead to, they were
content to found their chapels simply for the worship of God. The
love of freedom took root in their minds, and by slow degrees they
passed from stage to stage of Arminianism, of Arianism, and of
Unitarianism. The late Mr. Gladstone, during the debates on the
Dissenters' Chapel BiU of 1844, grasped the position and the prin
ciple at issue with wonderful clearness. "Here," he said, "were
certain persons, who founded these chapels, entertaining one creed;
and the present possessors of these chapels profess another creed.
I admit that that sounds startling. But, if you take the pains to
follow the course of events from year to year, it is impossible to say
that, at any given period, the transition from one doctrine to another
was made. It was a gradual and an imperceptible transition. . . .
The parties whd effected it made a different use of the principle of

7i
inquiry by private judgment than those who had preceded them,
but they acted on a principle fundamentaUy the same, and, though
I may lament the result, I do not see how their title is vitiated because
they used it to one effect, and others to another."
About one hundred and fifty existing Unitarian chapels in England
were founded by people who did not hold what would now be
caUed Unitarian opinions. Several of them were the direct out
come of the labors of clergymen "ejected" from the Estab
lished Church in consequence of the passing of the Act
of Uniformity in 1662. Few of these men were Presbyterians.
They were not opposed to episcopacy, but to enforced con
formity to ceremonies and doctrines concerning the value of
which they were in doubt. "It is impossible to read any non
conformist clerical diary of that age," writes Mr. Gordon, "without
admiring the faith of men who had to plod their way from shiUing
to shilling, from bag of corn to bag of peas, the woh always at one
door, the constable at the other, the brave resolution ever choking
down despair and stimulating new trust in God." "If we turn,"
he adds, " from perceptions of truth which are variable to the forma
tive principles of judgment and conduct which stand fast in the
fideUty of conscience and the paramount obligations of religious
sincerity, then I think that modern Hberals, of whatever school, may
gratefuUy own the spirit of the Ejected as a salt of our Enghsh
history which hath not lost its savor."
The secession of Theophilus Lindsey from the Established Church
and the opening of a chapel in London for Unitarian worship, and
the powerful, vivid advocacy of Dr. Priestley, gave a fresh impetus
to the Unitarian movement in England. There was considerable
missionary zeal for a time. Tracts were published in 1791 by the
Unitarian Society for Promoting Christian knowledge and the Practice
of Virtue. The Unitarian Fund, founded in 1806, assisted mission
ary preachers; half-deserted chapel'' were filled by eager congre
gations, and new movements were started. The Trinity Act of
1813 made it legal pubUcly to profess Unitarian opinions and to
worship in Unitarian chapels.
The Hterature in which the Unitarianism of a century ago expressed
itself is seldom read nowadays. Naturally, it is out of touch with
modern thought. Colenso on the date and authorship of the Pen-

72
tateuch, Darwin on the "Origin of Species," and many another
writer, have changed the mental outlook, especially of those who
were unhampered by traditional creeds or by ecclesiastical authority.
The tracts published by the American Unitarian Association in 1827
are not unlike those issued in England some years earher. The
first tract bears the title, "The Faith Once Delivered to the Saints."
After setting forth in an interesting and instructive way what the
writer conceived to be the true Christian faith, he adds: "It is
obviously a plain, simple, inteUigible statement, with nothing in it
to perplex the understanding, to contradict the judgment of sound
reason, or to oppose the kind affections which God has planted within
us." Those in our day who have felt
. "the heavy and the weary weight
Of all this uninteUigible world"
press upon their souls are hardly Ukely to have "the burden of the
mystery" lightened by anything quite so simple as "the faith once
deUvered to the saints."
In the second tract, " One Hundred Scriptural Arguments for the
Unitarian Faith," Jesus is "exalted far above aU other created
intelligences, he is a being distinct from, inferior to, and dependent
upon the Father Almighty." "The supremacy of the Father and
the inferiority of the Son is the simple, unembarrassed, and current
doctrine of the Bible." The "supremacy" of the Father and the
"inferiority" of the Son, — this kind of terminology has passed out
of use. It has no meaning or apphcation to current Unitarian con
ceptions of God or Jesus, or of their relation to each other.
Tract number XI. bears the title " Unitarianism Vindicated against
the Charge of not going far enough." The writer says, "The true
and only reason why, as Christians, we do not go any further, is
our solemn, firm, and deUberate conviction that the Scriptures
do not go any further." The Bible is "an authority from which
there is no appeal." How very remote from present-day Unitarian
ism such sentiments as these appear! Try to imagine the dean of
the Divinity School at Harvard or the principal of Manchester Col
lege, Oxford, giving utterance to such a dictum! How admirably
these references support the thesis that Unitarianism is a "move
ment," not a denomination, a sect, or a creed!

73
The Unitarian theology of a century ago, or indeed of a half or
a quarter of a century ago, is no longer descriptive of the beliefs of
Unitarians to-day. And yet aU the way along there has been an
aUegiance to principles which explain and justify the divergences.
The older, like the modern, writers invariably put in a plea for mental
freedom, and insist on the supreme importance of the good Hfe.
The Unitarian is called upon "to evince the exceUence of his faith
by its influence over his own Hfe and conversation." Theodore
Parker, sixty-five years ago (1842), said: "We look around us, and
aU seems to change. The theology of our fathers is unreadable.
The soul of man remains the same. God stiU speaks in reason,
conscience, faith, — is stiU immanent in his children." James Mar
tineau, writing a year later, gave utterance to a similar thought:
" Our very progress, which is our pecuUar glory, consists in at once
losing and leaping the past, in gaining fresh stations from which to
take a wise retrospect, and become more deeply aware of the treas
ures we have used."
Concerning the position, work, and outlook of the churches in
Great Britain and Ireland, in which Unitarian worship is regularly
held, I must confine myself to a few words. There are two hundred
and ninety-one places of worship in England, thirty-five in Wales,
«x in Scotland, and thirty-nine in Ireland, — three hundred and
seventy-one in aU. The total membership of these churches at the
present time probably does not exceed forty thousand. On an aver
age, probably not more than twenty-five thousand persons assemble
for worship at aU the churches combined at any one Sunday service.
There are said to be large numbers of Unitarians in attendance at
so-caUed orthodox churches. There are probably still larger num
bers who, if they are anything, are Unitarian rather than Trinitarian,
but who do not attend, except on rare occasions, any place of wor
ship. There are certainly not a few avowed Unitarians who are
seldom seen at the Sunday services. We have to confess that our
rehgious services often fail to interest people who are intellectuaUy
in accord with us; and our imitations of the ritual of other churches
do not seem to prove very helpful, except to a few. Many of the
older Unitarian families leave no descendants. Their sons and
daughters often become indifferent, and aUow social and other very
mundane considerations to prevail. There are, of course, splendid

74
exceptions. I do not hesitate to say that some of the noblest and
sweetest types of reUgious men and woman any one could find in
the British Isles have been nurtured in the Unitarian faith. But
we have to admit that, were it not for the incoming of people from
other churches and from "outside," many of our older congrega
tions would long since have become extinct; and it is doubtful, were
it not for the missionary zeal of converts, aided by a comparatively
smaU number of ardent Unitarians, whether any new congregations
would have been founded. If the missionary spirit were to die out,
if the British and Foreign Unitarian Association and the more active
district societies were to cease their operations, the Unitarian move
ment, in its organized form in England, would probably decline
rapidly and finaUy disappear, to the grievous detriment of freedom
and progress in rehgion.*
Our catholic ideals are often in danger of becoming mere
toys of the inteUect or of the imagination, with no bearing upon
character and conduct. To the Ustener, if not to the preacher, they
become stale by vain repetition, and rapidly lose the compelling
charm of their first revelation. Like the theological dogmas against
which they are intended to be a protest, they are "less of a gospel
than an opinion, less a faith than a creed." Dr. Jowett very truly
remarked that "a church which is Uberal may also be indifferent,
and, having attained the form of truth, may have lost the power of
it." The faith in God and immortality which we have been strug
gling to rid of superstition, as the late Professor Henry Sidgwick
reminds us, suddenly seems to be in the air; and in seeking for a
firm basis for this faith we find ourselves in the midst of the fight
with death that "In Memoriam" so powerfuUy presents.
The pew and the pulpit in Unitarian churches not infrequently
serve as "temporary resting-places for theological waits and anti-
theological strays." But, if there are some experiences which dis
appoint and depress us, there are many more which inspire us with
confidence and hope. The joy and peace which come to converts
to Unitarianism, the eagerness with which large numbers of the
common people Hsten to its message when spoken by men to whom
* I do not myself believe that the missionary spirit will die out. Our recent experiments
with the Unitarian vans will probably revive a consciousness of need and opportunity which
the work in many of our chapels is apt to hide from us.

75
it is a gospel of Hfe, show clearly that there are harvest fields in
abundance waiting for the Unitarian who can reap. The cure for
ineffectiveness, for useless beating of the air, Hes in getting close
and keeping close to Hfe as it is and to men as they are.
To help men most effectually in our day, we need not only
a "Free" church but a church inteUigently and enthusiasticaUy
pledged to the service of truth and love, — a church which will not
be content with repeating a few attenuated phrases rescued from
a decaying orthodoxy. How best to combine faith with freedom,
to quicken the souls of men with reverence and trust, while they
remain fearless in the pursuit of truth and stalwart in the warfare
against sin and wrong, is a problem which confronts Unitarian and
other Uberal reUgious thinkers and workers, not only in England,
but all over the world. Perhaps when we learn to lose ourselves
more completely in the ministry of reUgion, and give ourselves more
unreservedly to the redemption of mankind from whatever hinders
or hurts, and to the service of whatever ennobles and sanctifies,
we may be able to do more and better work in winning men over
to the side of a rational and reverent faith, and linking their lives
and ours with the Ufe of God.
The President. — It has been the custom of the Council to appoint
a Committee on Resolutions to present resolutions at a later session.
I wfll, therefore, ask Rev. Valentine D. Davis, of London, Dr.
Groenewegen, of Leiden, and Rev. N. Jozan, of Budapest, to
serve as such a committee and to report at the closing session.
The roots of rehgious hberty run back into the land of Martin
Luther. It is a great pleasure for us to-day to welcome the repre
sentative of our fellow-workers of the Protestantenverein, of Ger
many. We greet him not only in his representative capacity, but
for himself; for here is a man who has been obliged to face danger,
difficulty, persecution, for the cause in which he believes. Here is a
man who has risen because he was not afraid to fall, a man who wins
because he dares to lose. Dr. Fischer is going to speak to us in
German, but you wiU be able to foUow what he says in the transla
tion which has been placed in your hands. I ask you to greet Dr.
Max Fischer, of Berlin.

76

THE PROTESTANTENVEREIN OF GERMANY.
BY REV. MAX FISCHER, D.D., OF BERLIN, GERMANY.
I greet this meeting with a sincerely religious Protestant greeting,
as a delegate of the German Protestantenverein, or Protestant
Association, which is much honored and gratified by your invita
tion to send a representative to this great and significant Congress.
It is with deep emotion that I stand before this assembly to-day, in
the consciousness of a sacred fellowship with it. The more com
plete religious communion we may enjoy within a narrower or
denominational circle does not incapacitate us from believing that
all the religious utterances which come from humanity are sup
ported and dominated by a great fundamental unity.
For what is the value of our religion, if it be not to make us quick
to respond to every symptom of religious life, to every thought born
of the Holy Spirit, and if it be not an impeUing force in our religious
culture? And this I take to be the meaning of the community of
feeling we enjoy here to-day, that, however deeply any religious
type may have differentiated itself from other religious types in
the process of growth, yet it is rooted deep in the common ground of
man's religious nature, in which the Divine Spirit is ever manifesting
itself. Each one of us, therefore, should strive to realize, under
special national conditions, the universal religious idea.
In this spirit I greet you all. I offer a truly Protestant greeting
to all the Christians who may be in sympathy with us, since we aU
profess the gospel originating in Jesus, which is the source of our
belief in the salvation of mankind, through the "love of God shed
abroad in our hearts," so that out of our overflowing peace with
God the all-perfecting joy of a child of God may fill our hearts.
And thus I greet you in the name of German Protestantism, our
common father.
Now permit me to say a few words about the German Protestant
Association.

77
When, in the syUabus accompanying the circular of 1864 Pius
IX. anathematized modern culture, German Protestantism was
horrified to see that the pope had many sympathizers within the
Protestant Church, however much this sympathy was veiled. It
almost seemed as if there was an envious desire in certain circles
to be able to do hkewise, to be able to brush aside the modern de
mand for increased opportunities of instruction, — demands made
without reference to the Church, rather in opposition to it. At
about the same time Daniel Schenkel's book on Jesus appeared.
It was violently attacked by the orthodox party, anathemas were
pronounced against a science which dared to make the most sacred
mysteries of the Church an object of investigation, not resting sat
isfied with the reasonable explanation of the creeds, but daring to
put historical investigation in the place of a devout interpretation of
the fundamental facts of Christianity. No wonder indignation
was aroused. A hierarchy has ever strangled science, even within
the Protestant Church, which in its beginnings had worked hand
in hand with the highest thought of the age.
But a theology conformed to a hierarchy is not compatible with
theological science, obeying its own laws and applying its own
methods to the investigation of historical and philosophical data.
A hierarchy and its theology in Protestantism are "the leaven of
the Pharisees and scribes," and must be rejected from the Reformed
Church. Symptoms of this evfl spirit manifested themselves in the intro
duction of ancient Hturgies, ancient books for religious instruction,
in North and South Germany. Protestantism awoke in the nation
of the Reformation. Those who felt themselves cramped and
threatened in the Protestant Church had their eyes opened to the
Romish danger. They now saw what losses the Church had sus
tained, how she was surrounded with enmity and contempt; they
became aware how rudely shaken had been the religious founda
tion upon which a higher culture had once rested. Indeed, a higher
culture now existed independently of the Church. She had doggedly
closed her doors to the modern spirit, had met it with suspicion
instead of enriching herself and enlarging her boundaries and per
meating it with her own deep piety.
It was in this hour that the German Protestant Association was

78
founded, its object being to keep Protestantism alive in the Protes
tant Church, and thus to preserve the national Church for the nation.
"The German Protestant Association is founded by those German
Protestants who, on the basis of the Christian gospel, desire a
renewal of the Protestant Church in the spirit of freedom and in
harmony with the general culture of our modern time."
With this declaration the German Protestant Association unfurled
its banner when it met for its first Congress (Protestantentag)
on the 7th and 8th of June, 1865, at Eisenach, at the foot of the
Wartburg. The very names of the men who had the leadership
during the proceedings of those days are symbols of Christian piety
and love of freedom to the German nation at large. BluntschU, the
weU-known statesman, occupied the presidential chair. Richard
Rothe and Carl Schwartz, liberal theologians, along with Holtzen-
dorf, professor of jurisprudence, were amongst the speakers. They
represented the towns of Heidelberg, Gotha, and BerHn. The
future of the Protestant Church in the modern world, the freedom
of Protestant pulpit teaching, the defences against an ever-encroach
ing Romanism — these were the subjects of deHberation. In fact,
Protestant Christianity, by virtue of its spirit of freedom and as
opposed to every form of clerical domination, was the motive power
that founded the association, and to this day it remains at once our
binding duty and the ideal we serve.
The Protestant Association has a new development of Protestant
ism in view, when faith wiU no longer bring forth churchly works,
but wUl do God's work in the world, when the affairs of life wiU
no longer be regulated from the standpoint of a supernatural and
superhistorical revelation, but be permeated by the spirit of truth
and love. Such a faith cannot be tied down to supernatural dog
mas, but pledges itself in immediate, unreserved abandonment to
God, according to the dictates of conscience and reason. This is
the "freedom of the children of God." The essential mission of
the Protestant Association is to foster this free religious spirit in
the Church of our country, and this source of creative energy wiU
yet lift Protestantism to a higher realization of its own inherent
principles. At the time of its formation the German Protestant Association
spread quickly all over Germany, and took root everywhere.

79
Certain already existing societies in Germany, formed about the
middle of the nineteenth century with a view to protecting and com
pleting the fusion between two branches of the Reformed Church
(the Lutheran and the Swiss Reformed), joined the Protestant
Association as branches and worked under its name. Congresses
held every two or three years in different parts of Germany bore
witness to the character of its service, to its constant forward move
ment, and the ever-developing nature of its ideas. The clearest
testimony to its efficiency, however, was borne by the increasing
-enmity of the orthodox clergy and church governments. This enmity
took the form of persecution and the deposition of liberal clergy
men who were members of the Protestant Association.
There ensued a time of retrogression, both in its propaganda and
.the pubhc interest in its work. When the new synodal constitution
{more especiaUy within the Prussian National Church in 1873) na<^
secured a measure of freedom for the congregation, it was thought
that the mission of the Protestant Association was fulfiUed. It was
supposed that the fostering of congregational Hfe by means of pres
byteries and synods must admit of a greater freedom of movement.
This in its turn would, it was thought, bring about new forms of re
Hgious Ufe. If these church corporations took over the so-caUed
"Domestic Mission," they would pay special attention to social
questions, above everything to the relations between the Church and
the depressed and wage-earning classes already so largely estranged
from the fold.
About the same time there arose a new school of theological com
promise which spread very rapidly. Its aim was to put an end to
the strife concerning cosmic phUosophy, the rationaHstic and spec
ulative aUke. This new school of theological compromise was to
rise above the wrangHng of schools of phUosophy by what it deemed
a truly Lutheran method. It appealed to the fundamental need of
reUgion for the human heart. This basic demand for human nature
was to be the sole, aU-sufficient foundation from which they would
derive aU motor power for the wiU. This new school of theology
would dispense with the necessity for metaphysical speculation,
and thus avoid aU the embarrassment arising from the prob
lems raised by natural and historical science. Faith in God does
not depend on ratiocinative processes, but upon the practical

8o
postulate of a Divine Providence. The specificaUy Christian faith
depends upon an inward experience of salvation through the medium
of the historical Jesus. This immediate inward experience pre
supposes in Jesus Christ a unique and mystic power. The origin
of early Christianity, the formation of the gospel traditions, and
kindred questions do not disturb them. If pressed to decide on an
important matter, they wiU not shrink from subscribing non liquet.
I do not, of course, pretend to have given an exhaustive presen
tation of this new school of theological compromise, which would
be a very difficult task to accomplish, considering how many-sided
it is and what mobility of standpoint the school displays. I am
equaUy far from denying that there is a justification for its position,
neither do I deny its importance in church life. Notwithstanding
the opposition of orthodoxy, it has succeeded in influencing wide
circles of church members in the direction of liberal thought, without
chaUenging the extremes of either the old or the new school. But
I doubt whether we can make much progress by their method, al
though I admit that a mediating mode of procedure is much more
popular than ours. I do not see any prospect of disentangling true
piety from the trammels of the Old World supernaturalism in which
it is held bound by ancient ecclesiastical teaching. Without such a
liberation, mankind at large wiU never listen to or conform to the
gospel of Jesus.
To the school of theological compromise in aU its ramifications
our German Protestant Association must seem barren ; for the latter
lays its emphasis on the inteUectual life and its correlative, freedom
of research. It demands an open avowal of the difference between
the orthodox and philosophical views of the universe, not only in
professors, but also for the rank and file of the clergy and for the
laity. The school of theological compromise considers the Protes
tant Association incapable of religious fervor, hence to be a dis
turbing element in the life of the Church. But Carl Holsten's
words still apply to the present situation. He says: "The cardinal
question for the Protestant Association to answer in its mission of
renewing Protestantism in harmony with modern culture is this:
What is the relation of the 'church' to the body of teaching in
culcated by her own agencies? For the agonizing dualism must
cease, in which every Protestant member finds himself who lives in

8i
a world seen with modern eyes, but who views the same world in
distorted relations toward God. Thus in the religious domain he
upholds an ante-Copernican cosmogony and in the domain of every
day experience a post-Copernican theory." "The Protestant con
science cannot be founded on the individual experiences of the
Divine Spirit in each soul alone, but in addition each inteUigence
must be freed to think the thoughts of God after Him." It is the
unalienable right of our inteUigence to do this, and only so can our
"testimony to the Divine Word" be said to be in any sense "our
own." It was this demand which brought about the Reformation
of the sixteenth century, but the course of development taken by
the church life of Protestantism forced it into the background, if it
did not annihUate it altogether. This state of things remains to the
present day, and necessitates a continual struggle for freedom of
thought. The German Protestant Association must carry on this struggle.
It wUl continue to work out the idea of congregational self-govern
ment within the larger organizations of presbytery and synod. The
association has been zealous in dealing with all practical questions
affecting the reUgious and social welfare of the nation as a whole
as weU as of individuals. It has stirred interest in those basic
questions of pubUc morality upon which society and the State rest.
It has also displayed great energy during the past ten years, espe
cially at its Congresses in Beriin, Hamburg, Wiesbaden, etc., in
defending the Church's freedom of teaching in relation to scientific
theology, with its correlatives of perfect veracity and frankness
in the pulpit and school-room. For we are convinced that in these
days the important matter is to enlighten and reassure the mind
of our time concerning the truth of religion and the sincerity of
those who as preachers and teachers have it in their especial keep
ing. AUow me to enlarge upon these remarks, but with this reserva
tion, that for what I shaU say I alone am responsible, and that our
society is not to be committed by the affirmations of one of its indi
vidual members. Fifty years ago your countryman, Theodore
Parker, said of Germany, with respect to the ;sovereignty it accorded
to ideas: "Freedom of thought is allowed; more than that, it is en
couraged by the State; not so freedom of speech, still less freedom

82
of action resulting therefrom. The State expects, and in a measure
endows, research, but forbids the resultant reform of old worn-out
traditions." This is not the place in which to show you how far this state of
things has improved amongst us in the political and social spheres.
On the other hand, I must confess that with respect to ecclesiastical
institutions, more especiaUy in Prussia, Parker's criticism is but
too true at the present time. Freedom of teaching and of belief
is upheld in theory, but any attempt to translate them into action
meets with active opposition. The faculties of theology at aU the
German State-supported universities practise unhindered freedom
of investigation and the evolution of thought, but the pulpit is
muzzled. There the ancient creeds must be upheld. Everywhere
the nation reads and knows that the old traditions have broken
down before historical science, but the worshipping congregations
must be kept in the dark. Anything Hke a joyous, trustful recon
struction of Christian Protestant teaching in the Ught of the modern
results of natural and historical science is frowned upon by church
authorities. Hence the German Protestant Association is bending
aU its energies to the attainment of this freedom and veracity of
mind within the National Church, in accordance with the general
culture and insight of our time. It is a vital question for the highly
instructed German nation to answer: if it succeeds, we shaU witness
a new religious birth of Protestantism, which wUl leaven our con
gregational Hfe and permeate and assure to the whole nation its
highest thought, the highest products of its culture.
Christianity I beUeve to be the highest product of an evolutionary
process taking place in mankind under a divine impulsion. Prot
estantism is the form of Christianity capable of leavening a modern
nation with purest Christianity.
The books of our Bible are the records of a mighty religious life
which culminated in the gospel of Jesus, shedding its Hght over aU
the human family. We know from experience how the reUgion of
Jesus touches and awakens a divine faculty within us, and how the
latter is iUumined and assured and becomes conscious of the spir
itual unity of mankind. We appreciate the world-historic signifi
cance of the entrance of the religion of Galilee into the Greek world,
where it was to be wedded with the philosophical genius of Athens,

§3
thus becoming fitted for its complete world-mission. Thus do we
conceive the glorious content of the message, Salvation from God.
But we Hkewise see that this religion, in its primitive form, is
associated with metaphysical and cosmic notions, with ethical con
clusions we can no longer share. Nor was it to be wondered at that
the central idea of primitive Christianity — the indwelling of God in
man — faUed, at first, to overcome the conception, dominant in the
ancient world, of God as a being essentially separate from and even
antagonistic to the world. On the assumption that there were two
distinct worlds, a heavenly and an earthly, sinful one, Christianity
received the dogmatic stamp of supernaturalism, which was en
forced during centuries in dogma and discipline, until the church
was petrified into a supernatural institution for the attainment of
salvation. Thus Rome triumphed over Galilee and Athens alike.
These conceptions of a supernatural revelation passed from the
hierarchy of Rome into the Church of the Reformation, at least in its
official forms. The reHgious life of the individual, despite his Prot
estant conviction of the inwardness and freedom of aU true religion,
is riveted to these supernatural dogmas. As an indispensable pre
liminary to faith, he is required to beheve that certain supernatural
events have taken place: these events, not having anything religious
about them, are made to appear so. More than this, the behef that
these events occurred partakes of the Romish faith, inasmuch as it
is considered speciaUy meritorious when it is opposed to the dic
tates of reason. Are we, then, to sacrifice the intellect in the name
of God who endowed us with the power of thought and who guides
its development? Or are we to exclude those who cannot make
the sacrifice from participation in our reHgious communion ? Or are
we simply to ignore aU questionings as to an ultimate cause and
leave reUgion hovering in the air?
Professor Pfleiderer characterizes Protestantism as deep religious
inwardness of the devout personality and entire independence of any
mediatory agency. Is that not the exact expression of our under
standing of Jesus (so far as our imperfect knowledge of his person
ality reaches), and has not the Christian world seized upon these
very characteristics with aU the certainty of religious intuition, as
the essential spirit of his gospel, as the germ of the religious spirit
in Christianity? And if, on the other hand, through the progress of

84
knowledge the dualism between heaven and earth is overcome, and
supernaturalism becomes impossible in scientific theology, can such
a change endanger the inward personal religion which is the Protes
tant faith? Quite the contrary. The oneness of God and man is
the postulate upon which the immanency of God in man can rest.
It makes the relation thinkable. The divine sonship of mankind,
according to the religious teaching of the gospel, is only realized in
the light of our modern conception of the immanence of the Divine
Being. Nothing of the work Jesus did for mankind, no part of our re
ligious inheritance of any permanent value, has been lost by our
progress in knowledge. This enlargement of our horizon should
not merely be received with sufferance, it should be welcomed, and
we should do all in our power to further it.
True, Jesus' teaching was not a complete, compact system,
capable of being transplanted bodily into any or every zone, any
more than he himself can be transplanted and fitted into any sub
sequent time. His personality, his teaching, and his fate, together
with his disciples, his listeners, his enemies, the company of fol
lowers who worshipped him, — aU these taken together form a concrete,
historical picture, with Galilee and Jerusalem as its background.
Such a picture cannot be simply reproduced, it cannot be an un
questioned authority in aU its unique details for after-times. Yet
it will always be historically accessible to us: we return to it as to an
inexhaustible spring at which to quench our thirst, where we Hsten
to what "the Spirit saith unto the churches." Returning to our
labors with new inspiration, we try to embody it freely in forms
suited to our country and our time. We acknowledge and hold fast
the bond which links our people to those wonderful workings of
God's spirit in Galilee, culminating in the ideal of humanity. We
recognize these events as having been pregnant with meaning for aU
mankind, but we also know that Teutonic Christianity has an in
dividuality distinct from the Semitic-Greek or Roman, hitherto the
primary factors in shaping Christianity. The task before us now
is to work out the Christian idea into forms suited to our time and
people. In this sense must the scribe, who is a disciple of the heav
enly kingdom, as Jesus was, and who, "like a householder from
his store, bringeth forth things old and new," speak from the

REV. EDWARD EVERETT HALE, D.D.
Boston, Mass.

MRS. JULIA WARD HOWE
Boston, Mass.

V

.- -•-_¦..

• .
iIhk-. . V
^Ph|
¦' ;#r:
¦ '!^M
Rkk
r^fi
IPVPhbPH
^»
REV. THOMAS R. SLICER
New York, N.Y.
BOOKER T. WASHINGTON, LL.D.
Tuskegee, Ala.
85
pulpit with the fuU consciousness that he is uttering things that are
new. This must not, of course, be done by straining to bring it into
accord with dogmatic teaching: it must be based upon a liberal
theology. We must not "reinterpret," but must simply try to clothe
the idea of Christianity in forms our modern congregations can as-
simUate. Above aU, we must get rid of the conceptions of the old
Christology; of Jesus of Nazareth as very God, whose deity domi
nates his historical career. These figures can mean nothing to us.
Let us only become possessed by the splendor of the Idea originated
by Jesus, which upheld him and his work, which has been a mighty
impeUing force through centuries of human history. Let it become
a Hving energy within us, to create fresh ideals. Then shall we no
longer be as strangers to our own time in the religious sphere. We
shaU proclaim the faith that is in us, in our own tongue, and our
listeners wiU hear "the great things that God has done" in famihar
speech. The immense difficulty of this task does not absolve us from the
duty of striving to fulfil it, remembering that we only "know in
part." But let us take comfort in the thought that truth thus
gained in the evolutionary process of religious thought can no more
perish than the falsehood of our present reHgious expression can
be saved. Let us only be sure not to retard the progress of truth
by dinging to antiquated forms instead of serving the good cause
by unwearied research and endeavor.
Shortly, to sum up what seems to me the most urgent reform of the
moment: We must Hberate the religious consciousness of the present
generation from the outworn Christology of the Church, and clear
the way for a return to the primitive belief in God, as held by Jesus
himself. Salvation wiU then no longer be attained through the
mediation of a God-man or a human being with divine functions
and powers. Salvation wUl come through the consciousness of the
indweUing Presence of God in the human soul, whose ethical realiza
tion in thought and life is in itself salvation.
Frequent use has been made of this freedom in pulpit teaching
in the National Protestant Church of Prussia, more particularly in
recent times. This has frequently led to conflicts between individual
preachers and church authorities. The old and orthodox school

86
looks upon itself as the only legitimate representative of the Church,
because it stands for the dogmas of the Church. It denies the right
of a liberal clergyman to preach, and of a liberal congregation to
choose a man of their own way of thinking. The judgments of
the Supreme Ecclesiastical Courts, even when they did not go the
length of depriving a clergyman of his charge, and where they sought
other legal grounds for vetoing an appointment, nevertheless plainly
showed that they were on the side of orthodoxy.
The question has often enough been raised by the enemies of
liberal theology and some of its friends: Why remain in a church
with which you do not agree and which does not recognize your
right as a member? Why not step out of the Church, and found a
new and free church for yourselves? This question of church inde
pendence is one which wiU always be conditioned and decided by
the peculiar circumstances and history of the country in which the
question arises, and it cannot be answered either way, apart from
the concrete circumstances under which it arose. But the general
question may be asked: Do secession and the growth of sects pro
mote the truly Protestant ideal of the freedom of the reHgious per
sonality? Does such a state of things insure progress in religious
culture? Freedom for the church is no guarantee of freedom in
the Church. Separatist groups that have originated — not in the wide
inspiration of the Christian idea, but from the longing to satisfy
some need not met in the larger Church, — run great danger of de
veloping a more rigid despotism over individual reHgious person-
aHty. Of course, individuals may always escape from such a tyranny;
but what about the majority that suffers the pressure unconsciously?
More than this, they may fanatically put pressure on themselves
and others, to the great injury of aU religious personality. And
what about reHgious progress? I cannot see that it lies in the
direction of a multiplication of separatist groups in religion. As
a matter of fact, most of the existing sects are founded upon orthodox
dogmas or they practise a species of church discipHne and require
a certain measure of conformity on the part of their members. On
the other hand, a national church does not necessarily imply uni
formity in every particular of reHgious and ethical belief. The
Episcopal Church of England is a case in point, in which opposites
are held together by a common bond. In my opinion the very

87
friction caused in the Church is a means of progress in religious truth.
Moreover, a national church is the best organization possible for
bringing religious ideas before the masses of the population. The
German Protestant Association is, at any rate, quite assured of its
right and its duty to prosecute its work of religious liberalization
within the pale of the National Church of Germany, and it has no
motive for relinquishing this position.
Our German Protestant population consciously and unconsciously
adheres to the National Church of the Reformation, whilst by instinct
it remains faithful to Christianity, as part and parcel of its national
existence. But notice here a distinction. The German Protestant
Church is the Church of the nation, not the Church of the State. To
those at a distance these terms might seem identical, and victims
of state encroachments on reUgious life might be tempted to consider
them as such. But the Protestant Church of Germany has means
and powers within it which are capable of overcoming and defying
hierarchical and Byzantic pretensions. The recognition of the
Church by the State is not the essential feature on which it founds,
nor are the ecclesiastical functions exercised by the sovereign of the
land an appendage of his pohtical power. The National Church has
an undoubted legal right to resist any encroachments upon its re
Hgious life which its bond with the civil power may bring about.
It is here that the German Protestant Association begins its work.
CaUous to the reproaches of orthodoxy as to the iUegitimacy of our
position within a national church, we chng to our inheritance on
historical, legal, and Protestant grounds. Here we know ourself
within a sphere of national reUgious life which has grown historicaUy,
and it is our sacred duty to labor for the future of this Church in the
direction of our ideal of religious freedom. Our German national
churches can and must become the nurseries and strongholds of a
new Protestant piety; the spirit of our Reformers will revive and
aUy itself with the humanitarian ideal of our greatest poets and
phUosophers. On the other hand, this soaring tendency of the Ger
man mind will be balanced by the newly awakened and disciplined
capacity to realize ideals in the various spheres of social and ethical
life of our nation. Then we may realize the Divine Presence within
us, and be able to say, "It is my meat and drink to do the will of
him that sent me," and to fulfil my work.

88
The apostle Paul had an apocalyptic vision of the moment of
entry into eternity, when even the Son shaU bow down before Him
who had put aU things under his feet, "that God may be aU in all."
We do not need to await any such catastrophe: we know Christ does
not govern us from the heavens, nor does he unite himself only by
duly appointed sacraments with the believing soul. We know
that the Christ of God is generated within the religious spirit of
man, and it is in the conviction that in him is reahzed the true ideal
of humanity that we joyfully declare, "God, aU in all."
The President. — Professor Jean ReviUe has been identified with
this Council from the beginning. He has been at every session of the
Council. He has served on the Executive Committee from the
start. He has always been our weU-beloved, genial, and patient
friend and teacher and inspirer. He is going to speak to you this
morning of the dramatic situation in his own land, "The ReUgious
Crisis in France." Professor Jean ReviUe.

89

THE SITUATION OF THE CHURCHES IN FRANCE
AFTER THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE.
BY JEAN REVILLE, PROFESSOR AT THE COLLEGE DE FRANCE (PARIS).
The paper which I have the honor of presenting to this Congress
does not refer to the new organization which the Protestant churches
of aU denominations have elaborated in France since the law on the
separation of Church and State began to have force. My honor
able coUeague, Professor Bonet-Maury, has undertaken to speak
on that subject before the Congress. He wiU also explain to you
the endeavors that were made to unite the different Protestant
denominations. My task is an attempt to describe in a general way the conse
quences of the separation law on the reUgious and ecclesiastical
situation of France, and, as the great majority of French people
belong to the Roman Catholic Church (at least by name), it is of
that Church that I shaU speak mostly. The experience that has
just been had in France is of such importance to the Old World
that it is worth while for men of aU lands to interest themselves
in it.
In the paper I read to the Geneva Congress in 1905, before the
definitive vote of the law, I said: "Its worth wiU above aU depend
on the manner in which it is applied. With a liberal and tolerant
government it can strongly assure the freedom of conscience, but
with a clerical or with an unreligious government it may become
a terrible power of oppression."
Now my first statement, after nearly two years' trial, is that the
law has reaUy been appUed in a thoroughly liberal manner.
My second statement is that in general it has not throughout
the whole country raised such disturbances as its antagonists had
prophesied and as I myself, at Geneva, feared. There have been

9°
local agitations, partial disturbances, attempts at resistance made
in certain smaU groups of society. But, on the whole, the great
bulk of the nation remained perfectly calm in spite of aU endeavors
to arouse them against the law.
We can each day observe that the mass of the people is far more
agitated by ideas of social reform than by the separation of Church
and State. The coolness towards the Catholic faith in the French
people, especially amongst men, may account for this in a large
degree, but also and chiefly the broad and liberal manner in which
this important ecclesiastical reform has been carried into execution.
Freedom of conscience has throughout been respected, and public
worship nearly everywhere celebrated as before.
These affirmations may perhaps astonish many people in this coun
try. I know things have been presented otherwise, and that the
French Republic has been accused of the spohation and persecution
of the Churches, especially the Roman CathoUc Church. Such
a verdict is utterly inaccurate. In France those who complain
to-day that they do not possess religious freedom are only those for
whom liberty consists in being able to do themselves aU they like
without taking any heed of the equal rights of others. Never was
there in France so much religious freedom as now. True, there
are men, and even political groups, who would gladly avaU them
selves of the situation to ruin Catholicism and even any kind of
religion. But it is false to say that this tendency has prevailed and
that there has been any persecution.
To prove this, it is sufficient to recaU the facts. The main point,
which commands the whole situation, is that the Roman Catholic
Church refused to submit to the law voted in Parliament by a very
large majority and ratified afterwards by a stiU larger majority
in the general elections.
Whilst aU other Churches — Lutheran, Calvinist, Protestant of
every denomination, Jewish, etc. — submitted without any recrimi
nation, and immediately set to work at reorganizing themselves
according to the prescriptions of the new law, the Roman Catholic
Church refused to do so, and — still worse — her refusal was according
to the pope's command, although a large majority of the French
bishops had given an opposite advice. These, having met, on the
pope's invitation, in secret council, were in favor of accepting the

91
law, but the pope, though he declared publicly that he was acting
in conformity with their wish, decided that the French CathoHcs
must refuse submission to the law. This is certainly one of the
most curious things in modern religious history. And what is
stiU more characteristic is that aU the bishops yielded without any
protest. This is the essential cause of aU the difficulties amidst which the
Roman CathoHc Church struggles in France. It should be weU
understood, indeed, that the situation cannot be the same in an
old country Uke France, where during fourteen centuries the Roman
CathoHc Church has been united to the State, as it is in the United
States of America, where the Churches and the States have from
the beginning been entirely separate and distinct the one from the
other. LegaUy, the Church in France, untU the day of the separation,
fulfiUed a pubhc and official function. The churches and temples
were state or "commune" properties, wherever they had not been
buUt by a private association consistent with the French law, and
which had expressly reserved its right of property. The bishop did
not possess church properties as a private citizen: he ruled them
only as head of the bishopric; his diocese was an official subdivi
sion of the country of which he was the governor during his life,
and after his death the State appointed a successor after agreement
with the pope. A non-authorized monastic order, such as that of
the Jesuits or Dominicans, could not legaUy possess, since it did
not even legaUy exist.
The aim of the law of separation was not only to suppress the
reHgious budget of the State, — that is, to ordain that clergymen
should no more be remunerated by the State but by their flock
(that was a very simple matter), — but its chief aim (and a much more
difficult one) was to determine under which legal form there could be
constituted private societies qualified to enter upon the goods and
properties of the parishes, and to use the church buUdings which
belong to the State or the "communes"; also with what resources
these private societies should be aUowed to provide regularly for the
maintenance of worship. Anybody whatever could not be author
ized to enter into possession of these goods and properties, and it
was not possible to aUow the ecclesiastics actuaUy in charge to dis
pose of them according to their own personal convenience.

92
Hence the law determined they should be delivered to cultual as
sociations (associations cultuelles) of a special type. There were
to be private societies, consisting of at least seven, fifteen, or twenty-
five members, according to the importance of the parish, on condi
tion that they conform themselves to the general conditions of the
cult or worship whose exercises they proposed to assume. This was
to prevent a cultual association from transferring to another wor
ship the goods it claimed.
The members of the Catholic party in ParHament had greatly in
sisted on this clause, and declared that if it were passed aU CathoHcs
would accept the new organization. Thereupon this condition was
granted to them, though it would have been in better conformity
with democratic principles to permit the members of each parish
to decide for themselves what sort of worship they intended to cele
brate in their own church. But the Catholics feared that, if this
were done, in many parishes the Roman Catholic Church would be
forsaken. The only other obligation imposed on each of these associations
cultuelles was that they present every year their budget to the gen
eral assembly of its members, as is usual in aU private societies.
Note here that the association might remain limited to the smaU
number of its founders, a smaU group renewed by its own choice,.
and which the bishops could have formed in every parish from
among their own supporters, whilst the rest of the flock might yet
be admitted as outside members without the right of voting in the
assembly. The prescriptions were reaUy not tyrannical. Neverthe
less the pope declared them unacceptable.
Besides, to prepare the transfer of goods, the law decreed an in
ventory to be drawn up previously in each parish, so as to establish
the nature and origin of the properties. Nothing could have been
more just and nothing better done to protect churches against spolia
tion or misappropriation. In aU Protestant churches these inven
tories were drawn up readily. Oh the contrary, in many places
the CathoHcs assaulted the government's officers who came for the
inventory, or barricaded themselves in the churches, throwing in
sults and even filth on the police, and shouting, "We want God,"
as if God was to be stolen! True, these violences were not provoked
by the dignitaries of the churches, but by the leaders of the reaction-

93
ist political party. But the priests did nothing to prevent these
acts of violence, and in the mind of the people they bear the respon-
sibflity for them.
The refusal to constitute cultual associations was a stiU more
serious matter. Because of it no legal body could receive the prop
erties of the parishes or even make use of the church buildings.
This was the most critical moment in the application of the law.
Was the government to close the churches, urging that they were
escheated properties? This would have greatly satisfied aU unre-
Hgious fanatics. M. Briand, the minister who had the responsi-
biHty of aU this business, and who had made the report of the law of
separation in ParUament, thought, with high wisdom, that he must,
above aU, assure the freedom of conscience and secure liberty of
worship. A new law was passed on January 2, 1907, by which church
DuUdings were left for use to the flocks and to the ministers of
worship without any conditions, wheresoever a cultual association
had not been formed to claim their use according to the law of
separation in 1905. Worship could henceforth be celebrated as
previously. But aU the churches' properties, the archiepiscopal
ot bishops' palaces, parsonages, seminaries, remained the property
of the State or "communes," since no regular society had been
¦constituted to claim them. And the salaries or aUowances which,
according to the law, the State was to pay to aU priests for four years
more, were suppressed, since the priests had refused to apply the
law. It was but strict justice. By his obstinacy in opposing him-
seU to the judgment of the French bishops the pope caused the
CathoHc Church of France to lose aU its goods and properties, esti
mated at about four hundred miUions of francs, and deprived the
French priests of the aUowances the State had bestowed upon them.
So this was not a spoHation by the State. It was the Roman Catho
Hc Church itself, which refused to arrange matters, as aU other
Churches did, so as to enter upon the enjoyment of its properties.
Why did the pope act thus? Solely in Rome's and the Roman
see's interest. He declared the cultual associations to be adverse
to the canon law, according to which the churches ought to be gov
erned by the bishops, and not by the congregations. But we have
aheady seen that the share of influence left to the parishioners by
the separation law was very smaU, as so few persons were required

94
to form the cultual associations (seven, fifteen, or twenty-five), and
as in most places the bishops could have formed it exclusively out
of members of the clergy and people entirely devoted to them. Even
that, however, seemed to the pope a dangerous concession to the
democratic spirit. Besides, the priest would have had a certain
independence in each parish, and the pope desired the priests to de
pend absolutely on the bishop. As he now alone appoints the
bishops, these in their turn depend absolutely on him. The result
is that the pope is now the absolute and unique master of the
Catholic Church in France. He probably thought this power was
worth the four hundred millions, especiaUy as it was not out of his
own money that they were paid.
Such is, in fact, for the Roman Catholics the most evident result
of the separation. Never was the Catholic Church of France so
free in its attitude towards the State as it is now, but also never was
it so completely dependent on the pope. Previously the government
appointed the bishops after agreement with the pope: now the
pope alone appoints them directly, and he chooses the most ultra
montane and reactionary ones. Previously the curates were ap
pointed permanently: now they are appointed and removed by the
bishops. Previously the financial management of the parish was
controUed by the public authorities: now the bishops appointed by
the pope are not accountable to any one for their management,
excepting to the pope.
The financial organization is not yet definitely settled. Different
measures have been taken for the time in the dioceses. Neverthe
less, one point is fixed everywhere. In each diocese aU the resources
are centralized in the hands of the bishop, henceforth as powerful
in temporal as in spiritual concerns. For the present the organiza
tion of an inter-diocesan fund is under consideration, which is to
divide among the poor parishes the surplus returns of the rich par
ishes, and this general fund wiU certainly be placed under the direc
tion of an apostolic legate; that is, a delegate of the pope.
What the opponents of the separation in France foresaw is about
to be reaHzed. The separation wiU, above all, be profitable to the
Roman power. The last remnants of the GaUican liberties (that is,
to say the particular rights belonging to the Churches of France) are
vanishing away. To the more and more democratic organization

95
of the State the Roman Catholic Church opposes a more and more
centraHzed and tyrannical organization.
We must add that the actual pope strives with the greatest energy
against the liberal spirit which had begun to diffuse itseh over the
younger clergy in France. A scientific and theological renovation
was actuaUy developing in the Catholic publications and Catholic
schools under the influence of the Abbe" Loisy, Laberthenniere, and
the Abbe" Houtin, whom we have the privilege of seeing amongst us
at this Congress, and of many others. Their books are now under
interdict, their periodical publications forbidden to the clergy, and
aU possible measures are taken to keep away from the seminaries
their dangerous influence.
The pope's last SyUabus, recently promulgated, discloses to the
whole world the spirit of ignorance and obscurantism prevailing in
Rome. The pope carries to the utmost his inteUectual absolutism
as weU as his ecclesiastical absolutism. The schism between the
pubhc mind and the Roman Catholic mind, between Church and
School, thus grows worse every day. And it is a serious and sad
question how such a situation may be solved.
The masses in France are indifferent to aU these matters, but
they forsake more and more the Catholic faith. AU that the people
desire is to attend mass, to be christened, married, and buried at
church. They no longer believe the doctrines, but they love the
ceremonies. And in proportion as the new generations, educated
in the secular lay schools, grow up, this state of mind augments.
Some men of great sense, and amongst them my friend Paul
Sabatier, with whose greetings for the Congress I am intrusted,
think that a reaction wfll ensue from the exaggeration of this papal
absolutism. They hope to see men, better instructed as to the true
weHare of the Church, take in hand a reform of Catholicism. They
hope for a real Catholic regeneration, both democratic and scien
tific, wherein old dogmas shaU be left to sleep in peace and all ener
gies shaU be consecrated to the social and moral work.
Would to God it were so! I must say, I do not believe much in
their prophecies. They are generous delusions. In this neo-
CathoHc movement there are high-minded individuals, men of great
talent and remarkable knowledge. But they are officers without
soldiers. And, above all, there is in this new movement a funda-

96
mental contradiction which in the end must paralyze it. They
intend to remain Roman Catholics (that is to say, submitted to the
pope), and they stand up for a cause condemned by the pope. You
wiU say, A pope does not live forever: after this one, who is cer
tainly a very narrow-minded man, there may come others with a
more open mind, and amongst them one who may take in hand
the cause of Catholic reform. There, in my opinion, they are at
fault. No pope, even if he were as liberal and weU-informed as we
may suppose, wiU ever be wiUing to work out such a reform, and,
even if he were wiUing, he would not be able to do it. Such a re
form would be the beheading of the papacy itseh, for the papacy
is itseU the real impediment for any CathoHc reform. The whole
history of the Church shows us that ever since the thirteenth century
aU reforms of the Church proceeded from the people or lower clergy,
and that the popes, even when they attempted to be reformers, made
the reform turn to the increase of their power. Catholicism may
perhaps reform itseh, but it can only be from the root, against Rome
and not with Rome. The Roman organism may burst asunder
from an excess of centralization, but it is not possible to change it
in a secular direction.
The true Catholic ideal is very high, very great, very Christian.
In our modern world it can no longer be dogmatic or authoritative.
It can be solely moral and religious, — a unity of hearts according
to the principles of the gospel amid aU the varieties of life. But
this ideal is not and cannot be the Roman one. To-day, as for
merly, the first condition of spiritual liberty and reHgious reform
is, "No Popery!"
WiU the Catholic Church in our Latin countries reform itseh
from the root? I do not know, and I think nobody can know.
At present I foresee no issue to the ecclesiastical and religious situa
tion in France, unless it be great commotions.
France has no inclination for Protestantism. There is no prob
ability that the majority wiU ever become Protestants. Only a
small number of cultivated and deUberate minds adopt that solu
tion. Besides, there is actuahy not enough real faith in the masses
of the people for them to uphold a reform.
Two alternatives seem to me possible. Either the existing reac
tionist movement of the Catholic Church will go on, and public life

97
in France wiU for a long time be dominated by the strife between
clericals and more or less socialist radicals, or else the Catholic
Church of France, conscious of its error, wiU seek to regain on the
social ground the situation it is losing every day more on the religious
ground. A CathoHc Socialism wiU grow up, and public life wiU be
dominated by the strife between Catholic Socialism and anti-Cath
olic SociaHsm, which in a country Hke France will necessarily be an
unreUgious sociaHsm. In either case the situation wiU not be favor
able to HberaHsm and Uberal religion.
But it is useless to pretend foreteUing the times to come. They
depend on too many circumstances unknown to us. We must keep
faith in the future, and never be weary of enlightening and exalting
the minds of our feUows. To-day as weU as yesterday, as weU as
to-morrow, we must be the leaven in the lump. In the French char
acter are admirable reserves of idealism. It cannot find its defini
tive satisfaction in irreHgion and atheism. A renovation of religious
idealism appears already in the most gifted of the nation. I do not
beUeve either that France can ever faU a victim to clericalism. It
has suffered too much from it in the past to bear its yoke again.
Let us, then, go on forewarning men against this double danger, —
atheism and clericaHsm. And the future wiU disclose ways and
means for the reHgious associations best suited to the spiritual
need. At the conclusion of Professor ReVUle's address the Congress ad
journed untU two in the afternoon.

98

SECOND GENERAL SESSION OF THE INTER
NATIONAL CONGRESS.
In Tremont Temple, Tuesday afternoon, September 24, 2 o'clock.
Rev. Charles E. St. John, Secretary of the American Unitarian
Association, conducted religious services.
President Eliot. — One of the Vice-Presidents of the Council has
been kind enough to consent to relieve me of the duty of presiding
this afternoon, and I am very glad to intrust the conduct of this
meeting to the just and genial guidance of President Hamilton,
of Tufts CoUege, who wUl be your Chairman for this session.
Vice-President F. W. Hamilton, D.D. — It is a very pleasant
duty which falls to me, and a very delightful privUege, I am sure,
which faUs to you. Those of us who are interested in what is hap
pening in the world cannot have faUed to notice one of the distin
guishing features of the great war between Russia and Japan, and
that was the highly scientific way in which the war was carried on.
And you will remember that, in place of the dramatic battlefield
scenes surrounding the headquarters of the mihtary commanders of
old days, we had reported to us scenes which were more like the in
terior of a business office. The great general who commanded the
immense armies of Japan in the heat of those desperate engage
ments sat quietly in his headquarters miles away from the front,
and was kept instantly in touch with every phase of the swiftly
changing conflict by the telephone and the field .telegraph, which
were nerves connecting his brain with every one or the movements
of that great body. We are privileged to sit here to-day and hear
through these living telephones of the progress of the great struggle
between the friends of liberty in religion and those who would
shackle the religious movements of the human mind. As I look over
this program, I cannot but feel how closely we are united in these

99
days with our brethren from across the seas, and how great our privi
lege to have them come and tell us directly what is going on in those
parts of the world which they represent. Without further preface
I take great pleasure in presenting to you the first speaker of the after
noon, Dr. Martin Rade, professor in the University of Marburg,
in Germany.

IOO

THE RELIGIOUS SITUATION IN GERMANY AND
THE FRIENDS OF THE CHRISTLICHE WELT.
BY PROFESSOR MARTIN RADE, D.D., OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF MARBURG.
You have invited me to speak to you about present conditions in
the German Church and about the Freunde der Christlichen Welt
(Friends of the Christian World). You wiU aUow me, I am
sure, to teU you how I felt about the matter when I accepted this
invitation. I would Uke to thank you by using the greatest frankness
in addressing you.
It wiU not be irrelevant to the subject in hand if I confess to you
at the outset that, in general, I am no friend of such congresses as
this, — that I do not consider the time ripe for this sort of international
association, formed to discuss questions of church and religion.
Perhaps in America and in Great Britain you are more advanced
and better prepared than we in Germany. I wiU gladly let myself
be convinced of this by the work of this Congress. I would like to
learn from you. In Germany we are still too incUned to go our
own way in matters of church and religion. We are not yet in posi
tion to attempt seriously to carry on practical work in common
with Christians of other nations. I beUeve that this is also true of
Switzerland; for even between the Protestants of Switzerland and
those of the German Empire practical association is only in its begin
nings, finding expression principally in aid of foreign missions.
And what I have said is true not only of the Hberal, but also of the
conservative parties in German Protestantism. It is only a small
part of the so-called "old orthodox" Germans who seek international
fellowship and who keep in touch with sympathetic circles in Great
Britain and America. The Evangelical Alliance has made no
progress in Germany during the last few decades. Even the Ge-
meinschaftsbewegung, a lay movement strongly influenced by Meth
odism, has in its midst a current which seeks to escape the influence
of English piety.

IOI

I.

This inabiUty of German Protestantism to ally itself with Prot-'
estantism in other lands is simply due to its history. This history
finds tangible expression, first, in the constitution of the German
churches. Since 1870 we have had a unified German Empire. That it is
a confederation, and not a single state, is no hindrance to the unity
of our poHtical Hfe, any more than the poHtical vigor and power of
the American Union are hindered by the fact that it is composed of
individual states. Domestic poUtics, the regulation of local matters,
constitutes the jurisdiction, as may be easily understood, of the indi
vidual states. To their rights belongs especiaUy that of the admin
istration of church and school. The German Empire consists of
twenty-six single states. As a result, simply counting the number of
supervising states, there are twenty-six different church bodies.
Not every German state, however, is limited to one established
church. The kingdom of Prussia, for example, includes, in addi
tion to the Prussian Established Church (that is, the Evangelical
Church of the old provinces, in which the Union is in force), also
the estabhshed churches of the lands annexed in 1866, which remain
independent church bodies. These are the churches of Hanover,
Schleswig-Holstein, Hesse (the Electorate), Nassau, and Frankfort.
Many of the new Prussian provinces have also, Hke many of the other
German states, both Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinistic) churches.
So there are fifty more or less independent church bodies in Germany,
with the constitution of an estabUshed church. Each of these fifty
established churches has its special constitution and its own con
fessional position. And the most remarkable feature of aU is that
though aU of these churches assert themselves to be either Lutheran
or Reformed or profess to be in the Union, the legal authority of the
confessions which have come down from the past, the formulation
and significance of the requirements in regard to teaching on the part
of the clergy, and other matters of this sort are by no means uni
formly understood either within the Lutheran or the Reformed or
the Union Church. The fact is that every one of these churches,
large or smaU, has its own special history.
So it comes that the Hfe conditions of religious freedom in these

102

churches are widely different. In some churches, Hke those of Baden
and of Alsace-Lorraine, Hberal thought stands upon the same footing
as orthodox, or at least remains absolutely free from attack in its
pastoral activities. On the other hand, in other churches a liberal
tendency is barely tolerated, is persecuted or completely excluded
by law. In part the states have shown a desire to leave the regu
lation of these internal and local affairs to the churches themselves
by giving them a synodal constitution. (In 1873 was issued the
Kirchengemeinde- und Synodalordnung of the Prussian State Church.
The first general synod was held in Berlin in 1875.) In every case,
however, the fact that the particular church is subject to its par
ticular state is the fundamental and legal condition which gives that
church its right of existence. Over the synods are the church
authorities, appointed by the state government. The state appoints
the instructors and professors on the theological faculties of our
universities; but the churches do not give, nor have they the right
to give, a position as pastor to any one who has not completed a
theological course of at least three years at one of these universities.*
The attempts which have been made to form non-conformist
church bodies are not important enough to caU for consideration
over against the estabHshed church system. For the most part
they are the result of obstinacy in regard to doctrine, and in lack of
ability to conform to new conditions they exceed anything within
the established churches.
Secondly, to understand our German Protestantism one must
study the Lutheran Reformation. To be sure, a broad stream of
the Reformed (that is, Calvinistic) type of rehgion also flowed over
Germany. It brought, too, strong forces with it, which have exerted
* Comp. Mulcrt, "Die Lehrverpflichtung in der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands."
Tubingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1904. LSber, "Die im evangelischen Deutschland geltenden Ordina-
tionsverpflichtungen geschichtlich geordnet." Leipsic, Georg Wigand, 1905. The most recent
survey of the existing church bodies in Germany, including the non -conformist churches, is offered
by Schneider, " Kirchliches Jahrbuch auf das Jahr 190 7 " (34 years). Giitersloh, C. Bertelsmann.
A detailed account of the structure of a. German Landeskirche (Established Church) is given
in the three volumes of the series "Evangelische Kirchenkunde": Vol.1., "Das kirchliche Leben
der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Landeskirche des Kfinigreichs Sachsen." By Professor Drews in
Giessen. Vol. II., "Das kirchliche Leben der evangelischen Kirche der Provinz Schlesien."
By Lie. Dr. Martin Schian. Vol. in., "Das kirchliche Leben in der evangelische-protestan-
tischen Kirche in Grossherzogtum Baden." By Rev. A. Ludwig. Tubingen, J. C. B. Mohr,
1902, 1903, 1907. In regard to the church constitutions in force the best information is sup
plied by the comprehensive work, Friedberg, "Die geltenden Verfassungsgesetze der deutschen
Landeskirchen, mit Nachtragen." Tubingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1885. 2 vols.

i°3
great influence on the present organization of the churches and upon
theological thought. The Brandenburg Prussian rulers have allied
themselves with the Reformed Church since 1613. Schleiermacher,
the greatest German theologian of the nineteenth century, belonged
also to the Reformed Church. Nevertheless, the heart-beat of the
Protestants of Germany is Lutheran. Luther's religious nature and
faith have determined the German type of rehgion, penetrating
far into reformed circles, and even exerting an influence upon Ger
man CathoHcs. The hymns of Paul Gerhardt, the strict Lutheran,
are treasured and sung by the CathoUcs. Luther's faith carried the
German people safely through the miseries of the Thirty Years'
War. The story of Luther's Hfe, his words at the Diet of Worms,
his translation of the Bible, stiU nourish aU those in Germany to-day
who Hve a reHgious Ufe. Therefore, he must study Luther who
wishes to know the rehgion of the Germans.*
This Luther, however, was at all times a good Trinitarian. All
rationaUsm, inteUectuaUsm, scepticism, was foreign to him. In
reUgious matters his was a thoroughly conservative nature. Yet
this same Luther discovered the freedom of the conscience, the free
dom of personal conviction from every human authority. "God
wants no one to serve him under compulsion!" he cried. "I say
it again, God wants no one to serve him under compulsion! I say
it for the third time, I say it a hundred thousand times, God wants
no one to serve him under compulsion!" f
This reUgious "UberaUsm" of Luther's led to the break with that
Roman creation, the One Holy and Catholic Church, with the
tyranny of its canon law, and of its visible head the pope. Both
features of Luther's piety, his conservatism, with its faithful aUegiance
to that which came down from the ancient past, and his liberalism,
with its rejection of every tyranny in matters of personal faith, stiU
constitute to-day the reUgion of our Protestant people.
EspeciaUy does Protestant Germany maintain the opposition to
Rome as it would cherish a sacred inheritance. On no point are we
*.Comp. "Doctor Martin Luthers Leben, Taten und Meinungen auf Grund reichlicher
Mitteilungen aus seinen Briefen und Schriften erzahlt." By Martin Rade. Tubingen, J. C. B.
Mohr. 3 vols. This much-read book is in favor with educated readers as well as the common
people. f'Ein Geschicht, wie Gott einer ehrbara Kloster-Jungfrauen ausgeholfen hat." 1524.
Weimar edition, xv. p. 87.

104
German Protestants more united. And it is significant that the first
step toward a unification of the established churches on a church basis,,
which was made recently by the formation of a German EvangeUcal
Church Commission, has done its best work, so far, in behah of
Protestants living in Roman Catholic districts and in the campaign.
against the Jesuits. A comprehensive survey of the different parties
in all the established churches reveals, too, that the single point upon
which they are absolutely united is their antipathy to the Roman
Catholic Church. Yes, even further, the unchurched elements in
Protestant Germany are set in motion as soon as the cry is raised
against Rome. That was shown again in the last Reichstag election.
In reality, one cannot say that the Protestant Church and modern
progress are now endangered by Rome. All which must be done
in districts where the two confessions exist side by side, as a pro
tection against the natural dangers attendant upon the constant
migration from east to west and from the country to the city, which
has been legaUzed since the beginning of the last century, and against
the dangers attendant upon church propaganda, is accompUshed
by two splendid organizations, — the Gustave Adolph Society (at
work since 1832) and the Evangelical Federation (at work
since 1886). Above all, at the present moment in our national
politics, the predominance of the CathoUc party, the Centre, which
has depressed the domestic situation for a number of years, has been
brought to an end in the Reichstag, and thereby throughout the whole
German Empire. There is naturaUy no reUance to be placed upon
this political combination, but the imperial government is now reso
lute in its determination to govern without the Centre. Of all
the German states, only Bavaria and Alsace-Lorraine remain more
or less completely under the parUamentary domination of the Centre.
In these two, only, does the Protestant Church occasionaUy feel itself
to be laboring under difficulties as a confession. There is an insuffi
ciency of money and of constitutional freedom of action, but these are
misfortunes which come almost necessarily to a Protestant estab
lished church in a state inhabited for the most part by Catholics.
But is there no tendency in the Protestant churches to seek out the
common Christian element in Catholicism, and to foster it? To
this we answer that everything which has been done in this regard,
as the work of an organization or in accordance with the principles

io5
of some society, was either done from suspicious motives or was
premature. To bring about a more sympathetic understanding of
the CathoHc type of religion, however, is an end that the Christliche
Welt, which I represent, continually has in view, without thereby
relinquishing in the slightest its Protestant standpoint*
II.
The religious situation in Germany would, indeed, be most
favorable for Protestantism, were it not for the internal difficulties.
To be sure, throughout the established churches the governing
authorities give conscientious attention to providing a good admin
istration. Churches are built and new congregations formed, the
clergy are weU provided for, synods are called to give counsel on
the affairs of a district, of a province, or of a whole state, as the
case may be. Christian societies of every kind foster works of
¦charity, care for the protection of the young, and provide represen
tative Uterature. Most of these societies are entirely independent,
some receive support from the churches and their authorities. Theo
logical faculties with scholarly and spiritually-minded professors
provide for the education of the ministry. The attendance at the
churches varies greatly, but in many localities, in the cities as well
as in the country, it is good. It cannot be said that the people in
general have fallen away from the Church. To be sure the Social
Democrats, who on January 25 of this year again cast over three
million votes for their candidates in the Reichstag election, are hostile
to the Church. But not aU Social Democrats are hostile to rehgion,
and some of them even maintain their allegiance to the Church.
The agitation for a general repudiation of membership in the estab
lished churches,which has recently been revived from various motives,
has not yet carried any considerable number with it. Since 1875
the so-caUed Civilstandsgesetz has been in force in the German
Empire. By this law German citizens were freed from the necessity
of having their marriages performed by the Church and of having
their children baptized. StiU from 1900 to 1904, of the children born
*Even the Kreuzieilung, and that branch of the (politically) Conservative Party whose
views it represents, no longer keep in touch with the Roman Cathohcs as they did forty or
fifty years ago, although the old tradition exerts still some influence in these circles. On the
other hand, the duty to understand and respect Catholicism is rightly felt in these circles to be as
important as the Christliche WeU holds it to be.

106 '
within the jurisdiction of the Prussian State Church, only 4.12 per
cent, remained unbaptized; in 1901, 5.18 per cent; in 1902, 4.87
per cent.; in 1903, 3.30 per cent.; in 1904, 4.7 per cent. It must
be remembered that many of these children could not be presented
for baptism, as death occurred shortly after birth. The wilful
rejection of baptism is principaUy in the large cities and their envi
rons. In the country the custom of infant baptism prevails almost
undisturbed. In addition to Prussia, only Saxony and a few of the
very small states have over 3 per cent, unbaptized children. StiU
rarer, indeed almost unheard of, is the refusal of Protestant parents
to present their children for confirmation, as is usual in Germany
when a boy or girl reaches fourteen years of age. On the other hand,
marriage by a clergyman is not so regularly sought. In the Prussian
State Church in 1903, of the marriages in which both contracting
parties were Protestants, 91.85 per cent, were performed by a clergy
man; in 1904, 91.05 per cent.; of the mixed marriages, in 1903,
89.20 per cent.; in 1904, 91.69 per cent. The attendance at com
munion also differs very much in different regions. In the Protes
tant Church of Bavaria, in 1904, 67.29 per cent, communicated; in
the church of Hamburg, only 9.47 per cent.
Externally the situation is such that the German established
churches could carry on the battle against the weakness of human
nature and against the dangers of modern culture with good confi
dence if they were fiUed with the spirit of healthy progress and of
genuine Christian feUowship.
To be sure, strife about opinions within the churches would in
itself be no fault. "Strife is the father of all things." There is
nothing healthier or that gives a better temper to our steel than the
battle for the truth. But, in the church which is to receive a blessing
from such a strife, conditions must prevail which make it possible
for the strife to run the right course. It must be actuaUy possible
to carry on with openness and in the spirit of brotherhood an
exchange of opinion in which only the subject in hand is at issue,
and in which that side prevails which is intellectually and spir
itually the stronger. In our churches, however, established legal
rights hinder freedom of thought.
This situation is brought to consciousness by the chronic appear
ance of the so-called "cases." Just as you in America have your

107
"Briggs," "Smith," and "Crapsey" cases, so we in Germany have
our "Fischer Case," "Romer Case," "Ce"sar Case," and others.
With us, as here in America, the point at issue is formally that of the
recognition of particular dogmas, as the birth of Jesus without a
human father, his bodily resurrection, etc. But these cases with us
arise under other conditions and run a different course.
ExternaUy, they take the form of legal proceedings between a
pastor holding a position in an established church or desirous of
holding one, and the governing authorities of that church. The
pastor is found by the authorities to be in error in regard to doctrine,
and is therefore either excluded from the ministry or permitted to
officiate after remonstrance and warning. In all such cases the
different parties take an active part, especiaUy through their periodi
cals, but also through open meetings and resolutions and through
debates and motions in the synods. The poUtical press, too, takes
part in such cases, and occasionaUy even in the legislatures the echoes
of the strife are heard.
At the bottom of aU these cases Hes the antithesis between the
conservative character of the church membership and the modern,
advanced character of present-day, theology, or, stated with reference
to the persons actuaUy concerned, the antithesis between the church
authorities and the theological faculties. To be sure, there are some
few among the church authorities who are hberal at heart, and there
are also faculties which are very conservative. But hberal church
officials are continuaUy put under constraint by the conservative ele
ment which rules in the larger churches, and by the logic of the
position they occupy, to carry on their administration conservatively.
On the other hand, the conservative faculties are continually con
strained by the modern atmosphere in which they live in the univer
sities, and by the inner logic of scholarly work, to make concessions
to the spirit of freedom. At the present day, among these " positive "
or "old orthodox" professors a not inconsiderable number have
confessed to the necessity of a modern theology. They would like
to deprive the liberal theologians of the predicate "modern," in order
to name themselves "modern positivists." None of our conservative
professors stiU holds to the old dogma of verbal inspiration. It is
now only in certain lay circles, as those, for instance, which group
themselves together in the Gemeinschaftsbewegung (Christian FeUow-

io8
ship Movement) that the Hteral inspiration of the sacred Book is
still strictly held. In short, in aU the " Cases " which we have had
we see plainly the strained relations and the incompatibiUty which
exist between orthodoxy, on the one hand, intrenched in the es
tablished churches by right of law and long usage, and the advanced
scholarship of the theological faculties on the other. These faculties
educate pastors for the churches; but the churches (that is, the au
thorities who carry on their administration under the old Canon Laws)
do not want such pastors as these faculties train. The congregations
differ in different provinces and regions. A large proportion of the
laity are strictly orthodox; but in the cities especiaUy, there are large
groups who are indignant at the legalistic attitude of the church
authorities, and who regard it as a serious wrong when these officials
stand in the way of their having hberal pastors. The two powers
which carry on the conflict are reaUy the church authorities and the
faculties, but the victims of the war are always in the first instance
the clergy and candidates for the ministry, and in the second the
congregations. This struggle, carried on unceasingly, robs many capable and
religiously-minded young men of the joy of the ministry. To be
sure, in this war as in others, there are truces and compromises.
When a "case" does occur, it is not usual for it to be settled deci
sively. The governing authorities of the largest German estabUshed
church, the Prussian, are experienced and wise enough to find con
tinually new ways out of the difficulty. They either sacrifice the
man and give a liberal decision about the point at issue, as in the
Ce"sar Case, or else they spare the man, and give a rigorously con
servative decision about the point at issue, as in the Fischer Case.
Such decisions do not usuaUy satisfy any one; but it must be admitted
that, temporum rations habita, no other course hes open to wise and
considerate officials. On that account even these pubhc "cases"
are by no means the worst we have to experience. Still more deplor
able is the quiet and secret activity of the minor church authorities,
who, because of the theology which young theologians desiring to
enter the ministry bring with them from the universities, act towards
them as if, with such opinions, they could not possibly obtain a
pastorate and crush their budding convictions. The examinations,
which are held for the most part by these church authorities, afford

IOQ
an opportunity for this, and so do the official visitations which are
made from time to time on every pastor. Lectures and other public
utterances of the clergy also give an opportunity for attack, and
an especially favorable one is that afforded by the application of
a pastor for a new office. When this happens, factional, conser
vative members of the congregation come to the rescue by regular
petition or even anonymous denunciation. III.
Under these circumstances, in spite of the splendid condition of
theological scholarship in our Universities, the situation for religious
liberalism in our churches is not an easy one. For its own protection,
therefore, this rehgious UberaUsm has also organized itself according
to the party plan. This was done first in an organization in exist
ence since 1863, which is also represented at this honored Congress,
the Deutsche Protestanten Verein (German Protestant Association).
TheoreticaUy, this organization includes aU of Germany. Actually,
however, it has taken root only in Berhn, Brandenburg, Hamburg,
Bremen, Thuringia, Baden, Nassau, and the Bavarian Palatinate.
After a serious retrograde period this organization has within the last
few years made visible progress, both outwardly and inwardly. Its
organs are the Protestantenhlatt and the Protestantische Monatshefte.
Another Hberal movement in Prussia which must be mentioned here
is the so-caUed "Middle Party," or Evangelische Vereinigung.
Periodicals which represent it are the Preussische Kirchenzeitung, a
weekly, and the Deulsch-evangelische Blatter, a monthly. The
difference between these two parties is this: The Middle Party ex
pects an improvement in church conditions to come from an intelli
gent attitude on the part of the church governing authorities and
other officers, the superintendents, and all the clergy. They take
their stand on the ground of the present synodal constitution, and
hope by means of it to attain greater freedom, although the Middle
Party, even with the support of the Left,— that is, the liberals,— has
nowhere in the Prussian synods more than a minority. The Pro
testanten Verein seeks to create an inclusive organization of laymen,
which by voting together, first in the congregational elections and
then in the synodal elections, will effect a change in the numerical

no
strength of the parties in the synods in favor of the liberals. By
these means they hope to obtain a more Uberal constitution for the
whole church. This road is a long and difficult one. For, while
it is true that in certain large cities an active and open agitation can
secure hberal majorities in the congregational organizations, in the
country districts there is very httle prospect that this wiU be achieved.
Indeed, it cannot be foreseen when the results of this method wiU be
traceable in the provincial and general synods. So the awakening
of the masses in the cities out of their indifference to the conditions in
the churches is really the work which Ues closest at hand; and this
the Protestanten Verein is actuaUy doing, — with what success must
be learned from the future. A very active movement has recently
appeared in the arena, — to be sure, only in the Rhine districts and
Westphalia, but there with great success, — Freunde der evangel
ischen Freiheit. These western provinces of Prussia have been for
many years the seat of an active life in church and religious matters.
Under the impression made by the "cases" which have occurred in
these districts, the lay elements, under the leadership of pastors of the
right temperament, have become very active, and have banded them
selves together. Their organ is the Evangelisches Gemeindeblatt fiir
Rheinland und Westphalen. Another representative monthly period
ical of the same character, pubhshed by Professor Baumgarten, under
the name Evangelische Freiheit, should also be mentioned in this
connection. But nothing has been said yet of the Freunde der Christlichen Welt
(Friends of the Christian World).
First, let us remember that there was a Christliche Welt long before
there were Friends of the Christliche Welt. The Christliche Welt is
a weekly periodical, which has been published since 1887. (In the
first year it appeared under the name Evangelisch-Lutherisches
Gemeindeblatt.) Of all the periodicals of the same character in
Germany it has reached by far the largest circulation.
Since 1892 leading spirits among the contributors and friends of
this journal have met together every year to discuss questions of
common interest. The theological faculties have been especially
well represented at these meetings by the presence of many of their
members. The proceedings have taken the form of discussions
about the latest questions at issue in theology. GraduaUy arose

Ill
also an interest in church poHtics and in practical work. The pre
carious situation of the pastors educated by our professors was the
chief reason which finaUy led to the organization in 1903 of the society
caUed the Vereinigung der Freunde der Christlichen Welt. It num
bers now only twelve hundred members. These are scattered over
all Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Indeed, it includes also
single members not of the German tongue. The Association is not
strong in the forces which lead to poUtical activity, organization, and
agitation. The interest of the members returns continually to inner
questions and to unifying work within their own circle. Indeed,
this is no smaU task, — to overcome more and more, at least for the
members of this Association, the isolation of the different established
churches which was described at the beginning of this address.
More important than this Association is the Christliche WeU itself
and its unenroUed foUowing of like-minded friends and readers.
Characteristic of the paper, as weU as of its friends, is a disposition
at root conservative, yet at the same time most thorough-going in
its HberaHsm. We are conservative in that we hold resolutely to
our churches and to their history. We know that we can only pay
our debts to the present and the future by guarding the reUgious in
heritance we have received from our fathers. The men who founded
the Christliche Welt and who brought it up to its present position,
came, for the most part, from Lutheran homes of strong denomina
tional feeling, where they had breathed in deeply the air of pious
tradition. As theologians most of them were students of Albrecht
Ritschl (d. 1889), professor in Gottingen, who was a man with a
most developed feeling for the Church and its history. But we are
Hberal as weU as conservative. We stand, before everything else,
for the unconditional freedom of theological scholarship, and espe
ciaUy that of historical criticism. We know very well that no church
and no religion can live on criticism and the negations which in
evitably go with it. But we know also that the search for the truth
must be completely unrestricted if it is to have any meaning at all,
that the truth is a fact which reveals itself, and of itself compels
recognition, while much in accepted tradition becomes untenable
on careful examination. Whenever, therefore, a church or state
government shows a desire to lay hand upon the freedom of the
theological faculties we will always be there to defend it to the

112

very last. In this we could only presuppose that no one would.
desire the office of a professor of theology who did not person
ally, for all his freedom of investigation and opinion, feel him
self to belong to his beloved church. Should this in some indi
vidual cases prove to be a mistaken assumption, we should be deal
ing with hypocrisy, with an anomaly from which no law and no.
policy could protect us. That this position of the Christliche Welt
corresponds to that of the theological professors themselves is without
question. Indeed, it can be said that fully half of the theologians
holding Protestant professorships in Germany— that is, the whole
company of HberaUy incUned theological instructors, with few excep
tions — belong to the Freunde der Christlichen Welt.
We extend, moreover, our demand for personal freedom to include
the clergy. It must suffice here, too, if a clergyman personaUy and
actually feels that he belongs to the church which he desires to serve.
If he bears witness to this by word and deed he should be aUowed.
to proclaim the gospel and perform the duties of his office according"
to his own best knowledge and conscience. It is certain that we can
look into no one's heart. Here, too, there is no protection against
hypocrisy. The protection of the law is directed only against gross
scandal; but this can never be occasioned by theological views, no
matter how modern, when an express desire to belong to our church
is present. It is scarcely possible to think more HberaUy about the
relationship of theology and the Church than this; for, if one were to'
go a step further, and characterize this desire to belong to the Church
as also an unnecessary element, one would thereby do away with
the Church itself. On the part of our laity, to be sure, such a desire
has never been manifested from any quarter, — at least not in the
fqrm of an express declaration of intention. This is to be explained
by the character of our established churches. They are churches of
the people, which one joins by birth and from which one is separated,
as a rule, only by death.
Again, if the question of the separation of Church and State should
arise in Germany also, there is nothing in our principles which would
hinder us from agreeing to the separation. But the necessary condi
tions for such an act do not at present prevail. Neither is there any
necessity laid upon us to work for separation in order to secure relig
ious freedom. For, no matter how partial the State may be at times

"3
In using its influence in the Church to assist reactionary elements,
still officially it is constantly giving proof of its purpose not to intrude
in matters which concern the Church alone, but to grant freedom
to live and grow to all parties in the Church without distinction.
It is possible, therefore, for us to fight the battle for the emanci
pation of a liberal theology and religion through to the end on the
Tattle-ground of the old established Churches, — that is, on ground
where the old Canon Laws are still in force : the Freunde der Christ
lichen WeU, under the force of existing conditions, gladly stand in
this struggle shoulder to shoulder with the other liberal parties.
They would much rather be engaged in constructive work, but they
•do not refuse to take up arms.*
* A single sentence from the constitution of the Association is all that I need quote: —
Section i. The "Association of the Friends of the Christian World" has, as its purpose,
the mutual furtherance of its members* interests in matters of church and religion.
A detailed and complete statement of our plans and purposes does not exist. On Sept. 28,
1904, however, the following theses were agreed upon: —
A. 1. We stand for the absolute freedom of theological scholarship, and the right to an
nounce the results of its investigation openly, as an indispensable condition for the healthy
¦development of the Protestant religion among our people.
2. We demand for the pastors and teachers preparing for their office freedom to form their
own convictions, and for those in office protection against a narrow-minded interpretation and
-application of the regulations in regard to religious instruction, and against an arbitrary cen
sorship over the exercise of their civil rights, in order thereby to secure a foundation for the
necessary confidence of the congregations in the ministrations of their pastors and teachers.
3. With full recognition of the necessity of external ecclesiastical order, we oppose the desire
to give uniformity to congregational church Ufe, and especially to the ordering of divine service,
in accordance with fixed rules, as the varied character of the forms can only further a richer
development of life.
4. We regard as an urgent task the necessity of satisfying honestly the need which has arisen
among all classes for clearness and depth in reUgious conceptions, for by this means alone can
the alienation of great numbers from Protestant Christianity be prevented.
B. The General Assembly desires of the members of the Association: —
1. That they be active and zealous in arranging lectures and courses of lectures on reUgious
and church topics, with discussions, for the purpose of winning laymen of all classes for the gospel;
and that they foster this as a most important task of the local association to which they belong.
2. That they give their assistance in the collection of funds for relief in cases of special need.
3. That in their synodal activity, without impairing their individual allegiance to the different
groups and parties within the established churches, they work especially to secure the following
reforms: —
a. Revision of the ordination vows and confessional requirements.
b. limitation of the right to discipline on account of teaching to cases of notorious offence.
c. Transference of jurisdiction over the clergy to a separate court, independent and compe
tent in such cases.
d. Greater freedom in matters of liturgy.
t. Protection for the congregations, the clergy, and teachers against an arbitrary extension
of the powers and privileges of church authorities and synods.
/. Defence against the subjugation of minorities.
In regard to B 1, it is to be remarked that informal meetings of clergy and laity — not only

ii4

IV.

What help do we expect from you, the religious liberals of America
and Great Britain, in this battle for freedom? I remarked at the
beginning of this address that I do not consider the time has come
yet for international associations. The battle for right, for the right
of existence, each of us must carry on in his own land. At least we
in Germany must do so; and we are able to. If you are seeking some
special work outside your own lands, send your help to the little
groups of genuine Protestants in the Slavic, Roman, and Eastern
lands. Thereby you can do great service in the cause of freedom of
belief and conscience. I would remind you especiaUy of the
difficult situation of the Protestants in Austria. Between us, however,
between the religious liberals of the English and of the German
tongues, there seems to me to be nothing necessary but a more active
interchange of theological thought, a more exact knowledge of the
very different conditions which prevail, and a better understanding
of the nature of each other's religion. If this is accomplished, then
the result will surely be that each will have from the other some new
gain for the inner life. And thereby, too, our right of existence and
the propagation of a truly religious Liberalism will have been
furthered in the best possible manner.
I sincerely hope that this International Congress will be a mighty
weapon and a blessed instrument in bringing about this end, and I
should be happy if my report should prove to be helpful to the high
purposes which animate it.
The Chairman. — I am going to take the hberty, which I suppose
the Chairman has, of departing a httle from the printed order, and
calling next upon Mr. Theodore Berg, of Copenhagen, who comes
to tell us about the outlook in Denmark and Norway.
the members of the Association— for the discussion of religious questions is, in many cities, a special
work of our society. The attendance of women at these meetings is large. Work with the young
also takes the interest of many.
FinaUy, mention of the fact should not be omitted, that the EvangeUsch-soaale Kongress,
a respected and growing organization, of which Professor Harnack is now president, has for a
number of years been promoted and supported for the most part by Freunden der Christlichen
Welt.

ii5

THE LIBERAL RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT IN
NORWAY AND DENMARK.
READ BY THEO. BERG, COPENHAGEN.
My Danish brethren have enjoined me to bring you their loving
brotherly greeting and heartfelt thanks for aU you have been and are
to us. I have been asked to teU you something about the liberal
rehgious movement in our country, and its neighbor and near and
dear relative, Norway, which country, unfortunately, is not repre
sented at this Congress. I shall, as we say, "use the broad brush,"
trying to give you a general impression of the situation, avoiding
details, which, worked at haphazard into a sketch like this, tend to
misconceptions. I am sorry that Mr. Haugerud, the Unitarian minister at Chris-
tiania, has been prevented from coming. Having lived fourteen
years in the United States and being at this moment the moving
force amongst the Norwegian Unitarians, he, more than any other
man, would have made inteUigible to you the circumstances under
which our Norwegian brethren are living and working.
Great literary names are woven into the history of the liberal re
hgious movement in Norway. At the beginning of the last century
one of the greatest poets of Norway, — I doubt if I may not say of
Scandinavia, — Wergeland, held and professed in aU his writings
Unitarian views. He was fearless, downright, and reckless, and,
accordingly, in his time met with more resistance and condemna
tion than sympathy and appreciation; but his influence on his
people was great and abiding.
Close upon Wergeland foUowed Bjornson, at the present day
Norway's greatest poet, the thorough-going idealist, the undaunted
vindicator of liberty, rehgious as weU as pohtical. He is an old man
now, but still in fuU vigor, as warm-hearted and as liberal-minded
as a youth of twenty. Any form of orthodoxy is hateful to him,

u6
and any attempt at spiritual subjugation wiU make him rise in
wrathful, chivahous opposition. The spiritual as weU as pohtical
Ufe of Norway bears the mark of these two great and faithful ser
vants to the cause of liberty.
Their names have, however, never been associated directly with
that of Unitarianism. When the history of Unitarianism in Norway
shaU be written, it is two other names that wih be mentioned first,
Tambs Lyche and Kristofer Janson. Of the two, that of Kristofer
Janson is the best known. His education for the EstabUshed Church,
his position as a minister, and, primarily, his great literary and
oratorical gifts secured for him a notoriety which never feU to the
lot of Tambs Lyche, though both were equaUy devoted to the cause
of religious liberty and the Unitarian faith, and its fearless pioneers
in their country.
Both men first came in contact with Unitarianism in the United
States. Kristofer Janson worked there for years, founding and
serving Unitarian congregations, their highly appreciated minister.
Both embraced this form of Christianity with strong and deep-
rooted devotion and enthusiasm. Tambs Lyche was the first to
return to his native country, and with aU the strength, the skiU, the
unselfishness of a fine character and a bright inteUect he strove
by word and pen to spread the views and ideas so precious to him
self amongst his countrymen. He never spared himself, but, fuU
of hope and cheer, it may be said that he worked himself to death in
a few years. His work bore fruit, and was carried on by Kristofer
Janson, who in 1893 founded the first Norwegian — in fact, the first
Scandinavian — Unitarian congregation at Christiania. Regular
Sunday services were held, attended at times by four or five hundred
men and women. Lectures were dehvered by him throughout aU
Norway, and even in Sweden and Denmark he became a weU-known
and appreciated lecturer and preacher. Through his many publi
cations — novels and poems as weU as reUgious and social treatises —
his views have been spread aU over Scandinavia. Many are those
in Denmark, as well as in Norway, who mourn that his failing health
and advanced age have compeUed his partial retirement from public
life. His successor as minister to the Christiania congregation is Herman
Haugerud, a young man who got his theological education at the

CURTIS GUILD, Jr.
Governor of Massachusetts

HON. JOHN D. LONG
Boston, Mass.

PRES. CHARLES W. ELIOT, LLJ).
Cambridge, Mass.

REV. SAMUEL M. CROTHERS, DJ).
Cambridge, Mass.

ii7
MeadviUe Theological School, and for more than ten years served
as minister to Unitarian congregations in different places in the
United States. From his experience amongst them he brought with
him to Christiania fresh, invigorating ideas, and, thanks to his
energy, his eloquence and zeal, the work there begun by the two
other men has greatly prospered under his guidance. All kinds of
associations and institutions, such as young people's clubs, Sunday-
schools, singing classes, etc., have sprung up in his congregation,
and his audience is rapidly and steadily increasing.
Concerning the professed Unitarians in Norway — those who have
left the National, the Estabhshed Church — it may be said that they
form a thriving, zealous community, bravely taking their part in
the spreading of what to them seems the true Christianity, faithfuUy
working for the realization of that kingdom of God of which Jesus
spoke. But, besides this, in Norway, as everywhere else, the Estab
lished Church — in this case the Lutheran — is, so to speak, saturated
with Unitarianism. Opponents as weU as adherents of this form of
Christianity acknowledge this, no one trying to cover up the fact.
To-day the name of a young minister of the Estabhshed Church,
Carl Konow, is on the Ups of every man in the Scandinavian countries.
He seems to hold Unitarian views on aU the essential points of Chris
tianity. His conception of the birth and resurrection of Jesus,
his ideas about the atonement and sacraments, are purely Unitarian,
and in some lectures deUvered by him at Bergen last year he has
openly and clearly stated them. Seven members of his congregation
complained about this to his bishop, and, though more than three
hundred men and women protested against this complaint, the
bishop and church authorities have done what was in their power to
make him give up his pulpit. In Norway a minister of the Church
can be deprived of his pulpit only by a decision of the law courts.
Pastor Konow flatly refused to comply with the wishes of the church
authorities, stating it as his firm conviction that he would thereby
injure the Church and the cause of truth. It is at this moment un
certain whether the authorities wiU appeal to the law courts, the
Uberal party in the Church being strong, and even a great part of its
orthodox clergy and laity being adverse to go to law about questions
so purely spiritual. The case in aU its details, especiaUy Pastor
Konow's views and standpoint, is fuU of interest; but time to-day

n8
wiU not allow me to enter more fully upon it. I must now pass from
Norway to my own country, Denmark.
Let me begin by saying that you cannot speak of Danish Unita
rians in the same sense as you can speak of Norwegian, English,
American, or HungarianUnitarians. In these countries the Unitarians
form a separate body. They are men and women who have left the
Established Church to form free and independent churches of their
own. Nothing of the kind has yet been done in Denmark. It is
true that some hundreds of men and women holding Unitarian views,
about eight years ago, founded an association caUed by the somewhat
misguiding name Det fri Kirkesamfund, — the free church association.
It is true that this association holds regular Sunday services, and has
chosen for a preacher a man, Uffe Birkedal, whose views conform
as closely as possible with those of the leading Unitarians in Great
Britain and United States of the present day. It is true that its
committee consists of professed Unitarians. It is true that at this
moment it is looked upon by the general public, and looks upon
itself, as an organization of Unitarians. But, according to its
statutes, the sole aim of the association is "to spread free rehg
ious knowledge, and to work for the continuation of the Prot
estant movement inaugurated by Martin Luther," and at this
present moment almost all its members are members of the
Established Church, — "the People's Church," as it is caUed in
Denmark. I may perhaps try to make the situation comprehensible to you
by teUing you that aU which is required of one as a member of this
Estabhshed or People's Church is that one should be baptized accord
ing to the orthodox Lutheran baptismal formula. No subscription to,
no verbal confession whatever of any creed is required of any lay
member of the Church. If a certificate can be produced, stating
that you have been baptized by a minister in the Church, you are
compeUed to pay church rates, and are entitled to the use of the
church buildings and the administrations of its ministers until you
shall either have sent in to your parish clergyman notice that you
desire to leave the Church or have formally entered another religious
body— Roman Cathohc, Methodist, Jewish— legaUy acknowledged
by the State as an independent church. In consequence of this
leniency on the part of the Church the people as a whole— according

"9
to the last census 97 per cent, of the population — belongs to the
Estabhshed Church.
Now those Unitarian men and women who eight years ago united
in an association were then, as I have said, with one or two exceptions,
members of the Estabhshed Church, and after some very brief vaciUa-
tion they made up their mind to remain so, and, rather than leave
the People's Church and form a separate rehgious body, to remain
in it, openly professing their faith, and laboring with aU their might
for a reformation of this Church, so that its Unitarian members
might in future be enabled to range themselves within its pale in
free congregations in fuU accordance with their rehgious convictions.
This surely must seem natural and, I hope and trust, right to you.
To remain part of the Church into which it has been born is, and
ought surely to be, the heart's desire of any religious movement.
The disadvantages of forming denominations and sects, the advan
tage of Uving under the old roof as part of the whole flock, are so self-
evident that I should only waste your time by pointing them out.
Better strive to unite on the points whereon you agree than to separate
on the points of disagreement. The great question in this case is
this: Is it possible, is there any chance whatever, that the Danish
Church be so reformed that Unitarians can honestly and openly hve
inside its waUs? We beheve so, or we would not stay in or labor
for it.
In the ranks of orthodoxy there is a great, vigorous, hberal party,
consisting of men who are at least as anxious as we are that this
reformation should be accompUshed. They argue in this way:
AU that the Grundlov (the constitution) says about the Estab
hshed Church — the Church supported and governed by the people
and the king — is that it is Evangelical-Lutheran. No definition of
these words is given. Now, whatever they mean on paper, it is a
recognized fact that in reality this Church has always contained, and
at times almost consisted of men who held Unitarian views. Badly
disguised Unitarianism has been preached, and is to-day preached,
from many of its pulpits. At the present time, more than ever before,
Unitarian views are being propagated throughout the whole country
by translations of the modern German theological works and by
men, lay and ecclesiastical, who have been influenced by these. We
could not, even if we would, — the Uberal orthodox party argues,—

120

expel these heretics from the People's Church. AU we could accom
plish if we tried would be the exclusion of a handful of honest, sincere,
rehgious men and women, while we should keep amongst us all the
hypocritical and indifferent infidels. But, even if we could by main
force cleanse the Church of Unitarians, hidden as weU as professed,
we would not try. We could not conscientiously use the arm of the
civil power against purely spiritual opponents. Beheving it, as we
do, to be well and beneficial for the people that it should uphold and
support a common national institution for religious education and
edification, we want the EstabUshed Church preserved, but at the
same time we maintain that an Estabhshed, a State Church is mainly
a civic institution, which must not be mistaken for a missionary
station. The State must scrupulously avoid aU spiritual guardian
ship over its citizens. Its Church must at aU times be made wide
enough for the bulk of the people to Uve inside its pale in freedom
and honesty.
According to the present constitution, which we beheve the people
unwilling to alter, the Church is EvangeUcal-Lutheran. Roman
CathoUcs are excluded. Men with Methodist, Adventist, and Quaker
views have left it to form legally recognized religious associations of
their own, but these Unitarians have stuck, and stiU stick to it. They
have formed part and parcel of it as long as it has existed, and cannot
now be expeUed. Would it not be best for us as for them, for the
Church itself and the people at large, that this should be officially
acknowledged, that we should give these words "Evangelical-
Lutheran" a spiritual, not a hteral, interpretation? Would not the
Church be more in accordance with the spirit of Martin Luther,
more honest, stronger, and purer, if it aUowed, yea, encouraged them
to range themselves within its walls in accordance with their con
victions? Let us make of this national institution which we call our
People's Church a real Protestant church, where each man has a
right and a duty to read and honestly interpret the Bible by his own
Ught, a national church of which any Danish man, woman, or child
professing him or herself a disciple of Christ and a Protestant, may
be a member, — a temple with open doors and warm welcome for
the sons of the land.
Now this party, this programme for a church organization, dates
more than seventy years back. I cannot here mention the great

121
hberal men who have fought for it. Grundtvig, the great, towering
reUgious genius of the last century in our country, was — himself a
convinced Trinitarian — the originator of it; and foremost amongst
its dauntless champions stands the father of our minister, Pastor
Birkedal, an orthodox minister in the EstabUshed Church but a
fearless vindicator of spiritual freedom. Slowly, step by step, this
party has led the National Church towards this glorious goal, always
having the bishops and bulk of the clergy against them, generaUy sup
ported by the people. Though the conservative of to-day acknowl
edges that the steps taken in former days towards greater liberty,
greater tolerance inside the Church, have been beneficial for the
orthodox party as weU as for the Church as a whole, he stiU looks at
proposed Uberal measures with fear and distrust, and every con
cession has to be wrested from him.
Now when our Det fri Kirkesamfund made its demand that the
Unitarian members of the Church be entitled to unite in free con
gregations, free so far as control of creeds and dogmas, rituals and
preaching are concerned, but stiU members of the main body, gather
ing strength and succor from it, infusing new blood into its veins, a
new combatant entered upon the arena. Hitherto the "heretic," the
"infidel," had held his peace, remained in the background, quietly
profiting by any Uberal measures adopted by the clergy and orthodox
laity. The question whether the State could dispense with creeds
and confessions in its Church — make it through and through Protes
tant — had mainly been a theoretical question, a question of principles.
Now at a stroke it became a dire wrestling about facts. What shaU
be done with these men and women, legaUy members of the Church,
openly professed Unitarians, demanding a reformation of their
country's Church — the Church supported in part by themselves —
which wiU enable them to Uve honestly inside it? This question
rapidly rose to the surface, and in a few years became the pivot on
which the whole church policy turned. Men and women who had
never concerned themselves about church affairs, hearing about the
Unitarian question are now seeking information about it, and in
their minds are weighing the old creed and dogmas, the old in
terpretation of the Bible and its teachings with the views and con
ceptions held by Christian Unitarians to-day, and are trying to form
an opinion for themselves.

122
Two great advantages have then been attained by our decision to
remain in the Church: —
First, the knowledge of the Unitarian faith and views is spreading
in ways far broader and all-embracing than would have been the case
if we, instead of standing up for a reformation of the Church, had
quietly left it in order to form a new and small denomination.
Secondly, — and this is by far the greatest gain, — the new proposal
that the Unitarian members of the Church should be aUowed to form
congregations of their own, that Unitarianism should be openly
and legally preached alongside with Trinitarianism in the Estabhshed
Church, has undoubtedly greatly augmented religious interest, zeal,
and sincerity in the Church. Hitherto many devout men and women
have dozed away, comfortably convinced that creeds and dogmas
were the concern of the authorities. You might conform to them or
differ from them, but the State through its officials would see to it
that the gospel was interpreted uniformly aU through its churches
according to the laws of the country. Now they hear of a new pro
posal, that the State should lay the Bible on the table, open to the
interpretation of every man and woman according to their own Ught
and conscience. They hear that it might come to this, that the State
should say through its own Church, " Read and choose for yourseU."
Men and women are awakening to the feeling of more personal
responsibility in spiritual matters, they are rising, they are uniting
to make a manly, faithful stand for their reUgious conviction, whatever
it may be.
Surely, this is a great gain. So, even if we do not win our point,
even if we be at last compeUed in the interest of truth and honesty
to leave the old Church, we shall feel that we have not labored in
vain. Of the missionary work done by us I can speak quite briefly.
It is carried on by very much the same means and in the same way
as in England, Norway, and other countries. We hold regular Sun
day services in Copenhagen and in Aarhus in Jutland, fairly weU
attended in both places. Through our postal mission and our two
periodicals, and through tracts and books, translations and original
works, by meetings held at different times and places, by words written
and spoken wherever a hearing may be had, we strive to propagate
our views. Much zeal is here exhibited, and in this work we are

123
indebted to our Enghsh brethren for invaluable help and assistance,
material as weU as spiritual. Compared to our brethren in other
lands, we fah sadly short and feel very humble and insignificant in
this respect; but we are doing our work cheerfuUy and hopefuUy,
sustained by the blessed conviction that, placed where we are, under
the given circumstances, we have been intrusted with a special
mission, — that of standing up bravely for the realization of the ideal
Christian community, the CathoUc Protestant Church.
At the conclusion of Mr. Berg's address it was voted to postpone
the two other papers on the program until to-morrow, after which
the meeting adjourned at 3.30 o'clock to attend the various depart
ment meetings arranged for the remainder of the afternoon.
Note. — The paper by Professor O. E. Lindberg, of Gotheburg, on "The
Religious Situation in Sweden," crowded out of its order by the exceeding length
of preceding papers, was read by him at an overflow meeting in the South Con
gregational Church on the evening of September 25, presided over by Rev.
Dr. T. R. Slicer, of New York. It is printed here in full, together with a report
on "Liberal Religion in New Zealand," made at the banquet on Thursday even
ing, September 26, by the delegate from that country, Miss Mary E. Richmond,
and a communication on "Religious Conditions in Australia," forwarded by
Rev. Charles Strong, of Melbourne, and read by title only because of lack of
time. Prof. Goldwin Smith's paper was kindly forwarded to the Committee.

124

THE CONDITION AND PROSPECTS OF LIBERAL
CHRISTIANITY IN SWEDEN.
BY PROFESSOR F. O. LINDBERG, OF GOTHENBURG.
Before entering upon my theme I beg to express to your Executive
Committee my warmest thanks for the opportunity it has given
me to attend this magnificent congress, in the country where Emer
son published to the world his grand, suggestive thoughts and the
town where Parker gave eloquent utterance to his spirituaUy awak
ening and radical opinions.
In deaUng with the subject, "The Condition of Liberal Christi
anity in Sweden," three points of view are chiefly, I think, to be con
sidered: first, the churchly one; then the one concerning dissenters,
or free religious feUowships in general; finally, the one respecting
the more philosophical phase of free Christian thought among us.
There is in Sweden a National or Established Lutheran Church
and also various dissenting sects, independent of the ecclesiastical
authority of the State. It is true of the National Church, as for the
most part of aU rehgious institutions which have lived through
ages, that she clings to traditions. This has most recently
found particular expression — to cite but one example — in a petition
which our bishops, supported by some of the independent sects,
presented to the government, in order to retain their influence over
the colleges; for this influence is, in consequence of a lately estab
hshed superior board of managers for the aforesaid schools, about
to slip out of their hands.
We may, however, acknowledge that our Estabhshed Church has
gradually learned to be comparatively tolerant. An undeniable ex
ception from this rule is a faction which regards itself as super-
orthodox, but which, in fact, is only a sect within the Swedish
National Church. It is caUed Schartauanism. It seems to me as if
this reUgious species wished that all liberal religious thought had

125
but a single throat, in order that with one stroke it might be cut off.
This church party has ministers stih characterized by quite a medi
aeval cast of mind, hostile not only to religious evolution, but to
progress in general, which it looks upon as leading to a weakened
morality. Yet it cannot be denied aU merit. There is something
of steel in its constitution. Characters, though old-fashioned and
strongly opposed to the spirit of the time, it has certainly pro
duced. But much beyond the negative merit of a certain tolerance
our National Church has not reached. Modifications for the better
effected by it are few and trifling. She does not, as a rule, want
to hear a word about a more thorough alteration of her dogmatic
notions and antiquated ceremonies and institutions.
Notwithstanding this general state of the National Church, many
individual religious thinkers within it — it is a pleasure to say —
cherish enlightened opinions, often far-reaching. At the universities
we meet such liberal-minded theologians as the professors PerEklund,
Nat. Soderblom, and G. M. PfannenstiU, the university lecturer T.
Segerstedt, and others. In this connection I may mention as a
cheering symptom the increasing interest in foreign religious reports
and doctrines, to which, among other things, a work edited by the
above-named Soderblom, containing translated extracts from foreign
reUgious writers, gives testimony. But even clergymen, and they
not a few, outside the universities harbor free religious views.
Among these, Rector S. A. Frees in Stockholm, our most distinguished
authority on Bibhcal criticism, known even abroad, ought to be
mentioned in the first place; but there are also many others, whom
I cannot, for want of time, here enumerate. A hberal church
periodical, entitled Christianity and our Time, lately started, counts
among its collaborators some twenty clergymen more or less liberal-
minded. There exists also in Gothenburg a lately formed society
for research into reUgious history, whose leader is a theological
teacher at one of the pubhc colleges in that town. This society
has edited a series of writings, entitled " Popular Books on ReUgious
History," being translations from the best that modern reUgious
thought and research present to us.
As for dissenting or independent congregations in general, within or
outside the Church, we are gratefuUy indebted to them for a good
deal of sound blood in our social body. The moral discipline which

126
they exercise over their individual members is in some respects a
salt against the putrefaction which social vices are inclined to pro
duce in aU times and in every nation. A noticeable merit is also
that with few exceptions they take their reUgion in earnest and
have repudiated almost aU outworn reUgious ceremonies, desiring
to "worship the Father in spirit and in truth." I am sorry, how
ever, to say that in our country they are not so advanced in point
of doctrine. They are indeed in this respect more conservative
than the Church herself. They tolerate very unwillingly members
who hold a little broader views than they themselves.
But what is stiU more to be regretted is the course of action taken
by such men as the famous P. Waldenstrom. At first he put forth
a few sound and reformatory opinions bearing on the dogma of
vicarious satisfaction, and thereby caUed into existence a large and
important party within the National Church. Afterwards, however,
he not only cut short his reformative activity, but also stiffened the
other dogmas much more than that Church herself, being more
anxious than she ever was to condemn aU reUgious research, above
everything Biblical criticism, which proved a considerable check
to the rise and growth of free thought.
Yet even within non-conformist religious circles men of enlight-
ened mind are not wanting, though like the mentaUy more advanced
spirits of the Middle Ages they often have their opinions enveloped
in a chrysaUs of dogmatic phrases. Yet a couple of them have
openly spoken out their mind, among these the noted Dr. J.
Ekman in Stockholm. He is the most significant and most worthy
representative of modern theology within the non-conformist re
Ugious bodies in Sweden, for which he also has been very sharply
taken to task by his former feUow-worshippers.
In the third category I comprehend all those who outwardly
belong to no established creed but the Church, but who are influenced
by philosophy, so that by its means, in a certain way, they have
formed or modified their Christian belief. Philosophy — this bene
ficial purgatory of religions — is to some extent inherent in the blood
of our people. We have in later times had several important
thinkers, such as Erik Gustaf Geijer, Hoijer, P. Wikner, Victor
Rydberg, Nyblaeus, and, above aU, Christopher Bostrorn, as weU
as at the present moment the prominent professor Vit. Norstrom

127
at the university to which I myself belong. Three of these
especiaUy (to wit, Bostrom, Wikner, and Victor Rydberg) have enor
mously influenced our moral and spiritual ways of thought. They
have widened, deepened, and elevated it even where it has retained
the letter of orthodoxy. StiU better, this reUgious-philosophical
movement ha,s not only brought much truth into view, but it has
also been able to create characters reahy reUgious. It has gradually
dawned upon the ordinary religious mind that there may exist
such a thing as a Christian hfe based throughout on hberal Christian
thought. This seems to me highly important, since because of
this assurance timid, pious-minded souls venture to think. The
men and women who in this semi-philosophical reUgious manner
are framing their spiritual Ufe are not a few, and they are increasing
in number day by day. Many of them are wealthy and independent
persons, who sacrifice comparatively much on the altar of a healthy
reUgious enUghtenment. In Stockholm, for instance, there is Uving
a very rich, highly cultured man, whose name I am not aUowed to
mention, who spends several hundred pounds a year for this purpose.
Among men who preach the Bible word in the Ught of free thought
and, let me add, with genuine prophetic ardor, Nat. Beskow should
be named. Even women are working with us along this line, though
for the most part by writing, such as Anna Roos.
It should here also be noticed that theosophy and spiritual
ism have in some measure acted upon our rehgious minds.
There exists in Sweden, though sporadicaUy, a theosophical
Christianity. If we now, for a moment, touch upon the question which
dogmas have been obhged to yield to the progressive march of the
new spirit in my country, this must, for want of time, be treated of
in a few words. I am glad to say that the preaching of the devil
and heU, with aU their horrors, at length begins to fade away into
the past. Both the Established Church and the non-conformist bodies
in their pubUc teaching lay more stress on the love of God and
Ufe everlasting than on eternal death. People obviously begin to
look upon evil from somewhat different points of view than hereto
fore. It is as if there were passing through our common religious
consciousness a touch of the meaning of those lines in Longfellow's
"Golden Legend":—

128
" It is Lucifer,
The son of mystery,
And since God suffers him to be,
He, too, is God's minister,
And labors for some good
By us not understood."
In reality, it is the spirit of the time which forces the preachers to
humanize their teaching rather than the demand of the church
people, whose bigotry too often prevents this. With greater diffi
culty certain other dogmas give way, such as that of the Trinity, of
the vicarious atonement, of justification only by the grace of God,
and so forth. And no wonder, for the central idea of "the Ser
mon on the Mount," the idea which identifies inner, everlasting
bliss with spiritual and moral perfection, has not yet largely dawned
upon our reUgious world in Sweden. To it spiritual life is stiU
more a mechanical procedure from without than any organic process
within the mind.
Finally, in casting the horoscope of the reUgious future of my
fatherland, I feel the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, of play
ing the prophet, all the more so as the reUgious movements in my
own country are very intimately connected with the spiritual evolu
tion of Europe at large, — nay, with that of the whole world, as nowa
days, more perhaps than ever in the days of Neo-Platonism, Orient
and Occident are influencing each other. I can indicate but my
own opinion and hopes. These are to the effect that we are slowly,
but surely, advancing towards the hour when those of our nation
who are more seriously interested in spiritual and moral things will
be penetrated at least intuitively with somewhat the following ideas:
First, that the Sermon of the Mount is the kernel of Christianity
and the flower of all reUgion. Further, that the regeneration which
the Fourth Gospel rightly, though not for the first time in history,
puts into spiritual thought and life, is certainly a wonderful mental
process, initiated and in every way forwarded by forces divine and
eternal, but that it has by no means anything to do with the dog
matical, artificial, and juridical procedure which the Christian
churches and sects have made of it; in a word, that spiritual Ufe
is of such a profoundly ethical nature that aU real inner harmony
is brought about by moral and mental perfection. I think also,
and hope, that the time is not far off when dogmas totaUy at

129
variance with aU humane, ethical thought, such as the dogma of
eternal damnation, that of vicarious expiatory sacrifice, that of three
personaUties within the Godhead equaUy divine and perfect, that
of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Holy One, shall
be cherished only by a few bigoted souls, whereas the greater part
of our people will have thrown them over. They wiU understand
them to be based not on the Gospels, but on quite heathen habits
of thought; not very elevated, either, as comparative rehgious history
has fuUy shown. And a respectable minority wiU, I hope, devote
themselves very earnestly to a reUgion which shaU have, as its con
fession of faith, only the writings of the New Testament, especiaUy
the Gospels; but according to their spirit, not in bondage to their
letter. And this minority wiU have its dogmas, in case we are to
speak of such, modified by the parliament of psychical and religious
research, as weU as of spiritual and philosophical thought. Much
in my dear native country seems to point in this direction.
We have, however, to make a fight also against materialism in
Sweden. This is making its appearance not so much within the
middle classes as within the upper ten and among the organized
laborers, being the issue of the irrational and sterile dogmatism of
the church bodies. The reUgious nihiUsm of the socialistic party,
too, has been fostered to a great extent by the Church herself, which
has omitted to take serious interest in the needs of the working
classes. In defeating materialistic agencies I am convinced that
true scientific psychical research and natural science wiU both be
of exceUent service. For the time is, I believe, not far off when
the strongly convergent lines of these two wiU meet at a point
where they wiU demonstrate, jointly, the truth of the immortality
of the soul, as weU as of the opinion that this earth-Ufe is but a
stepping-stone in a mighty series of progressions towards the fully
developed and perfected kingdom of God. Thus the idea will have
dawned upon our mind, — the grand idea which the Fourth Gospel
puts forth in its sixteenth chapter, that of evolutionary Christianity.
In this sign we shall be victorious in Sweden and aU over the world,
and along this line we shaU come to understand the familiar word
in the same Fourth Gospel: "Ye shaU know the truth, and the truth
shaU make you free."

13°

THE PROSPECTS OF LIBERAL RELIGION IN
AUSTRALIA.
BV CHARLES STRONG, D.D., OF THE AUSTRALIAN CHURCH, MEL
BOURNE.
I thank your Executive Council for the honor of an invitation to
your International Congress of Liberal Thinkers and Workers.
I greatly regret my inability to avail myself of the privUege of
being present as a humble representative of the cause of Free ReUg
ion in AustraUa, and of enjoying the feUowship of leaders in the
realm of Religion whose names have long been to some of us in this
distant land household words.
But I am glad to be able to faU in with the suggestion of your
Honorary Secretary, and to contribute a short paper on "The Pros
pects of Liberal ReUgion in Australia," so that Victoria may not be
altogether unrepresented.
It may be weU to begin by defining what I, at least, mean by
"Liberal Religion."
By Religion I mean an attitude or seU-relation of the human spirit
towards God as the informing spirit of aU.
By Liberal Religion I mean, first, ReUgion that has outgrown aU
Dogma — miraculously conveyed and attested communication, un
alterable, to be received on authority, by aU true believers — just as a
winged creature has outgrown its chrysaUs form. I mean ReUgion
whose windows alike of heart and mind are thrown open to the East,
to receive any larger Ught and any fresh inspiration of Love, which
regards no theological creed as other than a cup in which a draught
from the ever-flowing stream has been temporarily imprisoned, and
which recognizes evolution as a universal law of human thought and
experience, even in the sphere of things divine.
By Liberal ReUgion I mean, secondly, that ethical and spiritual
attitude, as of free sons and daughters towards the spirit of aU,

J31
flowering and fruiting in a corresponding attitude of fraternal good
will to man, of which Jesus of Nazareth may be taken as the primi
tive type, and which has in all ages been the differentiating mark
of his foUowers.
Liberal Religion, as I understand it, rejects the whole dogmatic
conception of Rehgion as irrational, unhistorical, and unspiritual.
It dethrones historical and theological beliefs as idols, when ex
alted into the chief seat, to put in their place, as the very centre of the
picture, the underlying theme to the whole symphony, the key to life
here and hereafter, — Love, — spiritual, self-sacrificing, and yet self-
fulfilling Love of the Whole, of the Highest, and of all in Him.
Liberal ReUgion is thus no mere negation (though it necessarily
contains a negative "moment"), but is a very clear and distinct
positive. It is the positive reaffirmation of Ethical Faith (as distin
guished from InteUectual Behef, as being the distinguishing mark and
test of the "Christian," as it is further the reaffirmation that "the
churches' one foundation" and the one bond of feUowship in the
historic, apostohc, and catholic Church of God — semper, ubique, et ab
omnibus — is Love. "He that abides in love abides in God, and God
abides in him," as the Scriptures say.
As Liberal Rehgious Thinkers and Workers, we are not, I take it,
seeking to destroy, but to fulfil, by restoring the ethical and religious
to that place which they held of old in the teaching of Jesus, but from
which they have so long been banished by the traditions and com
mandments of men. What, in short, we are seeking, is a revival of
Rehgion pure and undefiled, and through this a Revival of the Ideal
of the Cathohc Church throughout all the world, as the family and
the army of the God who is " Spirit, Light, and Love."
Now, if I am asked what are the prospects in Australia of Liberal
ReUgion, in the sense I have indicated, I cannot say that at present
they are altogether encouraging. The old dogmatic conception of
Rehgion stiU prevaUs in our churches.
We have lately had much talk of reunion of churches. Com
mittees have discussed possible bases of reunion, between Presby
terian and Anglican, on the one hand, and between Presbyterians,
Methodists, and Congregationalists, on the other, but as yet without
any very definite result. The dominant idea in aU these negotia
tions stiU is that religion is, more or less, Dogma, even though the

132'
Dogma may be attenuated and reduced to a rag, and that it is also,
more or less, essentially an Historical Belief.
The old conception of the Bible as "infallible," miraculously
written and miraculously preserved through the ages, and from which
a dogmatic creed, necessary to " salvation " from a miraculous " hell,"'
must be extracted and formulated, stiU prevails; and any union
proposed is always based on uniformity of belief, not on unity of Faith,
spirit, purpose, and active endeavor for the "Kingdom of God" on
earth. Our AngUcan brethren stiU harp on the old string of the
"historic episcopate" as being of the very essence of the Faith!
As an iUustration of the whereabouts of a section at least of our
people, a "monster meeting" was lately called by advertisement in
Melbourne Town Hall. A bishop occupied the chair, and different
churches were represented by the speakers. The object for which
this great meeting of three thousand people was held was declared
to be "to reaffirm the old Theology."
At a large Anglican Congress held some time ago in Melbourne
many important questions were discussed, and some hberal senti
ments were uttered by individual speakers; but the great problem
of Religion and the Church was not faced, and is not yet faced, I
think, by any of the churches.
Our people, moreover, are immersed in the pursuit of business,
politics, and pleasure. A very large proportion of them never
darken a church door, and show no interest in anything distinctly
religious. Sunday is to many a mere day of pleasure, and young
people drift outside of churches and religious influences. Our pre
vailing ideas, if not theoretically, are practicaUy somewhat material
istic, and consequently religion is at a discount, church life is not
progressive or inspiring, and the home life loses its sacredness and
piety. Our churches are often said to be out of touch with modern
thought and out of sympathy with the democratic aspirations of the
people. Some of the more cultured and many of the working
classes are thus alienated from the Church, which no longer takes
its legitimate place as the Soul and Spiritual Centre of the national
life. There is, consequently, not that interest in churches and Religion
favorable to the reform of Religion, and the demands of Liberal
Religion not for new ritual or new dogma, but for a new fellowship

133
and a new hfe, private and social, based on Faith and Love, do not
meet with general response. Even reformers who are bravely battling
for a more righteous Social System, and who might be expected to
hail a Liberal Religion as their natural ally, hold aloof from churches,
either because they distrust them or because they imagine that aU
humanity needs is a readjustment of material conditions and environ
ment. Nothwithstanding, however, much that is unfavorable to the growth
of Liberal Religion in Australia, there is a leaven of better things at
work among us. We have earnest and thoughtful men and women
among us who long for a more hving and liberal Church as the Light
of the Commonwealth, and the guide of the young men and women
who consciously or unconsciously have broken with the old Dog
matic Ideal of Rehgion and the Church, and have risen above the old
barriers of contending creeds and sectarianisms, whether "orthodox"
or "unorthodox."
There is reason to beUeve that many, even in our "orthodox"
churches, are far broader in their sympathies than their official
creeds and trust-deeds would lead us to believe, although they are not
prepared to make any sacrifice for their Faith. They are held back,
perhaps by old associations, by fear of revolution, or by dread of the
sociological change which it is more and more coming to be felt is
involved in the substitution of Religion for Dogma.
Here and there voices are raised in the pulpit in support of what
is caUed "The New Theology," and liberal utterances are heard on
"The Higher Criticism." The fundamental dogma of "God's
Decree" seems to have melted away in the Calvinistic reforming
pot, and it is not long since a leading Presbyterian minister in Vic
toria published a pamphlet urging that belief in the Virgin-birth,
although held by himself, should not be made obligatory on ministers
or other office-bearers. The Presbyterians, to relieve their conscious
ness, have passed "Declaratory Acts" which are supposed to modify
the stringency of the ordination vow, though the legality of this may
be doubted, and the effect of such Acts is to make the unaccepted
dogmas stiU more binding.
The foundation dogma of an everlasting Hell on which the
dogmatic "Scheme of Salvation" hinges no longer occupies the
place it did, and the old "hell-fire" theology is at a discount, al-

134
though the logical consequences of this radical change do not seem
to be discerned.
There is good practical work being done by some of our churches,
and there is a growing feeling that a living church means a practical
church, interesting itself in the social welfare of the people. The
social problem is discussed in some of our pulpits, and always ap
pears now on the programme of our church assembUes or congresses,
while, in our many societies for advancing the public good, men and
women of every creed and of no creed work harmoniously together.
The difficulty is to unite and organize the Liberal Religious Life
of Australia, and so to make it more a power for good than it is.
Much, I think, might be done by the dissemination of healthy re
ligious literature of a popular but educational character, discussing
the religious problems of to-day, not in a sectarian or controversial,
but in a liberal and catholic spirit. There might thus be put within
the reach of aU the best and most assured results of modern reUg
ious thought and activity. The people need to be instructed. Even
those liberaUy disposed do not know what is being said and done in
the name of Liberal Religion aU over the world. Liberal ReUgion
is thought to be a little sectarian affair, having no higher aim than to
make proselytes for a sect.
Liberal thinkers and workers need to be drawn together and to
know what their brethren throughout the world are doing and
thinking. Could there not be a recognized journal of Liberal Religion for
the world, contributed to by Liberal Thinkers and Workers in many
lands, published in different languages, and containing news of every
liberal church organization ? It would need, however, to be a journal
popularly and simply written, suitable for distribution among con
gregations as weU as clergy.
I think, further, that the establishment of a Permanent Centre of
Liberal Religion may be necessary, on the lines of the " Institute of
Social Service " established in New York and London by my friend,
Dr. Josiah Strong, in touch with aU the churches and able to furnish
counsel and information to any seeking aid.
Missionaries of Liberal ReUgion are sorely wanted, — men, and
women, also, full of faith and wisdom and knowledge, bearing no
name but that of "Liberal Religion," from whatever section of the

i3S
Church they may come, lecturing and preaching perhaps, by prefer
ence, in halls outside of the churches, on neutral ground.
A visit from such apostles of the "Larger Faith" and the true
Evangel might do much to stir us up here in Australia, and to unite
the many scattered reUgious "Liberals" to be found within and with
out the Commonwealth.
Surely, it might be possible to raise a fund to defray the traveUing
expenses of such missionaries. It is the living voice we want to in
spire us, and not merely the written word.

136

LIBERAL RELIGION IN NEW ZEALAND.
BY MISS MARY E. RICHMOND, OF WELLINGTON.
I am greatly obUged to you for the very kind way in which you
have responded to the mention of the name of New Zealand. I am
a New Zealander born and bred. I represent here the youngest
church, I believe, in the community of liberal churches. We are
only nine months old. We have in New Zealand two churches
now, the one in my city has been going for about nine months, the
one in Auckland has been going five or six years. We are a Uttle
flock, a very smaU band, but aU beginnings are smaU, and it is the
innate vigor of the seed rather than the size of it that matters. The
"Mayflower ' ' was not a very large ship, but since I have come to this
country I have reason to believe that that fraU huU bore across the
stormy Atlantic the better part of the people of New England.
The message that was chosen to be delivered to this Congress by
your three great speakers on the opening night of this conference
at Symphony HaU is a message the power of which grows upon our
hearts and minds as we advance in our efforts towards its practical
realization. And the first practical step to that is, I believe, that we
should know each other. The press, admirable as it is, and stupen
dous as are its achievements, does not always present nations to each
other under their most favorable aspects. Politicians and diplo
matics are generally concerned with the difficulties that beset inter
national relations. Scientific men, absorbed in the observation and
revelation of the great laws of nature, are concerned with something
vaster and calmer than the struggling life of nations. But the men
and women of liberal religion, who have faith in freedom and freedom
in their faith, as M. Jean ReviUe has said, when they meet together,
strengthen the old bonds of human feUowship and discover and
develop new ones. On the great fundamental principles that
underlie aU spiritual life they think alike and feel alike. It is a

i37
happiness and a privilege to read a wise and a friendly book. It is
a much greater happiness, a much greater privilege, to look into
friendly faces and to hold a friendly hand. It is through, I believe,
the intimate religious fellowship of members of this great free faith
aU the world over that the sittings of the Peace Conference are going
.to be rendered effective. The passions of the people are going to
be restrained and calmed, and the great pugnacious forces of the
nations turned toward the struggle with evil. We are a fighting
company, we of the free faith. We do not need to sit still and leave
aU things as they are. Every speech I have heard since I came to
the city of Boston has been a fighting speech. It has been a speech
of a courageous and disciplined spiritual warrior. One of the first
tunes I heard at the official reception the other evening was "On
ward, Christian Soldiers." But this warfare is one that, when it is
accomplished, brings peace and not a sword.
In New Zealand we have these two centres of liberal religion and
activity, one at Auckland in the north of the North Island, one at
WeUington, the capital of our country. Mr. Jenney, who is in
charge at the centre, has done a great deal. He has been there only
five or six years but they have under his leadership a fine stone
•church, and he and his congregation are a centre of beneficent activ
ity. In WeUington we have been with a minister of our own only
about a year. Dr. Tudor Jones is already a power in the city. Odd
FeUows HaU, where we meet, wiU only hold four or five hundred
people, and the corporation has already been after us to say
they are afraid of fire because we so overcrowd it.
We are at present a smaU and suspected community. They do not
quite know what we are going to do. They think we are very likely
anarchists, and are going to bring about a very disagreeable position
•of affairs presently. But I think, as soon as they grow to know us
more, they wiU fear us less and like us better. We shaU prove our
quality, and they wiU see they have made a mistake. We possess
some distinguished members among us. One is the chief justice of
the colony. He is a very great supporter of ours.
I bring you over many utiles of sea the affectionate greetings of
this little society of free and liberal thinkers and workers. I assure
you that aU your proceedings wiU be watched by them with the
warmest and keenest interest. Dr. Tudor Jones, our highly gifted

i38
and successful minister, is himself very sorry not to be able to attend
our meetings. I have no doubt he wiU be preaching about them.
With you the problem is the same as it is with us. We wished
to learn how to develop along with the love of freedom, the desire
for individual emancipation, always prominent in a new country,
that stiU more elevated and supreme passion, the passion of personal
devotion to pubUc and social service. I thank you in the name of
the Unitarians of New Zealand for your kind thought of us. I
think I may carry to them a message of courage and good cheer,
social, political, and also religious. When the PUgrims landed at
Plymouth, they were but a feeble folk. When the EngUsh colonists
sent out by the governor and company of the Massachusetts Bay
came to New England, under the lead of John Winthrop, and founded
Boston in 1630, they were not a powerful people. But now behold
and see this great and enlightened city, this prosperous Common
wealth, this New World! I do not think that we shaU forget, we in
England's colonies, how big a place America is. Our eyes are fixed
upon America. One thing I can teU them when I go back, and that
is that the heart of America is fuUy as large as the country.

J39

LIBERAL RELIGION.
BY PROFESSOR GOLDWIN SMITH, OF TORONTO, CANADA.
Robinson, the pastor of the Enghsh Puritans in HoUand, in his
parting words to members of his flock who were embarking for
America, bewaUed the "condition of the reformed churches that
had come to a period in reUgion and would go no further than the
instruments of their reformation." He exhorted his hearers "to
be as willing to embrace further hght as that which they first re
ceived, and to remember that it was an article of their church
covenant that they should be ready to receive whatever truth should
be made known to them from the written word of God." Literary
research and natural science, though not "the written Word of
God," are also revelations in their way, and from them new light
has broken. But the Protestant Churches stiU remain pent in the
doctrinal formularies and tests of the seventeenth century, which
in their time were perhaps necessary, at aU events naturally adopted
as raUying points of Protestant union and bulwarks against Rome.
Thus the rehgious inteUect, especiaUy the religious intellect of the
clergy, is paralyzed, and they are debarred from themselves receiv
ing and from helping us to attain the truth. The mental position
of some of them, especiaUy the ablest and most learned, must, one
cannot help thinking, be irksome, though they may aUay misgiv
ings on the part of doctrine in the thought of the good that they
are doing by preaching high morality and leading in good works.
Great, surely, would be the gain to us if, at a time when religion seems
to be faiUng altogether, we could set the conscience and inteUect
of aU Christian ministers free. Such I take to be one great practi
cal object of this Congress. It apparently need involve no dis
turbance of church organization, a useful antidote to less kindly
organizations in these contentious days.
Ultra-physicism meantime teUs us confidently that since the dis-

140
covery of evolution by Darwin religion has been dead, and that
a man is a fool who concerns himself with such questions as the
immortality of the soul. The fools are numerous, for it appeared
that the editor of a London journal had received in the course of a
few months no less than nine thousand letters of religious inquiry.
The rich man may be satisfied with the enjoyments of this life,
and "jump the life to come." But even he, if he is disposed to
laugh at religious inquirers, might remember that the foundations
of Christian society have been religious. The many have been
largely reconciled to their lot by the behef that it was a divine ordi
nance, and that for those who did their duty, if their lot was hard
here, there would be compensation hereafter. The impression
may not have been very clear, but it has been present and effective.
To replace it in the minds of the masses by political and economical
science would take time.
A grand discovery, like that of Darwin, is apt to carry us away.
It was said that Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood
set physiologists explaining everything by hydrostatics. Darwin,
Uke Newton before him, hypotheses non finxit. He eschewed hy
pothesis and confined himself to observed facts. He does not pre
tend to tell us what set evolution going or towards what it is moving.
It is not an inteUigent power, but a force which cannot have called
itself into existence. Whether it prevails throughout the universe
we cannot teU. It is distinctly physical, whue there are parts of
human nature which at aU events are not manifestly physical, and
which hitherto evolution has not explained. Nor as yet in all
these thousands of years has there a case been observed of natural
evolution. Breeds of animals have been changed by human agency
or by change of food or climate. The ape has got no nearer to
man. Rudimentary similarities between the ape and man seem
hardly enough to prove evolution. Nothing, in short, seems yet
to forbid our believing what the spiritual part of our nature, as we
have hitherto deemed it, tells us, that there is a soul as weU as a
force in the universe; and, if there is a soul in the universe, there is
foundation for a Liberal Religion.

I4i

THIRD GENERAL SESSION OF THE INTER
NATIONAL CONGRESS.
Held in Tremont Temple at io a.m., Wednesday, September 25,,
President EUot in the chair.
A reUgious service was conducted by Rev. Charles Peach, of Lon
don, consisting of Scripture reading, prayer, and a hymn written for
the occasion by Rev. Benjamin R. Bulkeley.
From many lands, afar and near,
We come, O God, to sing Thy praise,
The Sacred Presence to revere,
The anthem of the truth to raise.
That truth in differing phrase is taught,
As, gathered under various skies,
The seekers after Thee have caught
The messages of paradise.
May myriad voices still proclaim
The word which sets Thy children free,
Uniting creeds of every name
To seek Thy glorious liberty.
Come, Pentecostal Spirit, come,
Touch prayer and utterance with Thy flame,
That every heart may feel at home,
And catch the accents of Thy name.
The President. — It was a great pleasure to some of us a few years
ago to welcome one of the bravest soldiers of religious freedom that
we know, one who has suffered more for this cause than almost any
one of us here. He told us the remarkable story of the struggles for
reUgious freedom in his native Bohemia, and I wiU ask you again
to-day to greet Professor Masaryk, of the University of Prague.

142

THE RELIGIOUS SITUATION IN AUSTRIA-
BOHEMIA.
BY PROFESSOR T. G. MASARYK, UNIVERSITY OF PRAGUE, BOHEMIA.
Ladies and Gentlemen, — Almost aU the addresses you have heard
here and you wiU hear are given by clergymen. I am a layman, per
haps I am a Philistine, so to say. Therefore do not expect from me a
theological statement. Do not expect statistics on our religious life
in Austria and Bohemia, figures showing the attendance in churches,
and other such very valuable, but, for my purpose, not necessary
information. To me the religious situation in Austria and Bohemia
is the situation of our souls, — the situation not outwardly, but how
it looks from within.
You must remember that Austria is a Catholic country, and you
must aUow me to tell you what Catholicism means. If we do not
know what Catholicism means, we wiU not understand the religious
situation of a Catholic country. Catholicism evermore means
church-religion. A Catholic is apt to think that only his Church has
religion, and that outside of the Church there is no religion at aU.
Church means an organization, it means priests, the hierarchy, the
Pope, a great, grand centraUzation. Church means the dualism of
priests and laymen: the priest is the intermediator between God and
the soul. Where there are priests, priests in the real sense of the word,
there are two moralities, — a morality of two different kinds. The
priest has his own, the layman has his own, — it is the difference be
tween celibacy and famfly life. In Catholicism, therefore, there is
a wide difference between good and holy: it is one thing to be good,
something quite different to consider anything as holy. The Cath
olic gives a great preponderance to ceremonials, and ceremonials
are to him not only an expression, perhaps an aesthetic expression of
religious feeling and life; not ritual only, but a miraculous transac
tion. And so is his prayer. To use the words of the Russian

143
writer and thinker, Turgeneff, who expresses the Catholic's think
ing and feeling about prayer, that God might make two times two
five; might work a miracle, a personal miracle, for him.
FinaUy, CathoUcism means that religion is belief, and only belief.
H you fuUy grasp the meaning of this explanation, you will under
stand what Cathohc Austria means. Austria is the land of anti-
reformation, Austria is the land that crushed the Reformation, and,
in the first place, she crushed our Bohemian Reformation, using all
her governmental power to do this. And so in Austria you find the
typical instance of a truly CathoUc country, and that means, in fine,
that a Catholic country is a theocracy. The Church and the State
are one: that means theocracy. Catholicism, theocratic Catholicism,
means a reUgious aristocracy, and, where there are religious aris
tocrats, — the hierarchy, — there are reUgious slaves. That speUs
Catholicism. As in aU countries, we have a struggle, we have a conflict, between
free thinking and the theocratic regime: it is the antagonism and
contrast, a contradictory contrast, between ecclesiastical theology
and philosophy and science. You will observe that in Catholic
.countries this conflict is more radical than in Protestant countries.
It is because the Church imbues the Cathohc with the notion that his
Church is the only saving Church, and, if there is to be any religion,
it can only be Catholicism, even if it is untrue. The Catholic may
not beheve any longer, but he cannot conceive of any other religion
than Catholicism. The organization of the Church and her ceremo
nials take possession, so to say, of his imagination. "Catholic imag
ination" is a weU-known expression. The Catholic may get rid of
aU the dogmas, he may not beUeve anything, yet in his heart he has
not overcome CathoUcism. And so you wiU find that such Catholics
wiU fear their Church, and this their fear is a kind of hatred: they hate
the Church. The most violent expression of this Catholic attitude
of mind the greatest Bohemian poet, Mr. Makgar, has given in a
much spoken of book, "The Poison of Judea." It is natural that
the negation of Catholicism by a Catholic in its most radical form
should come from our nation, the nation of John Huss, of Peter
Kheltchitsky, the founder of Unitas Fratrum (the United Brethren),
the nation of Comenius. I say, our people, as soon as they come to
know of John Huss and of the Bohemian Reformation, needs must

144
come in conflict with the official Church, and then this peculiar fear
and hatred develops in our souls. The warfare between the Church
and a people thinking freely on Church and religion causes a kind
of religious anarchy. And it is just a religious anarchy which char
acterizes Austria-Bohemia, and I would say aU Cathohc countries.
This longlasting war hurts both beUigerent parties. First, the
continuous criticism, this polemics, this negation of the Church,
produces a peculiar state of mind, a state of polemical bitterness;
but, if you watch and observe these people who criticise their Church,
and who in their negation often exceed all bounds, you wiU find that
they yet live on their hated Church. There are more people who
live on other men's conscience than is generaUy admitted. Next,
it is the doubt, the scepticism, which pervades the country; and
there are different forms and degrees of the disquieting scepticism.
Then you find a great deal of indifferentism: it is the worst thing
you can find in any soul, if a man cares no more for spiritual and
rehgious life. Indifferentism is the real unbelief. FinaUy, you wiU
find men and women and children without any religion at aU. I
must confess to myself that until now it has been a great puzzle how
that can be; but I must acknowledge the fact, — there are people
without religion, as there are people without science, without
art. If I criticise this situation, and try to show it as it reaUy is, and if
I criticise in this way the Church, I am not so opposed to the theology
of the Church, to its theory: my criticism applies to the moral in
fluence of Catholicism and the Church. Positively and negatively,
(by its deficiency), the Church is unable to remove the existing relig
ious anarchy: the Church is unable to remove the moral anarchy
proceeding from the religious. This two-fold anarchy leads to very
sad ends. If you look at the figures giving you the number of sui
cides in the different Catholic countries (of course, in Protestant
countries as well), you wiU find that in the civilized countries of
Europe, to give a round number, every year, year by year, at least
70,000 persons kiU themselves; and know further that there are
at least 2,000 children who commit suicide. This suicidal mania
directly and indirectly proceeds from religious and moral anarchy.
The horrible data of suicide impugn the state of religious life in
Austria, in Bohemia, and in aU Europe. These are poisoned souls,

145
as we say, broken souls and tired, who cannot live any more and
choose to die. Remember how the public in Europe was shocked
by the English-Boer War, when some thousands of people feU,
or in the late Japanese and Russian War, — compare with this
the number of persons who leave their own life wiUingly. Just
imagine what that means, — that one child should find life intoler
able and decide to die! I am sure that the growing proclivity to
commit suicide, that this modern suicidity (allow me the word), is
the religious problem of Europe and of our civilized world. What
is it that is going on among us that at least 60,000 people, in the
civihzed world, year by year, leave what we caU a life of civilization
and progress and culture ? That is the problem, it is the religious
problem of aU the problems to be solved.
At the same time as the suicidal mania a strong pessimistic feel
ing has developed, as is seen in phUosophy and literature. In the
third place, we must point to the growing pathological nervousness
and mental weakness of our time. No doubt, the psychical state
of modern society is pathological. It can be proved that this state
is in close connection with the dechne, decay, and dissolution of the
official, ecclesiastical rehgion and organization.
As in every warfare, the two parties wiU be apt to find a com
promise. And so you can see that there are two sorts of compro
mises. First, the theologians, and precisely the liberal theologians,
make compromises, the Catholic as weU as the Protestant theologians.
On the other side are the compromising men of science and phi
losophy. The official philosophy, to my view, is nothing else than
a compromise. So a kind of scholasticism is presented on both
sides, yet more, a kind of Jesuitism promulgated by theologians and
phUosophers. They say very often: "Yes, the historic develop
ment, evolution, is very gradual. Evolution excludes revolution."
I believe in evolution, but I also believe in revolution, especiaUy
in the sphere of spiritual hfe. Revolution is an organic evolution.
You must say "Yes" or "No," but must not say "Yes-no" at
once. I know people enjoy quiet and not to have to think much, because
thinking is not agreeable: it hurts, I am sure of that. They wiU
find some surrogate, some substitute for religion. I wish to point
to the fact that different elements of reUgious life are kept and cher-

146
ished according to the different wants of individuals. Some wiU
stick to theology. They like to know everything about the devel
opment of religion and the Church: it often is a kind of theology of
theology,— a second-hand theology. There are many people who
like theology, the theological inteUectualism displayed in interpre
tation, symboUzation, and in aU that modern "twisting" of the
true sense of unmistakable words. Of course, a second class of
inteUectualists are the phuosophers and the scientists. They even
believe religion can be replaced by philosophy and science. You
often wiU hear that in our country. Of course, if you ask, "How
can chemistry or technology or civil engineering replace rehgion?"
you wiU not get an answer, simply because religion cannot be re
placed, — neither by science nor by philosophy, nor, of course, by
theology. Another class of people wiU be given to ceremonials. They like
to go to the church. They do not believe any more, but they in
dulge this habit; the more, as it belongs to fashion, to social welfare.
The richer ones rejoice, perhaps, over their Sunday dresses. They
love all that belongs to ritualism and ceremonialism. People like to
get these sensuous impressions the church and the service give.
They will stick to them even if they are what they caU themselves, —
atheists. They enjoy the art in ceremonials, the music. They like
to hear a good sermon, and they wttl talk much about the sermon, —
not what they heard, but how the man spoke. Religious literature,
especiaUy romances and novels, is now in vogue.
Nowadays you wiU find a good many of our people who wiU teU
you that the Church, in order to be saved, must be socialized; you
wiU find theologians, socialists, saying, "Jesus was a reformer, a
social reformer; nay, he was a socialist." I do not believe that. I
do not believe in the socialization of the Church. I don't see how
the priest would gain by studying political economy. In a time
when we have State socialism, when we have municipalism, when the
State and the communities take care tof social reforms, there is no
need of socializing the Church. But there is a great want of religion
in the Church. Other good people would try to replace religion by
morality, and strive for a better life. They forget that morals are
not religion, that religion is something besides morality. This is
granted by many; but they seek for religion in mysticism, they see

147
the true reUgious life in mystics and mysteries. Often these
mystics abide by sentimentalism and romanticism.
FinaUy, the majority of our people accept simply the organization
of the Church. It is the ecclesiasticism of the State Church — in one
word, politics, theocratic politics — which replace for them religion.
From these people you wiU hear, "The people must have religion."
I often hear it and read it in every speech from the throne of em
perors and kings, that the people need religion. And I hear it as
often from the clergy, from the priests. "No, sir," I am moved to
say, "you must have reUgion."
Of course, I know quite weU that the adherents of ecclesiasticism,
that people who bUndly beUeve the pastor, are apt and able to be
lieve as blindly the emperor and his officials. I understand that
quite weU. But that is poUtics, and not religion.
One expUcit word about the rehgious hfe in the Church, in the
State Church. In this Church of aristocracy and government, of
plutocracy and capitalism, to say it in one word, the greatest atten
tion is given to the maintenance of order. You must be an orderly
man, as they call it, that is aU. You must be and stay matriculated
in the church register, then you must manifest your formal adher
ence to the Church, but the Church and the State do not care for your
moral and rehgious Ufe. The adherence to the Church is a question
of show, not of reUgiosity. No doubt that church-going and partici
pation in church formaUties teach a man a kind of order: it edu
cates him in some sort. But that is not reUgion. The Church cares
to be seen. We have magnificent churches in our country: they
take care of every little church to embeUish it, and to have it just
as handsome as possible. The churches are erected in conspicuous
places. But is that religion ? H you walk some steps from that
church, you wiU find a tenement house, and there live eighteen,
twenty, even more than twenty persons, in one Utile room. Why,
what is the good of aU these churches and the whole church show, if
you find that awful social negUgence in the neighborhood of the
church? This official Catholicism does not care any more for souls. I was
born a Catholic, and I experienced myself aU these struggles of the
soul. The official CathoUcism looks to me like a general or public
hospital where the doctor should prescribe one medicine for aU the

148
^patients. No, such a Church cannot give what the people and what
we PhUistines need and want. The church trustees, the government,
the pohce, not even a night-watch, is appointed if he is not a member
of the State Church. And of course you must expect that the official
Church, aided by the poUce, by the State, wiU persecute free thought,
even at our universities. The clericals are striving to have a Cath
olic university, and, above aU, they would like to get the teachers and
professors in the public schools and in the middle schools, as we caU
them, to place the youth in their hands.
I know there are good Catholic priests, theologians, nice, gentle
people. I like them myself, although I do not like what they hold.
These people, who caU themselves liberal Catholics, strive for a kind
of "Reforming Catholicism," "Neo-Catholicism," "Modernism,"
"Americanism," and so on. They believe in a reformation in their
Church, and try to make it. I do not believe in these attempts, and
I cannot believe in them, because aU the reforms they propose are
petty and trifling in proportion to what is going on in Catholic souls.
I will give you an instance of such a Catholic reformer, Professor
Scheicher. I take him as a symptomatic instance. He is professor
of Christian ethics, and he was deputy in our Reichstag, in the Par
liament of Vienna, — a man, therefore, who knows weU his Church,
and who is weU acquainted with the actual relation of the Church
and the State. Mr. Scheicher is not a liberal in the sense in which
you would understand the word. I remember he edited a Spanish
book, and he himself believes with its Spanish author that liberalism
is a sin, and a mortal sin. And yet this man had finaUy to confess
that the Church and the State of Austria are on the verge of a catas
trophe. And how, with what means, would he try to save his Church ?
He recommends to his Church the separation of the State, the liberty
of the Church and the liberty of the State. He recommends the
abolition of cehbacy, the replacing of the Latin in the church ser
vice by the vernacular, and hints at some forms of superstition in
the Church which are intolerable. No doubt the separation of the
Church and State is a valuable condition for the development of a
truer life in the Church. I can appreciate the other propositions, but,
on the whole, aU these means are no longer sufficient. But the ex
perience we have in our country, in France, in Germany, every
where, with Neo-Catholicism and Neo-Catholics proves that refor-

REV. GEORGE A. GORDON, DD.
Boston, Mass.

REV. FREDERICK. A. BISBEE, D.D
Boston, Mass.

REV. CHARLES W. WENDTE
Secretary of the Congress

EDWIN D. MEAD, Esq.
Boston, Mass.

149
mation in the Roman Church is impossible. Just now Pius X., the
pope, has published his syUabus, as you know, and some days ago a
new encychcal was promulgated in which he forbids every reform.
Our situation in Austria, in Bohemia, in all the Catholic countries
of Europe, tends to this, which I wiU express by a word not quite Eng
hsh, — "unchurch." We must unchurch all our Ufe. I mean we
must separate from the Church entirely not only science, phUosophy,
and art, — that is already done, — but we must separate from the
Church aU poUtics, and, above aU, our morals and our reUgion itself.
ReUgion must be separated from the Church, and I am sure from aU
the churches. We must overcome Catholicism inwardly, not out
wardly. I therefore do not plead for a formal separation from the
Church only. I know people who have left the Church formaUy, but
who remained Cathohcs in their heart. We have to overcome Ca
tholicism in our hearts.
Part of the people of Austria leave the Cathohc Church and join
Protestantism. I spoke about that movement, called "Away from
Rome" about five years ago. You know the fact that thousands and
thousands left the Church and joined Protestantism. Unhappily, the
movement is to a great extent nationalistic and political: it is re
stricted to the German population. We Bohemians, although we are
against Rome, cannot rejoice at it.
Here I must say a word or two about our Protestantism. You
remember we have only 2 per cent, of Protestants in our country.
This may explain why our Protestantism is rather weak and much
under the influence of Catholicism. I myseh joined the Protestant
Church thirty years ago, but I am a dead member of that Church,
because I find in Protestantism many fundamental principles of that
rehgion which I left in Catholicism. I do not believe that official
Protestantism wiU Uberate us and give us what we want. I am
sorry that the Bohemian Protestantism does not have the rehgious
courage to chaUenge the nation against Rome in the name of our
Bohemian Reformation, in the name of Huss, Kheltschitsky, Co-
menius. I may mention that our two Bohemian Protestant churches (the
Lutheran and the Reformed) have recently inaugurated a discussion
about a union.
There are many people who leave the Church without joining any

i5°
other religious body. The number of these "without confession"
(the Austrian official terminology) is growing year by year.
In former days our free-thinking people and people who care for
religious and moral life were not organized, except as politicaUy free
and progressive parties. Now they begin to be organized. They
accept the platform of the separation of the Church from the State
and of free schools. Some days ago in Prague we had the Inter
national Congress of what is caUed the Libre Pensee, — free thinkers.
It is the example of France which is felt in our country. We love
France for what she did, liberating religion from the influence of the
State and the State from the Church. Of course, we Uke republican
France and free-thinking France, not the Catholic France.
You wiU find among our freer people and liberal people some sort
of materialism and atheism. At least, many of them believe that
they are materialists and atheists. I do not believe it. I know
atheists, but I must confess I have found very few of them. What
they caU materialism and atheism very often is a longing for religion.
And I am sure that, if Jesus were to come now to us, he would most
desire to meet these atheists and materialists, because he knew that
the healthy need not a physician, but the sick. And we are sick, no
doubt. From that point of view you must consider the striking fact that
the mass of our people accepts more and more the materialistic,
atheistic socialism. At the last election in Austria, when the general
suffrage was introduced, there were elected to the central parliament
eighty-seven socialists. Austria (and Bohemia) has the most social
istic parliament in Europe.
What does that mean ? I do not believe that socialism is only an
economic question. Socialism gives to the bulk of our people a stand
ard. It gives them the yes or no, a decided "No" or "Yes"; and
we are sick of this "Yes-no," as I told you. And that is why social
ism is spreading and wiU spread among our people, because it is firm:
it gives a conviction to live by, and people must have a conviction.
The growth of socialism wiU support the religious development. It
was Paine who said that to get political freedom helps to get religious
freedom. That is true, I am glad that socialism, working for po
litical liberation, is spread among us, because, if we get political free
dom in Austria, we will get religious freedom also. And I rejoice

I51
at the growth of socialism, because the masses of our nations in
Austria must choose between Catholicism and socialism. The same
process is going on in all Catholic countries.
Concerning the materialism and atheism of socialism, I myself
am known as an opponent of materialism and atheism; but the his
tory of materiaUsm and atheism, I think, teaches us that materialism
and atheism are always the philosophical, radical weapon against
the evUs and abuses of ecclesiasticism, clericalism, and a church
religion. I must conclude. What I have said about the religious situation
in our country apphes, I dare say, to aU countries in Europe. It is
a state of transition which we feel. It is a state of halfness we live
in. Here at our meetings much emphasis is laid on religious liberty.
That is right. But we want more than hberty. We need a con
structive, a creative religious liberty. We not only must have re
ligion, we must have a higher and more ennobling religion. That
is what we want, and not to go back to what we had already. It is
the fault of Protestantism, for instance, with us, and I suppose aU
over Europe and in this country as weU that it merely avoids the
faults of CathoUcism. That is not enough. And it is not enough
if the so-caUed free thinker would avoid the faults of Protestantism.
No, we wiU not be Uke the Pharisee, despising the publican. We
want positive progress in religion, we want a religious life which
wiU overcome aU the ecclesiastical forms of religion. This new re
Ugion cannot be anything else than an unrevealed religion, but we
seek for the unrevealed God. That is the religious aim we are work
ing for. But our generation yet and ever seeks after a sign. People
beheve still in miracles, and so they are in their hearts Catholics, as
I said. Catholicism does not mean only the Catholic Church. You
wiU find it in Protestantism, aUow me to say even in Unitarianism.
The principle of this Catholicism must be overcome.
I speak perhaps too sharply for you, but I remember that the man
who said, "I am meek and lowly in my heart," also said that he
brought a sword. To-day the religious question is in the first place
a question of sincerity: we must say yes or no, we must tell the truth,
be it acceptable or not acceptable to others.
Note. — This, my analysis of the religious situation in Austria and Bohemia,
of course is given from a personal standpoint. Soon, I hope, an abstract of my

152
?iews wfll be published in English in Chicago. Of late I wrote some little
pamphlets in Bohemian.
On suicide I went into more details in my book, "Der Selbstmord als soziale
Massenerscheinung der modernen Civilization." The criticism of Marxism,
•especially of the Marxistic materialism to which I allude, is given in my "Die
,philosophischen, und soziologischen Grundlagen des Marxismus," Wien, 1899.
The books of Mg. Scheicher mentioned in the address are "Erlebnisse und
'Errinerungen," Wien, 1907, "Der oesterreichische Clerustag," Wien, 1903.

The President. — We have placed upon the walls of this room the
names of Francis David and Louis Kossuth to testify to the debt
which civil and religious Uberty owes to Hungary. Those ideals
-stiU are cherished in Hungary, and we shaU hear of them from Mr.
Jozan, the minister of the Unitarian church in Budapest.

iS3

THE IDEALS OF HUNGARY, CIVIC, POLITICAL,
RELIGIOUS.
BY REV. NICOLAS JOZAN, UNITARIAN PASTOR OF BUDAPEST.
It is both a pleasure and a privilege to speak on a subject so near
and dear to the heart of a patriot. It is a pleasure, because in giv
ing you this paper I may dweU on the main Unes of progress as shown
in the mirror of history that reflects for us the glory and the gloom
of a thousand years. It is a privUege, because in the present state
of transition I may, perhaps, put in a few earnest words in defense
of the Magyar race. Our country is not a terra incognita. Hun
gary — as one of her story-teUers says — is "one of the fairest and most
blessed spots on the face of the earth." Her coat-of-arms is made
out of the emblems of three mountains and four rivers that give a
definite shape to the land and secure the peace and prosperity of
the inhabitants.
The nation is composed of various nationahties; but the Magyar
race is, and has always been, caUed upon to take the lead, and press
upon the whole the imprint of its culture and character. Out of a
population of twenty millions, 50 per cent, belongs to the historic
race of the Magyars. Issuing from the common cradle of Asia and
seeking — as the last wave of the migration of the peoples of the earth
— for an ancient inheritance, the Hungarians came and took possession
of the land, and founded there a kingdom that has at times played
a prominent part in the life of Europe, and still ranks high in the
sympathy of the civilized world.
A nation without kin in the surrounding sea of various races has
survived the vicissitudes of a thousand years, — a nation whose means
and ways were extravagant at first, but soon became tempered by
the statesmanship of its chiefs and princes who head a dynasty of
four hundred years in the House of Arpad.
Endeared and blessed, it all comes back to me on the wings of

154
memory, and I see in my mind's eye the joy and satisfaction of a
whole nation, whose representatives assemble on one of those days in
the open field in council, in order to commemorate the First Na
tional Assembly and mourn for the ideal chief, Arpad, whose burial-
place now becomes a common altar of self-sacrifice and worship.
Besides the conquest of the land, there were three events of great
consequence in the life and history of Hungary; namely, the con
version of the pagan tribes to Christianity in the year iooo a.d
under the paternal sway of King Stephen I. ; the spread of the Refor
mation, as a movement not only reUgious, but also political; and
the Revolution of 1848. In advancing a few general remarks upon
these, may I anticipate what might have been dealt with later on ?
It is admitted on aU hands that the adoption of the Christian faith
by the warlike tribes of Hungary was a wise policy on the part of the
ruler. It was, so to speak, a God-send, a providential act by which
the Hungarians were brought into more intimate relations with their
neighbors and acknowledged by them as on an equal footing with the
rest of humanity. The sainted king and the people succeeded,
because of it, in laying a safe foundation for the throne, unshaken by
the storms of nine centuries.
To accomplish this was by no means an easy task, because the new
faith had yet to grapple with the revival of pagan tradition, and the
ancient cult made its influence felt in remote places of the land for
centuries. But the faith itseh was not at all foreign to the race.
It was only the outward forms and the means of communication —
that is, the Latin language — that aroused the iU-wiU and suspicion
of certain groups of people who looked upon the old usages, and
even the superstitions of a bygone age, as the characteristic of the
nation, the mainstay of its independence.
As a result, however, of the preaching of the gospel, a great change
was witnessed in the life of the people organized by the right hand
of the first monarch, which is stiU treasured as an object of adoration
by our Roman Catholic brethren. This change affected the whole
outlook of the nation. And the waves of the change did not stir
only on the surface, like the mild ripples of an inland sea, but went
deep down to the bottom of the nation's heart, and stiU keep it in
continual vibration, as the means and condition of a healthy and
useful hfe.

i55
Hungary has written her name into the annals of the world not so
much by a superior prowess of the sword as by the planting of the
cross upon her peaks and spires, and the fearless defence of the
same against desperate odds.
A sense of unity began henceforth to pervade the scattered tribes
of the land, and gave them an impulse for higher things than mere
adventure and death, however nobly met on the field of battle. A
sense of unity gained ground and found a majestic symbol in the crown
of Saint Stephen, which is even to-day not only a relic of the past, but
also a real and legal expression, and the proof of the threefold unity
of the land, its people, and its king. To be a member of the sacred
crown was once the highest aspiration and reward of the nobility,
and through an extension of rights and abolition of privileges it
has now become the glory of the masses, animated by the same
spirit of social and pohtical unity.
After centuries and centuries of the Christian spirit among us, the
Reformation brought a new element into the spiritual life of the
nation. The quest for truth resulted in a brooding spirit of strife
and contention; and, as the country itself was divided into three parts
according to their aUegiance to the new dynasty of the Hapsburgs, or
the national prince of Transylvania, or the foUower of the Crescent,
which was destined at that time to supplant the Cross and change
the face of the civilized world, even so the kingdom of God ushered
in by the Prince of Peace owned the sway of several high-priests in
turn. Luther among the Saxons, Calvin among the Magyar popula
tion of the Lowlands, and Francis David in Transylvania were
equaUy popular; and, had they been able to come to terms with each
other on the basis of mutual understanding, they might have totaUy
paralyzed the arts and crafts of Rome. But division and hostihty
among the Protestants themselves proved in the long run a favor
and advantage only for the Cathohc Church. And yet the Reforma
tion as a reUgious movement gave rise with us to a greater love of
freedom, canonized the rights of conscience with full respect for
one's conviction. And it was on these principles that the legislature
of 1568, at Torda, — my native town, — proclaimed liberty of faith and
worship for all the branches of the Christian Church.
Above all, the Reformation came to us at a time of national calam
ity as a comforter, a paraclete, that turned the attention of the peo-

i56
pie from the sad plight of our own making to a better future, for which
the awakening national consciousness would always yearn. Here we
see a process which is stiU going on in our midst, — a process in which
religious and political freedom blend in perfect harmony, so that one
never knows whether the struggle of four centuries has been religious
or poUtical, pure and simple. It is generaUy both in equal measure;
and the tension on this or that side does not count, for the struggle
wiU, in the long run, prove beneficial to both.
I think I may safely say that this animated struggle reached its
climax in the Revolution of 1848. That period is able stiU to supply
the need of our soul for hero-worship. That period is written in
golden characters in the book of life, and cannot be effaced from the
memory of generations yet to come. The legislation of 1848 acted
on the principles of Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity that had
issued victorious from among the horrors of the French Revolution
and the majestic duel of the Old and the New World, and declared
the equal rights of the people as the basis of the Hungarian Common
wealth. It also maintained (as it was done in 1790-91) that "Hun
gary was an independent country, subject to no other country, pos
sessing her own constitution by which alone she was to be governed."
We have here a complete list of achievements due, in part, to the
work of the spirit of the age as manifested in art and science and
poetry. These agencies were the best means to prepare the way
for a modern state in which high and low, rich and poor, would find
an open field and an equality of opportunity for gradual develop
ment. Emancipation of the peasantry from grievous burdens resting on
their shoulders and from a state of subjection that was an outrage
against humanity, freedom of the press, and the right of free thought
and speech; a responsible ministry and a Parliament of two cham
bers; equal rights and equal burdens; and fuU justice to the various
nationalities that compose the population of the country, — these
were the main articles of a poUtical creed that soon found its fulfil
ment in the measures and institutions caUed for by a universal need
and sanctioned by the co-operative work of legislation and the king.
And it was with a view to upholding these great achievements against
internal strife and the caprice of Austria that the war of indepen
dence was fought with so much heroism. And, although it turned out

157
a tragedy in which the nation was destined to fail, yet truth and
hberty were to emerge victorious after all.
Truth and hberty! Let us pause for a moment at these great ideas.
Truth is bUnd without an eye to grasp and compass it. And liberty
is void without a voice to waft it on the upper air. Truth is the ob
ject of prophetic vision, and hberty is the means of publishing it to
the world.
At the beginning of the last century, Hungary had a number of
thinkers and workers who far surpassed the ordinary type of politician,
and entered the arena of pubUc Ufe with heart and head devoted to
the holy cause. Szechenyi, Deak, and Kossuth were each men of
great abihty, and their word and work wUl never be obliterated
from the national consciousness. Their names are household words
with us, much as Washington, Franklin, and Adams are with you.
Patriots all of them, — true to themselves and true to the end. What
greater virtue could be recorded in the annals of a nation? And
yet the hnes of action adopted by these leaders of men varied so much
as to contradict each other and increase the uneasiness of pubhc
opinion in times of critical suspense.
Count Szechenyi, as a magnate, assigned a leading part in the
national revival to aristocracy. He wanted to secure a better future
for Hungary by promoting her material and cultural interests, on
which national and pohtical weU-being were sure to follow. And we
see him vindicate this position in the Upper House of Parliament
by the hving word, and, in order to reach a wider circle, through the
press; but chiefly through the practical enterprises by which he strove
to transform Hungary from a mere agricultural state into an indus
trial and commercial country. The movement initiated by him stiU
holds a fine prospect for the future of Hungary. And we may quote
a noble utterance of his: "Do not constantly trouble yourselves with
the vanished glories of the past, but rather let your determined pa
triotism bring about the present prosperity of the beloved fatherland.
Many there are who think that Hungary has been; but, for my
part, I hke to think that Hungary shaU be." It is, indeed, a prophetic
vision of truth; it is, indeed, an angehc voice of liberty. Let us hope
that it wiU never be darkened or die on the air.
We aU look up to Szeche'nyi as the "greatest of the sons of Hun
gary," as Kossuth himself characterized him in acknowledging the

i5«
immortal merit of this master-mind, — a leader of men who not only
gave out the watchword, but took the first step in the long journey
onward and upward stiU to higher places of eminence and aspira
tion. There were only two men in that generation to match him; namely,
Kossuth and Deak, whose word and work in the Lower House of the
Diet soon made itself felt and found its echo up and down the coun
try. Kossuth is the most popular of the three, owing to a superior
readiness of speech and that indefatigable energy with which he
made the country's cause his own, and shrank from no threat or
peril that might endanger his life in the glorious service. This is
but a poor statement of the case; but the instinct of the common
people found a happier expression, caUing him the "father of the
land," even as Deak is called the "wise man of the land." Both
Kossuth and Deak preached an evangel which could not be taken
amiss. The latter was prone to contemplation and fond of the
adjustment of diverging thoughts and intricate movements; whue
the former was full of energy, a man of rare qualities developed to
the utmost efficiency, imagination transformed into action. They
wished to gain for Hungary not only material weffare, but political
Uberty as weU. And, though this view stood opposed to Count
Szeche"nyi's conviction, yet the general state of the country, influenced
by political events abroad, favored more urgent methods. And here
we see the centre of gravity displaced from the aristocracy to the
gentry and the middle class. And in the same way I suppose
it wiU before long be transmitted to the laboring classes who, while
clamoring for panem et circenses, are, perhaps, not acting on the
highest principles, but have to undergo a severe schooling and dis
cipline of life.
The plans and purposes of a noble-minded monarch, Joseph II.,
were thus being realized through the agency of a few select men,
favored and supported by the advancing spirit of the age. And, as
a consequence of this democratic pohcy, conscience was free from
bondage; the various creeds acquired equal rights; liberty of the
press kept the life-blood of the nation in healthy circulation; and,
above all, the enslaved peasantry got not only protection against their
arbitrary masters, but at the same time were received into the strong
hold of the constitution as an integral part of the body politic.

i59
All these treasures, and more, — nay, the very existence of the na
tion, — were at stake in the great war of independence and the period!
of absolute rule that followed in its wake. Shipwrecked and tossed!
on the rough sea of Ufe, close to the valley of the shadow of death,,
the nation was spared the severe blow of total extinction. On the
night of distress and gloom there broke a dawn full of strange fore
bodings, and the reorganization of the continuity of our national
rights was one of the principles on which the elements of the Old
Constitution were renewed, and brought to bear upon the constel
lations of Europe.
In this great work of reorganization we are greatly indebted to
Francis Deak, whose sense of honor and powerful mastery of legal
proceedings were both instrumental in bringing about the happy
issue. That period is closely associated with his name, and we can
not think of 1867 and the treaty of that date as a mutual com
promise of the Dual Monarchy without a sense of gratitude to the
author who had exceUed his contemporaries in many things, and
especiaUy in the simplicity of his life and the strength of his
convictions. "1848" and "1867 " are stiU the war-cry of poUtical parties that vie
with each other in a doubtful contest for the upper hand. Lately
they have come to terms, and have joined the coaUtion of three politi
cal parties for the time being. It is an expedient and a safeguard
against the unconstitutional measures adopted by an absolute gov
ernment that had no ground in the country and no justification in
the statute books of the land.
But the place and the occasion permit me no digression into the
field of present-day poUtics. Neither would it be a pleasant task for
me at this juncture, when I have to sketch before you the "Ideals of
Hungary." A nation without an ideal is to me a contradiction in terms. It is
an ideal effort and outlook that transforms the scattered families and
classes of a country into a homogeneous family of men; that is, a
nation. Each nation has an historical pedigree, and an historical caU
to fulfil; and the wehare of the whole depends in large measure on
the loyalty of the individual members to the common ideal. Ideals
vary with successive stages of a nation's life. Ideals realized in
practical life may lose a great deal of the force and vigor that had

i6o
once animated them; but still it is much better to look forward, and
hope and aspire and strive for higher things than to sink into the
mire of despondency and give up aU hope for the future. The latter
part would, indeed, be suicidal for a nation, even as for an individual.
The life of the soul of a nation is caUed upon to prevent such dis
mal results, and the Ufe of the soul is also the "ideal."
The viUage or town that has a soul of its own is a good ground in
which the civic ideal may strike a deep root. A sense of common
interest is always sure to be voiced there in preference to seU-as-
sertion and sordid gains. The love of one's native land is nurtured by
the beauty of its natural surroundings, and a local patriotism is apt
to develop through traditions and reminiscences clinging to the place.
One is proud of the growth and development of smaU colonies into
large emporiums of culture and commerce. And, though we have at
present hardly any country town the population of which would
exceed 100,000, yet the skilled hand and disciplined mind that
run the whole machinery of our fine metropolis, and, in fact,
that of the whole commonwealth, are supplied from such small,
out-of-the-way places as would hardly rouse the interest of a passer
by. We have, therefore, to go back to these first beginnings of
civilization to be able to account for modern progress with aU the
blessings that attend its course. The pubhc spirit of a viUage,
nurtured, perhaps, by only a few inteUigent men, as the landlord,
the parson, and the notary, proves a good school for the bringing up
of a generation of men and women who interest themselves not only
in their own advantage, but also begin to feel that they are members
of a great family. It is also a vantage-ground and a preparation for
a more complete administration of district and county.
None of our viUages or towns shrinks from duties and obligations
that are imposed by the institution of general education. And,
although of late the government itself brings great sacrifices in
planting new schools and supporting old ones, yet the cause of
education is, as it has always been, of great moment with our
parishes and town corporations.
These smaU dots on the map of Hungary keep the poUtical ideal
pure amid party strife and faction and coUiding interests. All
honor to them for the mother-tongue kept unspotted from the world;
for the music and harmony of national tunes in which the simple

i6i
shepherds of the field are the greatest masters! A civic responsi
bility is also testified to among us by care of the poor and distressed,
by the nursing of invalids in homes and hospitals, and by societies
founded for the prevention of crime and cruelty.
I might just mention, in passing, that groups of various nationalities,
where they are in a majority, use their own language in the deUbera-
tions and the minute books of the parish and the county, and enjoy
every advantage in their schools and churches, provided the integrity
of Hungary as a Magyar State be not jeopardized by their ascend
ency and fanaticism. I feel sure that but for a few windy agitators
we might Uve and thrive in complete harmony with our brethren of
the Saxon, Slavonic, and Roumanian stock.
There are many things yet to be desired in this connection, but
the ideal never faileth. A citizen with us is a stanch patriot, but
at the same time he is also a citizen of the world.
As to the poUtical ideal of Hungary, may I aUude to what I have
already said on this head, in order to avoid repeating myself?
The present constitution of Hungary is one of the most liberal in
Europe. Government is based on popular representation, as a prel
ude to universal suffrage, which is just pushing on amid the fer
mentation of public life. Legal power is vested in both Houses and
the king. There is a responsible ministry of eighty-nine depart
ments. And there is a delegation of sixty from each Parliament
to manage the affairs we have in common with Austria; namely,
army, finance, and foreign affairs. This adjustment gives the country
an assurance of standing peace, and adds to the equilibrium of Europe
and the fair name and fame of our king, who is at the same time
Emperor of Austria. This I say without any misgiving on my own
part or those of the same conviction, because we have learned through
experience, and also from the legacy of Louis Kossuth, that politics
is a science of exigencies. Here we may not foUow the blind instinct
of the blood, but have to exercise patient endurance and wise circum
spection. Without these quahties of a diplomatic nature we might
harangue the masses and rouse to riot the discordant spirit of the
hour, but cannot build the ideal city of God in which peace and
plenty and righteousness abide.
The groundwork to this high-minded policy was laid down in the
Pragmatic Sanction of 1723, in which Hungary and Austria were

162
declared inseparable and under the sway of the same ruler from the
Hapsburg dynasty. And I need hardly add that this solution did
not in the least touch the independence of Hungary as a separate
kingdom governed by her own laws. Independence! That's the
word. And that is also the political ideal of Hungary. And, though
it had from time to time to be reasserted against the machinations
of the Court of Vienna or the overbearing attitude of the aristocrats
of the land, yet I know no other word round which the whole con
sensus of the people would raUy in a crisis. We prize independence
as the corner-stone of our constitution. Nothing shows better our
appreciation of a free and democratic constitution than the fact
that at the Treaty of 1867 one of the first conditions of any com
promise between the nation and the king was the granting of the same
constitution to the other part of the monarchy hitherto oppressed
through a despotic government. Like unto like! And yet, as it is
only too obvious, Hungary and Austria are only half-sisters, having
a common father in the person of the monarch, but clinging with a
natural predilection to the mother.
Race, temperament, surroundings, tradition, and the competi
tive spirit of modern times, all tell heavily upon this mutual relation
ship, which is, in part, subject to revision every ten years. And it
takes a good deal of time and energy to bring about a common under
standing then and there, where moral and material interests are so
multifarious as in our so-called Dual Monarchy.
There are many things yet to be desired in this connection, but
the ideal never faileth. We need not brood over the past, but turn to
the future with opening vistas of hard struggle and achievement, of
mutual usefulness and general welfare, and amicable relation with
all the nations of the world.
It is a fuU programme, as you see, of life and work which, I ex
pect, aU the branches of socialistic propaganda would own and make
a part of their system. It is evident that there is only one remedy
against the evil effects of a far-fetched socialistic agitation, and that
is a decided wish and step forward on the part of both the State and
the individual to anticipate its hopes and promises.
To combat these socialistic tendencies demands a deep-seated and
earnest religious life, which is gaining ground year by year among
the various creeds and denominations of the land. The churches

163
seem to have awakened to a fresh sense of duty; and it is evident that
a reiteration of creeds and articles, however sincere, will not serve the
purpose. And, besides, no church is entitled to lull its adherents into
a magnetic sleep by old customs and ceremonies, but a true Christian
warfare is to be continued against all the enemies of the moral and
religious hfe of the community. Fresh light begins to dawn and pour
in from secret places of the earth; and the country that has always
been open to influences from abroad receives the achievements of
modern scientific investigation with great interest. Old boundaries
of thought and fellowship are widened; and the common task invites
the united effort of all the leaders and servants of church organiza
tion. There is a widespread conviction among all the classes of society
that something of great moment is sure to come to pass in the spirit
ual world. We witness day by day the springing up beside the
historic churches of certain sects and societies that go in for a spirit
istic or occult knowledge of God, or as individual dreamers create
a system of their own. The whole of our religious and moral life
evinces a noble discontent against antiquated forms of belief, and
earnest workers lend a helping hand in the regeneration of ecclesi
astical polity.
Ours is by no means a dark corner of the world. Missionary enter
prise flourishes. And, if our means do not allow us to bring a sacri
fice for foreign missions, we try to give heart and soul to a home mis
sion, the blessings of which are sure to tell on the life and work of
coming generations. There seems to prevail a strong and healthy
earnestness at the back of all these movements, vying with each
other for leadership in the spiritual world.
There is a constant agitation going on through the living word and
the press; and the object of this literary exercise is to reach those
elements of society that have nothing in common with their mother
church except a loose membership and the columns of statistics.
Various branches of the Roman Catholic body that forms two-
thirds of the population, and the Protestants with one-third of the
census, make up the kingdom of God with us. Unitarians are only
a younger brother in this populous family of religions, a small band
of the faithful sons of the Father of Light. Weak and poor though
they be in comparison with the dominant churches of the land, yet

164
their influence is felt in ever-widening circles, and the principles
of their religious belief and 'their system of morals are adopted and
applied as the groundwork of scientific men *
There may be many things yet to be desired, but the ideal never
faileth. And the ideal is the gospel of Christ, a living church, a
Ufe of faith and service, and rest of the immortal soul in the bosom
of the Father.
The ideals of Hungary are those of the rest of the modern world.
Loyalty, independence, and freedom! What else do we need?
Dynasties may come and go. One generation may give birth to
another; but the hfe-blood of the Magyar nation is sure to flow
through the veins of aspiring humanity to the end of the world.
Eljen a Hazal
The President.— I am bursting with desire to pay tribute to Hol
land and teU of the debt we in Massachusetts, in particular, owe to
those who sheltered the Pilgrim Fathers, but I must practise the brev
ity that I commend to others. Let me, then, only say that Professor
Groenewegen wiU now teU us of the reUgious situation in HoUand.
* la this connection may be cited the statement made by Louis Kossuth to the late Professor
John Kbvacs, and with the speaker's consent written down at the time: "Unitarianism is the
only faith which has a future ; the only one that can influence the intelligent and interest the
indifferent." Editor.

i65

CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK OF LIBERAL
RELIGIONS IN HOLLAND.
BY PROFESSOR H. Y. GROENEWEGEN, D.D., OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
LEIDEN, HOLLAND.
It is impossible to survey at a glance the present conditions of
the Uberal reUgious movement in HoUand. They are rather com
pUcated. But I wiU teU you something about our work and our
struggle which may be of interest to you. At first sight, and seen
from the outside, our circumstances do not seem very favorable.
There is going on in our country a very powerful so-called " Chris
tian Action." That action is the consequence of a monstrous
pohtical alliance which came about several years ago between
Calvinists and Roman Cathohcs. Nobody wiU be ingenuous enough
to think that it is the kingdom of heaven which suddenly made
brethren of enemies hating and cursing each other for centuries.
Only the very worldly kingdom of poUtics bound them together. It
is a Christianity not of one common holy spirit, but of common
aversion to Uberal principles and aims. It is a Christianity of, for
the greater part, worldly interests; for instance, some appetite for
treasury-pap for the so-caUed Christian schools and free univer
sities. It is a Christianity, as we caU it, of the poUs.
The Christian character is said by them to be found in the belief
in a particular revelation of God. I need not say that this superna
tural revelation is not the same, and has not the same content
for these coalescing parties. So it cannot prevent many serious
differences in practical poUcy; for instance, the questions of capital
punishment, vaccination, etc. " Christian " journals, however, written
by orthodox ministers and priests, become more and more authorita
tive interpretators of this revelation in matters of government. Every
one who joins the coaUtion is held to be a Christian. Every one
who does not is suspected of Uving outside the Christian sphere.

i66
So our people have become divided into " Christians " and " pagan-
ists." Liberal religious thinkers and workers are, of course, said
to be infected with paganism, and, therefore, are to be shunned like
wolves in sheep's clothing. And liberal politics, because the
enemy of aU church supremacy in political and social life, is pagan
ism itself. This sad mistake, not to say this offensive untruth, is
bewildering about half our nation. Orthodox and conservatives of
every denomination are systematicaUy aroused to war against the
supposed haters of God and religion, Christ and the Church. This
" Christian " pohcy has been a success at the polls. We have, indeed,
since a few years, a hberal government with a very smaU majority.
But the next elections, I am afraid, wiU give us again the supremacy
of clericalism and confessionalism. And it is not to be foreseen
what effect this wiU have on several of our pubhc institutions, most
of all on the theological studies at the universities.
It is a striking fact that our liberal religious movement has but
very httle influence in this political struggle. There is a funda
mental aversion among hberals to any religious political action. But
very few of our ministers appear in political meetings, except the
Christian Socialists. Among the liberal daily papers there are some
of rather sympathetic spirit. Others show a great indifference for
religious interests. But nearly all of them shrink from touching
religious subjects and maintain a cold neutrality. In the House of
Commons only a few liberal members are religiously inclined, and
they seldom bear witness to their religious principles. So it is not
very obvious what characterizes us. There is no common opinion
on several questions among us. AU varieties of the liberal political
party can be found among our reUgious liberals. There are re
ligious conservatives, radicals, and socialists among us. We are a
hardly distinguishable subdivision of the general liberahsm. And
very many of the members of that party, alas! are rather indifferent
to religion, or are even anti-religious.
But I trust that in this respect the tide is on the turn. Our nation
does not like clericalism and confessionalism as much as it seems
to, yet our national spirit is a religious one, and most of the people
distrust movements which shock their deepest and dearest convic
tions. Liberalism, however, is often identified with theoretical and
practical materialism. Many of the teachers in our public schools,

1 67
higher and lower, are propagators of a rather banal atheism.
Antipathy and prejudice have estranged a great many weU-educated
people from any church connection. A great number does not
obtain any reUgious instruction at all. The rude ignorance and,
in consequence, indifference of many people about the Bible, religion,
and the church, is a shame. Seen from this side, the reaction may
be a favorable thing. Every defeat of Uberalism is in revenge of
its neglect of its own reUgious concerns. If liberalism for a long
time remains powerless in political and social life, it is because it
has created the mistaken impression that its spirit and principles
are hostile to rehgion and higher morality. It wiU only reconquer
the heart of our nation if it becomes again, as it was some fifty years
ago, a party the poUtical and social Ufe of which is founded not only
on science and elevated not only by art, but by a powerful religious
behef and high moral consciousness. As long as it overlooks the
depth of our inner Ufe, where we touch the Eternal Spirit ruling over
all, UberaUsm does not deserve to rule over our external life and
practical relations. That is what the history of to-day teaches us.
It is, however, an arduous task which is given us in the present
situation. Spiritual Ufe is awake and intense enough, but the liberal
reUgious movement has acquired neither the place nor the influence
it ought to have. Among our most important artists, poets, and
prose writers there are many who do not hesitate to express their
reUgious thoughts and feelings, and most of these are far from any
orthodoxy. But very few of them show sympathy with us, strive after
nearer relations with our ministers and scholars, or appear in our
churches, even when our best preachers, who are artists in their way,
are in the pulpit. This is partly a matter of fashion, partly
caused by prejudice and ignorance. Perhaps it would change if there
again appeared among us a real poet who should express with
striking beauty what we think, feel, and aim after. As for the
scientific side of spiritual life, science was from the beginning the
most powerful force of our movement. So it is stiU to-day. Was
this an advantage or an injury? At all events it was a danger.
Science can purify the seed of religious belief, but it can also abolish
it, and it can never sow it or grow it. Many of our scholars seem
to forget that the science of religion is not more important than
religion itself. And what practical value has the science of religion,

i68
if Uving piety cannot give a scientific expression to the free, devel
oped belief of to-day? We need more and more a philosophy of
religion which does not avoid the metaphysical problems. For the in
fluence of our historical and critical researches we cannot be thankful
enough. The old dogmatism is as a time-worn rock in the current
of science. Pieces break off every day. Many fancy themselves
established on immovable stone, and to-morrow they are caught by
the floating waves, vainly trying to hold to the rock with nerveless
hands. Most of the so-caUed orthodox are forced to make an irreso
lute compromise between the traditional dogmas and scientific dis
closures. Lately two ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church in
The Hague were brave and upright enough to give in their sermons
some critical considerations of Bible words, but the discussion they
roused in their own and orthodox circles was not whether such heret
ical opinions could be tolerated in the Church, but whether it was pru
dent to bring theology to the congregation from the pulpit. A great
number of their foUowers, however, stiU calling themselves orthodox,
attend with interest their services. No confessionaUsm is proof
' against truth and liberty. Therefore, though it is hkely that con
servatism and so-caUed orthodoxy in the National Church will secure
an increasing power in church government and in many congrega
tions, the more than three hundred hberal ministers in Holland
may be of good courage. The influence of our spirit and principles
is diffused much more widely than we know. And the main thing
is not the victory of our name and party, but the free evolution of
rehgious thought and hfe.
Among the internal phenomena of our religious movement, two
things seem to be very significant. First, there is growing up a
better insight into the value of historical feeling for the common
reUgious life. Thirty years ago many liberals thought that there
was no longer reason for the existence of the smaUer religious bodies
which had become liberal, such as the Remonstrant Brother
hood, or the Mennonite Society in most of its congregations.
Their ideal was to form free congregations everywhere without unit
ing them with the historical churches of any denomination, and to
make our Dutch Protestantenbond, or " Protestant Union," an asso
ciation which is composed of men of all sects, the new organization
of aU religious liberals. This proved a failure. It was short-

169
sighted to overlook that these historical bodies have their own char
acter and have had an honorable past. They have their proper
place in the spiritual life of our people, and fulfilled during centuries
their proper task in the struggle for reUgious evolution. How could
a brand-new organization, without a past or place in the people's
history, created for the uses of to-day, take their place ? Love and
respect for bodies which have done so much and suffered for the sake
of freedom in Christian thought and Ufe opposed themselves to
this idea. And this love was not a narrow spirit of sectarianism,
it was the vivid consciousness of an historical reaUty which ought
not to give place to the vagueness of an unpractical ideahsm.
There is no better means for realizing ideas and principles than
a true affection for the concrete bodies that have incorporated them.
An agglomeration of Uberals of every denomination has neither
past nor future. I think this is felt and experienced in all
circles of sympathizers which are not affiliated with the old liberal
reUgious bodies. Most of the sections of our Protestantenbond in
Holland are reaUy separate organizations of Uberal members of the
Dutch Reformed Church, trying to secure the ascendency of their
principles in their own beloved congregations. In other places,
where the hberals no longer had any hopes, they went over together
to another sect, forming new Remonstrant or Mennonite congre
gations, most of which are very flourishing. Only in Amsterdam is
there a free, independent congregation alongside the other liberal
organizations. It is the centre of a vigorous spiritual hfe, owing
to its leader, Rev. P. H. Hugenholtz. But it is as clear as it is prom
ising that love for the old National Church is increasing among its
hberal members and ministers. Its old friends are joining closer
together to promote their principles within their Church. They
form nowadays provincial unions in order to give support to the
poorer congregations.
It would, indeed, be fortunate if an intolerant orthodoxy could be
bridled. For it behaves as if there were no liberal members in the
Church. In Amsterdam the last liberal minister in the National, or
Dutch Reformed Church has been replaced by an orthodox one.
No wonder that the number of liberal members decreases every year.
But, wherever they can, they ought to maintain themselves courage
ously. Only where the situation is quite hopeless they would do

170
better to found new congregations. If they lose aU their love for
the old powerful Church which the greater part of the people belongs
to, they will also lose many opportunities to enter with their prin
ciples into the life of the people.
Concerning the smaller liberal denominations in Holland the
more their members love their history, character, and pecuhar
mission, the more their congregations wiU flourish and wiU increase
in the future. They need not be unfriendly towards nor jealous
of each other. They should rather be conscious that they are work
ing together for a common aim. Co-operation is most prosperous
in free self-reliance. Our International Congresses are an eloquent
proof of this. Even so it is the task of our Protestantenbond to
increase the consciousness of a common aim and of fraternal feehng
among brethren living and working each in his own house, and to
unite them in works of common interest which cannot be performed
by the separate churches and congregations. And there is surely
something to be done in that great workshop caUed the world!
The other thing which characterizes our inner reUgious Ufe is
the striving after what, perhaps, is to be caUed a more religious
religion. We have been long enough a theologizing and moralizing
part of Christianity. Now we are, I think, sufficiently sure that the
Bible is not a literaUy inspired revelation, that the traditional dogmas
are but a very defective expression of religious truth, and that the
evolution of religion is leading men away from the old opinions.
The moral side of our religious consciousness has also been long
enough put in the front. But we need to become assured again
what we may believe as the evidence of things not seen, the sub
stance of things hoped for, as a trust in things to strive after. Among
our preachers those are the most loved who are not only the best
orators, but also utter most clearly and resolutely their purely rehgious
convictions, and whose personal piety is felt as the touch of a hfe
which kindles life. Many people have got tired of theological,
Biblical, historical, and moral questions. They want to adore, to
trust, to obey, to love their God. They want the pure reUgion of
the gospel. If we do not give it simply, clearly, and warmly, fresh
from the heart to the heart, people wiU be seeking elsewhere, partly
in the fantastic and mystic congregations of Theosophy and Spirit
ism, partly in the confusing speculations of Hegel's philosophy,

171
which gives a new interpretation to the old dogmatic terms. And
the longing for a new reUgious-moral activity goes astray in social
ism. Most of our Christian SociaUsts are fuU of warm religious
feehng. But, the more stress they lay on social reform, the greater
danger that they wih bring more religious people to socialism than
socialists to rehgion.
It is, however, felt in aU classes that the best evolution of religion
is not to be found in theologically purified opinions, but in the one
thing needful, — that we at last become true rehgious beings, children
of God. I hope and trust this requirement is not a warning, but a
promise.

172
The Committee on Nominations recommended that the foUowing
persons serve as an Executive Committee of the International CouncU
of Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious Thinkers and Workers
until the next Congress: Rev. Samuel A. Eliot, D.D., Boston,
U.S.A., Chairman; Rev. Charles W. Wendte, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.,
General Secretary; Professor G. Boros, D.D., Kolozsvar, Hungary;
Rev. W. Copeland Bowie, London, England; Professor J. Estlin
Carpenter, D.D., Oxford, England; Professor B. D. Eerdmans, D.D.,
Leiden, HoUand; Rev. Max Fischer, D.D., Berlin, Germany; Rev.
George A. Gordon, D.D., Boston, U.S.A.; Rev. P. H. Hugenholtz,
Jr., Amsterdam, HoUand; Professor E. Montet, D.D., Geneva,
Switzerland; Professor Otto Pfleiderer, D.D., Berlin, Germany;
Professor Martin Rade, D.D., Marburg, Germany; Professor Jean
ReviUe, D.D., Paris, France; Rev. J. Emile Roberty, Paris, France;
Rev. G. Schoenholzer, Zurich, Switzerland; Miss M. B. Westenholz,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
The report was accepted, and the persons nominated were elected
by the meeting.
The President. — I am going to ask you to greet two more friends
this morning, for I think we have time enough, and you wiU all want
to hear a stirring word from the north of Scotland to wind up with.
I wish I could pause to teU of the glories of Switzerland, but I can
only ask you to greet Dr. Rochat, who was the secretary of the Execu
tive Committee at the Geneva. Council, and to whom we owe much.
He will tell us of the condition of this cause in the French-speaking
cantons of Switzerland. Rev. Dr. Rochat, of Geneva.
Dr. Rochat spoke in French. A translation of his remarks is
given herewith: —

173

THE CONDITION OF LIBERAL PROTESTANTISM
IN ROMANCE SWITZERLAND.
BY REV. ERNEST ROCHAT, D.D., OF GENEVA.
It does not seem necessary to define here what is meant by Lib
eral Protestantism. Every one is aware of that important movement
which has taken place at the heart of Reformed Christianity. Let
us then without prehminary approach the subject of which we are
to treat, — the Condition of Liberal Protestantism in Romance Switz
erland; that is to say, in the cantons of Geneva, Vaud, and Neu-
chatel. These three cantons, forming to-day parts of the same whole, the
Swiss Confederation, united more especially among themselves by
a common vernacular, the French language, have, none the less,
each a pecuhar character and temperament. Their respective
histories sufficiently explain these pecuUarities; but because to-day
they have united their interests with those of a common country,
and because from a pohtical point of view they form but a single
unit, it does not necessarily foUow that there exists among them a
general uniformity. What is suited to one is not suited to another,
and under the reign of hberty each foUows the way best adapted to
itself, a way dictated by its instinct or its tradition. For the same
reasons, the fact that the people of these cantons in former days
accepted the Reformation almost unanimously, it does not neces
sarily foUow that they have welcomed with the same sympathy this
more recent reformation which goes by the name of Liberal Protes
tantism. Individualism, which is one of the characteristics of Protestant
ism, has had time since the Reformation to affirm itself and expand,
and this perhaps explains why Liberal Protestantism, which ap
pears to us as a logical consequence of the movement inaugurated
by the great Reformers, has not been seized upon and accepted by

174
the mass of the Protestant population. It foUows from aU this
that, in order to present some clear observations on the subject under
consideration, we must refrain from giving a view of the whole, and
are obliged to consider each of these groups by itself.
In Geneva, about a century after the death of Calvin, a need for
emancipation with regard to his doctrine manifested itself. Towards
the close of the seventeenth century Louis Tronchin and Chouet
opposed the dogma of predestination, and this opposition was stiU
more marked in the person of Alphonse Turrettini. It was owing
to the influence of this eminent man that a little more liberty was
permitted to penetrate into religious ideas, and that it was declared
in 1725 that the catechism of Calvin should no longer be placed on
a level with the Scriptures. We may say, taking into account the
circumstances and the time, that the need of doctrinal liberty asserted
itself in the face of the authority of the Calvinistic regime.
The theologians of the eighteenth century aUowed themselves to
be influenced by the contemporary philosophical movement, and
endeavored to prove that the Gospels contain nothing contrary to
the principles of plain common sense. In the nineteenth century
the struggle became sharper. Ihustrating two opposing points of
view, we find Professor Cheneviere demanding that reason be granted
her legitimate rights, declaring himself an enemy of confessions of
faith and combating the dogmas of the Trinity and of original sin —
he was a Unitarian — and Pastor Gaussen, strongly attached to ortho
doxy, and known by his work, "La Theopneustie, ou Pleine In
spiration des Saintes Ecritures." The struggle of these two ten
dencies, of which we are about to speak, ended by the establish
ment, in opposition to the faculty of theology at the old university,
of a school of theology which was to represent and maintain ortho
doxy. To this school Edmond Scherer was caUed in 1846. He
entered rigidly orthodox, and left three years later, in 1849, one
of the champions of modern theology. We wiU not enter here into
details that would lead us from our subject, simply remarking that
Scherer is one of the most interesting figures of our epoch, for by
his thought and influence he is stiU among us, and, together with
Colani, Reuss, and Albert Re"viUe, by his very valuable coUabo-
ration in the Strasbourg Theological Review, one of the most dis
tinguished and zealous apostles of Liberal Protestantism.

175
This need of independence, this desire expressed by certain Ge
nevan theologians, not to permit theology to fall behind the general
movement of thought, maintained itself. It is therefore no cause for
surprise if, thanks to the influence exercised by men holding the
ideas of the school of the Strasbourg Theological Review, and to the
progress of a more modern conception of Christianity in the neigh
boring cantons of Vaud and Neuchatel, a group of pastors and
laymen found themselves ready to propagate and defend at Geneva
the principle of what has since been called Liberal Protestantism.
The year 1873 saw its official advent in the Church of Geneva. It
had the majority of the Consistory on its side, and it profited by this
to accompUsh the triumph of its opinions and principles.
As one may easUy believe, this transformation was not. accom
phshed without struggle and strife. There was an unhappy period
during which orthodoxy, sustained by the government of that day
and by popular favor, declared itself deprived of its ancient rights,
and charged the Church of Geneva with being responsible for their
loss. Having at its head men of faith, action and intelligence, and
confident in the power of the Gospel of Jesus, Protestant Liberahsm
took its place in the directing body of the church, the Consistory,
in the pastoral body by the nomination of pastors, and in the
theological faculty of the University by the nomination of pro
fessors imbued with modern scientific principles.
Liberal Protestantism, therefore, demanded its place in the body
of the National Church of Geneva, and obtained it. Not, however,
without difficulty. It was reproached with being destructive, neg
ative. This reproach was not without foundation; but since Lib
eral Protestantism could no longer accept Protestant tradition,
since it could no longer accept the dogmatic theology, it was bound to
declare what behefs appeared to it outworn and offensive to its con
science, it was bound to criticise the accretions of the past. It could
no longer accept the miracles, — it said so ; original sin, — it said so ; the
divinity of Jesus, — it said so. No, this first period in the life of
Liberal Protestantism could not be other than critical. In this
there was perhaps a loss, but there was this inestimable advantage, —
the taking of a definite position, of not permitting to exist, as was
elsewhere the case, any equivocation, any hypocrisy, and of demon
strating to the people that there existed a tendency capable of re-

176
maining religious and Christian while foUowing the movement
of the general thought. Liberal pastors, it goes without saying,
were treated as rationalists. It was desired to discredit them, and
the efforts in this direction were successful. Moreover, Liberal
Protestantism was reproached with being in league with a political
party, — the radicals. It is true that Liberal Protestantism found a
warm welcome among the radical leaders of that time. Demand
ing, as the condition of its existence, the revision of the laws govern
ing the Church, it turned towards those who understood its point of
view and desired its triumph. In a smaU republic, where traditions
are powerful, where party strife is so keen, and where class distinc
tion is by no means unknown, this marked affinity of Liberal Prot
estantism for the radical political party, though exacted by circum
stances, at once ahenated many sympathizers whom it otherwise
would have found among the Geneva conservatives. In certain
circles the claims and aspirations of Liberal Protestantism were
contemptuously disowned, and it was included with radicaUsm in
a common aversion. However, this politico-reUgious association
is not a unique and astonishing phenomenon. Is not the history
of the Reformation intimately connected with pohtical history?
And in European countries, where the political government did not
aid the new-born reform, what has become of Protestantism? Wit
ness France, Italy, and Spain. The ecclesiastical regime, resulting
from the association of Liberal Protestants and Radicals, was,
it must be admitted, so advantageous that very few in the present
generation would wish to restore the old state of affairs. This fact
is not without significance.
The struggle between liberal and orthodox, at first so intense,
finally subsided. Members of a church cannot Uve in a continual
state of war. The Liberal Protestants, children of the church of
Geneva, had their recognized place in the house of their fathers;
their demands had been taken into consideration; they asked no
more. A period of peace and reconciliation foUowed, and for this
the liberals were not the last to work. For about fifteen years the
church of Geneva has marched calmly on its way, including among
its members those who were once brothers at war, liberals and ortho
dox. What did Liberal Protestantism become during this period?

177
'That it encountered difficulties goes without saying. Orthodoxy,
•or, to caU it by the name it prefers, the Evangelical party, has pre
served the organization it formed in the days of strife. The Na
tional EvangeUcal Union, the centre of this organization, with its
own special pastors and with the chapels it holds, reaUy forms, as
has been said, a church within a church. If the Evangelical pastors,
or at least a certain number of them, show in the affairs of the
National Church a true fraternal breadth, the case is different when
it is a question of offices depending directly on the National Union:
they are always ready to maintain the principles of orthodoxy against
liberahsm. The aristocratic Genevese society and all that centres
around it, ignores Liberal Protestantism. In this society is wealth,
the devotion facihtated by leisure, social influence, and attachment
.(sometimes a mere matter of fashion) to rehgious traditions. The
more democratic hberals appear, by contrast, effaced. Although
Uberalism to-day numbers devoted friends in the different political
parties, the memory of that time when, by force of the circum
stances we have mentioned, liberalism made itself the wiUing syn
onym of radicalism, stiU hovers over it to its hurt, and turns from
it many who wUl not take the trouble to study its principles at first
hand. Many of the early liberals to-day prove lukewarm, some
absolutely indifferent. They cherish always the memory of the
¦combats and the briUiant passages-at-arms of thirty years ago. That
was the heroic age! They sigh for it; and, though they are by nature
very amiable, they have withdrawn to their tents. They have un
fortunately faUed to understand that an evolution is necessary to
liberalism, that its hour is come, and that, after having declared in
what respects it disagreed with orthodoxy, it must affirm its prin
ciples and its faith, offering to souls the sustenance of religion and
the Gospels. By a strange contradiction the new position which,
little by little, gained for it the sympathy of the moderate Evangel
ists, ahenated its early friends. Born of a popular movement, en
couraged and sustained by the people at its beginning, we would be
justified in supposing that liberaUsm would have retained its favor.
When from the midst of the people the Socialist party sprang into
being, the tie was broken. This new body early showed itself to be
anti-rehgious. Contrary to what is the case elsewhere in Switzer
land, where Socialism is not indifferent to the religious and Protest-

i78
ant question, at Geneva this new party, unfortunately inspired with
a spirit foreign to our traditions, wished to make an anti-clerical
issue at a time when the clerical question was not under debate, and
included in its condemnation clericalism and religion, — a fact which
did not prevent it, on a recent memorable occasion, from destroying
the ancient National Protestant Church of Geneva, and aUying itseh
with the Roman Catholics. It is not alone with us that these two
extreme parties are found marching hand in hand. WiU Protestant
ism, particularly Liberal Protestantism, be able to regain its position
in the centre of Socialism ? The future wiU tell.
This is the dark side of the picture: let us look now at the bright
side. In becoming, so to speak, more positive, in affirming more
than at its beginning, in showing itself less combative with respect
to the traditional doctrine, Liberal Protestantism appeared to its
adversaries in a more acceptable light. Thus it has penetrated into
circles which it had seemed must be forever closed to it, and drew
away from orthodoxy many thoughtful minds. Its influence, in
stead of diminishing, has, on the contrary, considerably extended.
But this gain, at least up to the present time, has not been realized
under the form of a numerical growth of the hberal party. Evan
gelical thought has modified itself, and to our advantage. The
liberal method has been understood, and has prevailed. This is
proved in the attitude of many Evangelicals towards liberals in
religious affairs, also by the fact that a member of the orthodox
party declared very recently, at a session of the Consistory, that in
his estimation the existence of the left wing of our church has been
advantageous to the party as a whole, and that he now admitted
this, although he would not have done so formerly. Thus the old
orthodoxy, little by little, has permitted itself to be influenced by hb
eral ideas. But, of these partisans, those whose influence would carry
most weight do not acknowledge themselves as liberals. The word
is feared: it is compromising. Among the laity we know more than
one who, while loudly declaring themselves to be no longer able to
subscribe to the traditional orthodoxy, nevertheless, by a strange
contradiction, follow pastors of the orthodox cloth. Among so-
called Evangelical pastors we know more than one who would like
to see the word "liberal" disappear from our common speech. This
would ease their consciences: they could then be liberals without

179
saying so and without anybody's knowing it. Thus one part of
orthodoxy clings to the old ways from habit and tradition. This is
particularly true of the old families. Another part, ill-instructed,
in spite of our efforts, in the principles of Liberal Protestantism, is
outside aU organizations, and wishes to attach itself to none. This
is disorder, spiritual anarchy. It even wishes to be regarded as a
church. We may differ in opinion as to what constitutes a church;
but we may ask ourselves, What would subsist among these
people, and how would the religious flame, the enthusiasm, the faith,
the prepossession in favor of the spiritual life, be sustained among
them? Although each, in his own opinion, is stronger and wiser
than his neighbor, few among them are sufficiently inquiring, suf
ficiently interested in their development, firm enough or high-minded
enough, to be able to dispense with an organization, a centre of
spiritual Ufe. This may lead to sad retrogressions: the Roman Ca
thohc Church, in particular, is ever ready to receive them into its arms
when the time shaU have come. FinaUy, many are liberals without
knowing it: let us not be too much surprised if they do not join us.
Orthodc xy can no longer maintain its old positions. It has been
compeUed to Usten, and to yield to evidence. It is vanquished by
the Uberal method. As a proof of this, we wiU simply refer to the
pubhcation of the Introduction to the Old Testament, by Lucien
Gautier (Lausanne, 1906). Professor Gautier defended as long
as possible the old views, since then he abandoned them. After
having in his celebrated lectures explained the Old Testament
according to the results of the historical and critical method, he has
just pubUshed for the general public the popular work we have
named. He writes in his preface this significant sentence: "Our
contemporary society is not without knowledge that on these grave
subjects new opinions have been framed, and that the views of com
petent men have been modified within twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty
years." M. Gautier has been listened to in a world until now
hostile to works emanating from the hberal school; and this world
has approved and foUowed. On the day when a similar result
shaU be achieved for the New Testament, a domain as yet reserved,
a long step forward wiU have been taken. That day will come: it
will come in strength, and it wiU bring with it the defeat of the system
of orthodox dogma, which new terribly suffers from the disorder in

i8o
which the Evangelical party finds itself. That day will also be the
proclamation of the victory of the method upheld by Liberal Prot
estantism. Can Liberal Protestantism exist as a party? This is a question
which we do not take upon ourselves to answer. To-day, in Geneva,
among those who interest themselves in religious affairs, there is
much prejudice against party and party spirit. Thus our people,
generally speaking, hesitate very much to declare themselves for this
or that party, and young pastors entering on their ministry refuse to
attach themselves to any organization whatsoever, liberal or orthodox.
That we fight against party spirit, if this be proud, arrogant, or un
just, if it upholds wickedness or incites hatred, is perfectly lawful;
but is it wrong for men of similar disposition, hke sympathies, and
having the same ideas in common, to form themselves into groups,
first because they take pleasure in being together, and then because
it pleases them to see the ideas which they hold in common gain
ground and spread? We are persuaded to the contrary; and we
even say — what were otherwise a commonplace, but necessary here
to repeat — that it is in bringing people together of their own free wiU,
and uniting their forces, that there is any chance of success. For
the time being we are on unknown ground. The popular vote*
of the 30th of last June, which has broken the ties that since the
establishment of the Reformation at Geneva united us with the
State, and suppressed by this act our National Church, leaves us in
embarrassment and perplexity. Can our present Church, under
*The National Church of Geneva has succumbed to a coalition composed
of anti-religious elements, Socialists, Roman Catholics, and of Protestants who
are separatists by conviction. In the canton of Neuchatel where the same
question of the suppression of the budgets of religious worship was put before
the people in the spring of 1907, it was decided in the negative. The people
of Neuchatel also stood by their national churches by a very large majority.
The parties grouped themselves in the same manner as in Geneva, except
that in Neuchatel the Roman Catholics voted for the maintenance of the
budget of the various cults. If they rejected it at Geneva, it was from
various motives. Since 1873, not wishing to submit to the ecclesiastical laws
imposed by the people of Geneva, they had constituted a church independent
of the State, supported by voluntary contributions, and were thus no longer
included in the budget of the cults. They recently voted for the separation of
Church and State in the hope of annihilating the Old Catholics and in the
hope of dealing a severe blow against the Protestants.

REV. PAUL REVERE FROTHINGHAM
Boston, Mass.

PRES. FRANKLIN C SOUTHWORTH
Meadville, Penn.

REV. MISS GERTRUDE VON PETZOLD
Leicester, England

REV. JENKIN LLOYD JONES
Chicago, III.

i8i
existing conditions, continue to maintain itself as a free church?
We would Uke to hope so. Under the influences of reUgion and
patriotism, hearts are drawn together. From the Evangelical side,
voices of authority have declared that the door of their common
home shall not be closed against liberal Protestants. So be it. It
is none the less true that for them, more than for others, the situa
tion is grave, and that they need, besides the help of God, the aid
of all their friends. Liberalism wiU pass, perhaps, through days
of trial, but the conquests it has made are assured, and, if it con
tinues in its efforts to place reUgious thought in harmony with
modern science, it has, without doubt, the future before it. It will
always present itself as a reUgious philosophy capable of responding to
the spiritual needs of modern generations.
If we have entered with some detaU into the circumstances sur
rounding Liberal Protestantism in Geneva, it is for the reason that
here alone, in aU Romance Switzerland, the movement is at the
present time organized.
The beginning of Liberal Protestantism in Neuchatel and in the
canton of Vaud — a beginning which had given birth to bright hopes
for the future — has come to nothing. It was a fire of straw. At
Neuchatel, after the events provoked by Professor Buisson, — which
came to an issue in the hberal constitution of the National Church
of NeuchateL and led to the estabUshment of an independent church
by the other side,— Uberahsm, qualified by rationalism, could not
maintain itself. OfficiaUy, it quickly disappeared. Nevertheless,
it may be said, in a general way, that in the academical and theologi
cal faculties, and in the National Church, "the critical, historical,
in short, scientific method prevails to-day in the teaching of the pro
fessors, and thus the new theology is filtered little by little into the
pastoral body." From this movement has resulted a transforma
tion in the preaching and the attitude of the pastors.
In the canton of Vaud, after the lectures of Messrs. Buisson, A.
ReviUe, and Pexart at Lausanne, Liberal Christianity was planted
in Vaudois centres and received from the laity an eager welcome.
It founded a section of the Union of Liberal Christianity. In short,
a chronicler could write, in 1874, that there was a very marked liberal
current: about thirty pastors manifested their sympathy for the
new ideas. But we are compeUed to believe that after this first ardor

l82
the Vaudois character reasserted itself. Rather slow, respecting
the traditions, with no inclination for individual initiative, desirous
of guarding against change, doubtless it saw in the new movement a
revolution, and did not long compromise itself with it. The word
"liberal, " also, was disapproved. The last pastor who dared to bear
that label has lately died, at a very advanced age, after having been
long since retired from the actual ministry: this was M. Audemars,
who offered the opening prayer at the International Congress at
Geneva. Professor Paul Chapuis, who finaUy openly attached him
self to progressive Christianity, and who was also a member of the
same Congress, died also about the same time, so that I believe
one would to-day seek in vain for a liberal Protestant in our neigh
boring canton. But men may be found, professors of the Faculty
of Theology at Lausanne, having the spirit of Liberal Protestant
ism, and who have recourse to methods made honorable by the
men we have named. Need we mention Dandiran, Emery, For-
nerod? Not that we desire to constrain these gentlemen to classify
themselves under any category whatsoever: it is not for us to deter
mine the position they have taken. We simply wish to point out
that they admit, for instance, the results of historical criticism, as
weU for the New Testament as for the Old; that they have recourse
to experimental and scientific methods; that they subscribe, for in
stance, to the ideas of Auguste Sabatier, even claiming to have
anticipated him. Certain among them regard Christianity as a
life, reject aU authority, that of the Book with that of the Church,
or of a church, not accepting as the Word of Truth, though it come
from the Apostle Paul or from Jesus Christ himself, anything but
that which finds an echo in the conscience of man; and rejecting
the miracles, even those of the New Testament. Thanks to these
influences, there exists in the Vaudois church a movement in the
sense of liberalism, but not making use of the word "liberal."
Also, orthodox beUevers, in the traditional sense of the term, are
very few. The majority of the pastoral body has taken a middle
position, but one which is neither very clear nor very logical.
Thus, for instance, they believe in the miracles, in the bodUy resur
rection of Jesus, as do their foUowers among the religious public.
After having been stimulated to form personal, independent con
victions, some pastors fall back and re-enter the borders of ortho-

i83
doxy, and here, as elsewhere, always for the same reason, because
to attach themselves to this body that goes by the name of or
thodoxy appears to them the easiest and simplest thing to do. It
is a piUow of indolence which has for some a very strong attraction.
In spite of aU this we may rejoice in the progress reahzed. We must
have patience. The ideas so dear to us wiU doubtless win their way,
and future generations, in accepting them, wiU experience, perhaps,
some gratitude towards the workers of the early days, by whom these
ideas were defended and propagated.
The President. — You wiU welcome as our last speaker this
morning a man who comes from the country where it is said that the
majority of the people roU a sweet morsel of John Calvin under their
tongues before breakfast. Mr. Alexander Webster wiU teU us of the
progress of theology in Scotland.

184

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEOLOGY IN
SCOTLAND.
BY REV. ALEXANDER WEBSTER, OF ABERDEEN.
It is told of an ardent Scottish emigrant that in his inborn rever
ence for the thistle, the sturdy symbol of his country, he took with
him plenteous seeds of the spiked plant and scattered them in the land
of his adoption.
I trust that I wiU not be regarded as having any design of thistle-
sowing whfle I seek to relate the story of our spiky Scottish theology.
I assure you it has now more down than pricks. But even for the
thorn a justification is possible. ' NaturaUsts teU us that it helps to
keep the soU open, and,whUe asses live, it is a necessity. Even for the
thistle in theology we may weU have sympathy, and, turning "the
weeder clips" aside, we may spare "the symbol dear" from ruthless
handling. What may be caUed the Authorized National Theology of Scotland
is embodied in the Confession of Faith adopted by the General Assem
bly of the Church of Scotland in 1647.
It was the labored product of the divines whose sittings at West
minster occupied five years. Several times in the preceding hundred
years various vain attempts were made to construct and authorize a na
tional creed. The country was fiercely divided ecclesiasticaUy. A pre
sumptuous prelatic party opposed the Presbyterian party, and apart
from these factions there was a papistical unsubdued remnant and
a considerable body of non-conformists — Quakers and others — who
hked not any of the fighting sections. At length the Presbyterian
party got the upper hand, and, leagued with the Puritans in ascend
ency in England, they produced a Confession which by their power
was carried into law.
The Enghsh circumstances favored the Presbyterial movement in

i8s
Scotland, and its leaders were deUghted with the invitation to " pro
pound, consult, trial, and conclude," with the Southern reformers
"in aU such things as might conduce to the utter extinction of Popery,
Prelacy, Heresy, Schism, Superstition, Idolatry, and to consider as to
the settlement which was so much desired of a union of the whole
island under one common catechism, one directory, and one con
fession." There was a great deal of sectarian finessing and political diplo
macy in connection with the work of Assembly, and, though the six
Scots commissioners were astute and determined Presbyterians, they
had to acquiesce in a confession not altogether to their mind. Indeed,
they were outwitted. Twenty thousand Scots had crossed the border
to join the fight against Charles I., and in the expectation that
England would become Presbyterian, but the diplomatic promise
given to the Scottish ear was broken to the hope.
On its presentation to the General Assembly the confession was
objected to on some points, speciaUy with regard to its Erastian defer
ence to the CivU Magistrate, but it was approved by the majority,
and became the creed of the nation. The Assembly enacted that a
copy of it, of the catechisms and the directory for fanuly worship,
should be in every house. The imposition of the confession was
coercive. There were many who would not acknowledge it as repre
senting their faith, but it was forced on those who held office.
As a matter of fact, the Confession of Faith did not become in any
inteUigent and deUberate sense the creed of the people. It origi
nated as an arbitrary, official, ecclesiastical thing. It was never any
more than a sectarian manifesto, and even as such it only represented
the zealots. Many, in signing it for office' sake, did so with a mark of
dissent. As a dogmatic statement, it had more dignity and weight than any
of its precursors. In the circumstances it was inevitable. Nothing
but a new papacy could have cast out the old. The autocracy
changed name and place, but did not dissolve. The presbyter was
but the priest with another title and residence. It is very difficult to
measure exactly the mfluence of the Standards on the national char
acter. Buckle makes the Presbytery more powerful than the Parliament.
We know from Burns how keen the people were on Kirk matters.

i86
"They lay aside their private cares
To mind the Kirk and State affairs,
They'll talk o' Patronage and Priests
Wi' kindling fury in their breasts."
But withal the Kirk was not so mighty as Buckle thought.
Every Sabbath there was to be seen the listlessness described by
R. L. Stevenson in his "Lowden Sabbath Morn," foUowing the an
nouncement of the text: —
"For noo's the time when pows are seen
Nidnoddin' like a mandarin;
When tenty mithers stap a preen
In sleepin' weans,
An' nearly half the parochine
Forget their pains.
There's just a waukrife twa or three;
Thrawn Commentators swear to gree,
Weans glowrin' at the bumlin' bee
On windie glasses
Or lads that tak a keek a-glee
At sonsie lasses."
Froude credits the Standards with being the source of the " conscien
tious fear of doing evil" in the Scottish breast, but that is an exagger
ation. Certainly, the Standards were elevated as fetiches by clerical
authority, and there was much superstitious deference paid to them.
The songs of Burns have gone deeper into the Scottish soul than
the Standards. The primary influence of the Standards is traceable
to the Shorter Catechism. Every child within the Presbyterian fold
had to learn that catechism. Burns hit off the gUbness piously
praised: — "Wee Davock,
Tho' scarcely langer than your leg,
He'll screed ye aff Effectual Calling
As fast as any in the dwelling."
The task defeated itself. The learning was not congenial, and pro
duced repugnance rather than respect. Yet the language of the
catechism haunted the mind with a weird authority.
The tenacious hold of Calvinistic theology for two hundred and
fifty years in Scoltand, with more or less tightness, is accounted for

i87
sociaUy by the strength of feudaUstic conceptions and customs. The
Scotch are clannish, conservative of tradition, and put seriousness
into their habits. Our poets have made patriotism a glory. Wal
lace and Bruce are great pohtical heroes in our imagination.
The tales of the Covenanters are stiU a power.
The main factors of the making of the Scottish character lie apart
from any body of speculative doctrine, and are mainly climatic and
economic. Partly by a rigorous cUmate and partly by pious direction the Scot
was made a reflective person. His faculties got an inturning habit
which turned to morbidness. His life was largely subjective. He
brooded, and became intensely introspective.
The picture of himself which our poet drew fitted thousands of his
lowly countrymen: —
"Ben i' the spence right pensivelie
I gaed to rest. . . .
There lanely by the ingle-cheek
I sat. . . .
All in this mottie mistie clime
I backward mused."
In such musing, seff-knowledge came, and sometimes the face of
the inlooker grew redder over what it saw within than the peat was
in the fire. Every such reflector, even one of "the unco guid," might
say,— "God knows, I'm no the thing I should be,
Nor am I even the thing I could be."
Ere the Confession of Faith was framed, the Scot had his
special characteristics. The struggle for independence and aU
that lay behind it had produced a distinctly marked species.
The portraits of fifteenth and sixteenth century Scots betoken
the high-cheek-boned, inteUectual, perfervid, dour sort famUiar
now aU over the world. Out of the ingrained characteristics in
a state of ferment the Confession of Faith came. It was involved
in the political drama in which the Scottish people were engaged.
That drama represented the uprising of democratic sensibility and
ideaUsm. There were possibilities in the Scottish nature stirring
to be. The Scottish soul was moving in worlds not yet realized.

i88
The force of tribal rule and clannish autonomy had broken up, the
ancient feudaUsm had spent itself in pride and blood, and a hardy
individualism vaguely sought opportunity. The leaven of inteUi
gence was working upon the old ignorance: mind was stirring in the
masses; the idea of personal and national freedom was rising.
At the emergence of inteUect the suppressive powers were abashed,
Pope and priest were discarded, and the king and lords who suc
ceeded were set up as instruments of the people's wiU.
A reconstruction of theology accompanied the reconstruction of
pohtics. A new Confession of Faith in God arose along with the new
oath of aUegiance to the monarch. The sovereignty of God, which
was the dominant note of the confession, was the theologic correl
ative of the supreme monarchy accomplished by the revolution.
The new king was empowered by the victorious section, and was
supposed to rule and legislate in their interest. He was to maintain
Protestant Presbyterianism.
Presbyterians were his favorite people. AU others he reprobated
and doomed to dishonor. The Confession of Faith in aU its details
reflected the political treaty marking the era of Presbyterian power.
The confessed Deity was the projection of a monarch partial to an
elect number, head of his heavenly court as the king was of his earthly
court. The reform of the State accomplished by the dominant sect was
expected to issue in measureless happiness to the mass. The country
purged of papacy and heresy would enter upon a new bliss.
The heaven of the confession is that imagined bliss transferred
to Paradise.
Its saints and holy angels are glorified Covenanters. The theology
of the reformers is an upthrown reflection of their ideal of pohtics,
a sky-picture of the State they conceived. To the new earth they
added a new heaven.
The Presbyterians regarded themselves as instruments in God's
hands for purging the country of false religion. They took hold of
the Hebraism of the Bible, and sought to establish it. To them the
promise of God had come. They were the chosen people, and to
them was committed the task of making a Christian theocracy.
The men of the covenant were possessed of an enthusiasm which
made them heroic. They were fanatical over their ideal, and fought

189
and bled for it rapturously. Their confession had in it the self-
satisfied assertion expressed jauntily in the Blue Bonnet song: —
"That the haill world may see
That there's nane in the richt but we
O' the auld Scottish nation."
Wallace had prepared the way for Knox.
The fight for physical Uberty was the prelude to the fight for spiritual
liberty. Freedom of conscience came after freedom of arm. Free
pohticaUy, Scotland must be free ecclesiastically. The Solemn
League and Covenant was a sequel to the Treaty of Indepen
dence. But the reformers did not reckon with their own dogmatism and
autocracy. They did not see that in casting off one tyranny they
took on another. But so it was. The confession became a con
straint. The Reformed Church produced its own restrictions.
The infalUble Bible involved a bondage as close and as sore as the
infallible pope did.
The confession was a recrudescence of clannishness. The con
fessors were the supreme clansmen: the non-confessors were the
rebel clans.
The movement for the liberation of the mind from bondage to
autocratic authority was arrested from within. The liberators in
stituted a new slavery. They caused aU masters of coUeges and
schools, aU teachers therein, and aU scholars at the passing of their
examination for degrees to subscribe to the Covenant.
Later they made subscription to the Confession of Faith a condition
of official position in universities.
The direct result of these restrictions was that the thinkers who
sought proper Uberty wrought outside the Church in a hostile way.
Any real phUosophy and science, as weU as aU spontaneous literature,
appeared beyond Kirk bounds.
The revolt of the native spirit from Calvinism is plainly traceable
in the Scottish literature of the eighteenth century, and from thence
onward in growing intensity. It is evident in aU departments of
literature, — in phUosophy, science, economics, poetry, and fiction.
The spontaneous Scottish Uterature is not Calvinistic, but aU along

190
its free line presents an effective counter-action to orthodoxy. It
has expressed the real Uve thoughts and feelings of the Scottish soul
and represented the growing point in Scottish thought.
Instinctively, orthodoxy set itself against the native phUosophy
and poetry. To the philosophers of the school of Hume it gave
special opposition. Yet the philosophers have had more to do with
the development and adaptation of theology than the theologians
themselves. The dogmatists tried hard to make philosophy in the
universities the procuress of Calvinism, and the philosopher had to
protest and struggle strenuously. The freedom for phUosophy was
won, and in aU the universities the law of variation in phUosophic
thought has shown itself. In his day Francis Hutcheson, the phi
losopher, was an avowed opponent of Calvinism, and later in the
same university the Cairds in their Hegelianism were influential
modifiers of the confessional theology.
At Aberdeen the synthetic method had a briUiant representative
in Alexander Bain. He was an unchurched man, and declined the
ecclesiastical touch, even for his grave.
Science, economics, poetry, fiction, were aU driven abroad by the
confessors, and from their haunts in the "brown heath and shaggy
wood" they sent forth their deviations, which the people took to as
manna. But everything has its compensation. The Scot has never been so
great in physics as in metaphysics. The objective study was denied
to him, and he avenged himself by being metaphysical. The re
pression of natural studies .by the Church had certainly the effect of
throwing the mind back on itself. Nature was made diabolic by
orthodoxy. Every extraordinary or uncanny occurrence was re
garded as Satanic. To search nature was to find Satan. He was
usuaUy "Yont the dyke . . . bumman,
Or, rustlin thro' the bour-trees, eoman."
So the people kept indoors and trembled. In these circumstances,
investigation of nature was not undertaken. Later, when there was
more courage and the geologists ventured forth among the rocks,
discoveries were made that staggered the pious searcher. When
Hugh MiUer reaUzed the age of the red sandstone and thought of

191
the dogma of the six days' creation and Usher's chronology, his
brain reeled and madness ensued.
The current idea regardmg the overnight shore-searchings of his
friend Robert Dick of Thurso — that they were trysts with the devil —
was fostered by the Kirk in the mterest of its Standards. All that was
avenged by the divine adjustment that wiU have things balanced.
Deprived of physics, we shine in metaphysics. StiU, we have Lyell
and Geikie to show, whfle we grudge the discrepancy.
The reformers did indeed, in their exclusive way, promote learning,
but it was aU to be subdued to orthodox belief and practice. To
what they regarded as mere secular learning they were opposed.
It was a distraction and a dissipation. For philosophy they had no
encouragement, for science they had naught but a ban.
The pursuit of Uterature was profanity of inteUect. The one thing
that learning was needed for was the interpretation of the Bible.
In the Canon of Scripture was aU knowledge, and its study was the
only holy and sacred labor.
And so it came to pass that culture was separated from religion
and condemned. It was driven into a kind of paganism, and we
find it in the next century after the imposition of the confession in
avowed revolt from Calvinism.
It stood out against the Hebraism of the Church with a Humanism
which was directly inspired by French thought. It sought other
ground for moral phUosophy than that which the orthodox theology
presented. It turned eagerly to human nature, to find in its intui
tions the sanction of ethics. There was a complete breach between
the phUosophy and theology. The theologians regarded the phi
losophers as infidels. In the biography of the Haldanes we have
a characteristic lamentation regarding the heretics. The infidelity
of David Hume, Adam Smith, and their coadjutors, first infecting
the university, had graduaUy insinuated its poison into the ministra
tions of the Church.
"Some had altogether thrown off the mask, like the eminent
Professor Playfair. . . . Other ministers, with more inconsistency,
exhibited the same infidelity, while they still ate the bread of ortho
doxy. Dr. McGiU, of Ayr, had pubUshed a Socinian work, ... yet
even he was absolved by the Assembly. Dr. Robertson, the friend
of Hume and Adam Smith, was not without reason more than half

192
suspected, whfle Dr. Blair's 'Moral Sermons' had shown how in
Scotland, as weU as in England, the professed ministers of Christ
could become (in the words of Bishop Horseley) 'Uttle better than
the apes of Epictetus.'"
But these infidels were the needed critics and correctors of ortho
doxy and the representatives of rationaUsm, the pioneers of the
Higher Criticism. From their work the evolving energies proceeded.
Moderates (as they were caUed), they were reaUy the mellowers and
modifiers of the intense severity and fierce bigotry of the Confes-
sionalists. It was inevitable that they should to some extent go
to the other extreme, and introduce a latitudinarianism and a laxity
which tended to intellectual and moral libertinism, but withal they
exercised a healthy liberalizing influence.
ReproachfuUy it was said of them by the biographer aheady
referred to: "They were utterly careless about the merits of any
creed or confession. . . . Their sermons generaUy turned on honesty,
good neighborhood, and kindness. They were free from hypocrisy.
They had no more religion in private than in public. They were
loud and obstreperous in declaiming against enthusiasm and fanati
cism, faith and reUgious zeal. But, though frightfuUy impatient of
everything which bore the resemblance of seriousness and sober
reflection, the elevation of brow, the expansion of features, the
glistening of the eye, the fluency and warmth of speech at convivial
parties, showed that their heart and soul were there, and that the
pleasures of the table and hUarity of the light-hearted and the gay
constituted their paradise, and furnished them with the perfection
of their joy." Over against that we may set the reference of Burns to
"Shaw and Dalrymple's eloquence,
McGilPs close nervous excellence,
McQuae's pathetic manly sense."
These genial and Uberal men, reproached as wine-bibbers and
associates of sinners, helped in a kindly way to relax the "rigid
feature" and realize the tyranny of the asperity which took to itself
the warrant of piety. They blessed the natural affections that
were banned by the preachers of total depravity, and encouraged
the poetic spirit.
From them we trace a line of inteUectual and ethical revolt within

J93
the Church itself against the theology of the confession. That line
indicates the path of learning, originality, and progress.
The Church marked it as the way of disloyalty, and placed its
sternest censure and severest punishment there.
In that line there is a very notable succession of prescient, cultured,
and courageous men, who in various ways keenly felt the bondage
of the authorized creed, and discerned that it was not according to
the higher BibUcal authority nor in harmony with enlightened reason.
A loftier inteUectuaUty, a finer conscience, or a subtler spirituality
than common, was theirs. They were treated as unbelievers, apos
tates, subverters of the faith, and marked with a speciaUy obnoxious
brand, but they were actuaUy the better behevers, more loyal to
truth and faithful to their function as interpreters of divine things
than those who stigmatized them. They should have been specially
honored for their prophesying and bravery. They were vindicators
of Uberty, exemplars of rational thought, iUustrators of outspoken
ness. They gave voice to the deeper consciousness of the time, and
uttered the humanism of the cultured spirit. While the poets and
story-teUers expressed the revolt of the general heart from the en
forced dogma, they expressed the protest of the theological inteUect
and the religious soul.
It is humiUating now to think of the heresy cases of the Scotch
sects. AU the sects took their turn at self-wounding and impover
ishment by prosecuting their most prophetic men. These now
appear as shameful mistakes, and expose the lack of foresight and
insight, the blindness of bigotry, and the utter stupidity of the
coercive method foUowed in defence of the Standards. The heretics
were the real victors. The verdict of history is with them. Though
some were cast out with a ban upon them and others were retained
with the cross of censure and suspicion on their backs, the truth
was with them, the credit is theirs.
In his review of the legal and other aspects of subscription to the
Westminster Confession of Faith the searching and candid principal
of St. Andrew's University says, "I ask my readers to consider
whether it is reasonable to expect that cultivated men can subscribe
these articles as articles of their own faith." And he adds the grim
reflection, "The men who framed the Confession of Faith, ... if
they had been aUve in the present day, would no doubt have rejected

194
three-fourths of the special doctrines of the Minority Free Church,"
—that is, of their own standard. Dr. Donaldson admits with some
pride that the Presbyterian sects have aU more or less "deviated"
from the Standards.
The great Scotch preachers have mainly been variations, deviators
from the orthodox type of thought. They broke the monotony of
deUvery, not only by their preaching style, but by their ideas.
Chalmers, Guthrie, Macleod, Caird, Service, were remarkable vari
ations. Any speciaUy felt pulpit power in Scotland has been that
of a non-conformist, one who rose above creedal restrictions and
spoke out of his own soul.
The regenerative influence in Scottish theologic thought came from
these deviators. The advanced group of preachers that presented
"Scotch Sermons" as an illustration of a "style of teaching which
increasingly prevails among the clergy of the Scottish Church" in
dicated clearly the line of departure. They declared that their work
is " the work of those whose hope for the future lies, not in the altera
tions of ecclesiastical organization, but in the profounder appre
hension of the essential ideas of Christianity, and especiaUy in the
growth within the Church of such a method of presenting them
as shaU show that they are equaUy adapted to the needs of
humanity and in harmony with the results of critical and scientific
research.'' In other sects, variation wrought for development. The most
notable recent instance of that is in the case of Professor Henry
Drummond, of the United Free Church. His frank and fresh intro
duction of evolution into theological thought had a regenerative
power, and his vivifying influence would have gone deeper if the
leaders had encouraged it.
Unfortunately for such renewal by deviation, church politics have
absorbed the main attention of the sects. The recent disruption
in the United Free Church put back theological concern indefinitely.
That Church had to fight for its property and status, and its anxiety
for some time will be politic. Its plight has affected the position of
the Established Church, and in that section also concern has to be
directed to temporalities. Meanwhile theology in Scotland is in
the background. It waits on adjustment of subscription to the con
fession. But, while it is stunted with us, it is in prominence in Eng-

195
land. There the advocates of the new theology are troubling the
pool of orthodoxy. The divine spirit must needs have its spokes
man. "Would God that aU the Lord's people were prophets!"
Perhaps the most powerful agent of development acting in the
Church is the Higher Criticism. AU the sects suspected and sup
pressed it.
The Free Church fought it blindly and bitterly in the person of
Professor Robertson Smith, and deposed him from his chair. The
resistance was vain, and now with bitter grace entrance and work
are granted. The criticism has taken away the textual basis of the
Standards and necessitated the reconstruction of faith. The churches,
with the corpse of confession upon their bier, have realized that
"the letter kflleth." But there is no ready grave to bury the Standards
in, "though they are slain and dead."
Along with the Higher Criticism as a developing force there have
to be reckoned, among other things, the natural evolution of mind,
the increase of science, the intensification of moral intuition, and
the continuous alteration thereby of the perspectives of history and
destiny. It may appear from the outside that Scotland has always been
solid in Calvinism, but the solidity is not so thorough as it seems.
For its area, Scotland has an extraordinary number of sects. Its
ecclesiastical history is one of continual division and animosity.
Taken numericaUy, Presbyterianism has always bulked more
largely than any other sect, but it has been split up into sections
more numerous and various than would have been thought
possible. Schisms and reunions make up the perplexing tale, and even yet
there are six sections of Presbyterians in existence. The old clan
disputes seem to have been transformed into sectarian strife. The
wrangle over territory which disturbed the straths and carses changed
into discussion over dogmas in presbyteries, synods, and assemblies.
The Papacy, which was thought to have been rooted out, grows
apace. Episcopacy flourishes, Congregationalism is lively, Metho
dists, Baptists, and scores of other sects thrive wondrously.
It is true that most of these sects have a professed theology of a
Calvinistic character, so that it appears as if Scotland were really
Calvinistic. But the Confession of Faith does not show the present

196
faith of Scotland, nor do the traditional articles of the Congrega
tional bodies express their actual belief.
The United Free Church has declared several expUcit modifica
tions of its standard, and there are more undeclared.
The Established Church has reviewed the formulas of subscrip
tion, and proposed a radical alteration. Neither of these churches
is Calvinistic in the old sense, nor perhaps in any sense. The old
position of absolut? dogmatism is virtuaUy surrendered. Prosecu
tions for heresy have practicaUy ceased. They have proved to be
suicidal. The most learned, earnest, and advanced men are the
heretics, and no Church can afford to sacrifice them.
How to get themselves out of the dUemma of trusts legaUy held
for Calvinism, when the ism is dissolved, is the puzzle now before
the two leading bodies of Presbyterians, and it presses on the other
bound sects also.
The social condition of the Scots has changed slowly and without
convulsion. There is stiU a large proportion of the population in viUages and
engaged in agriculture. The Highlands retain their peculiarities
with but little change, save that Gaelic is fading out.
There have been transformations of industries in the Lowlands
caused by the introduction of machinery, but they have gone on
quietly. The growth of cities has been gradual, and is against
concern for theology rather than for it.
Any genuine Calvinism there is now in Scotland thrives grimly
around the Highland moors and along the lonely shores of the
islands. The recent disruption of the old Free Church was practi
caUy a rupture between its Highland and its Lowland elements.
Of the 190 congregations of the "Wee Frees" reported as organized
(or being organized), no less than 144 Ue within what may be cahed
the Highland belt of rehgion. So are 104 of the 120 buUdings
actuaUy in their possession. Subscription to the Confession of Faith
in the strict sense is now a Highland peculiarity, a Celtic phenomenon.
Within the sects themselves many reasons may be found for the
retention of professed belief in Calvinism. It was supposed to
have under it the warrant of God's infaUible word and to be per
meated with the spirit of truth. The piety of the fathers stood
sponsor for it, the believing experience of tried souls supported it,

197
and the interests of the Church required its maintenance. It was
promoted and protected by aU the forces of religious authority. And
the sects were so much occupied with ecclesiastical polities that
they had no room for doctrinal considerations. Most of the divi
sions have been over the administration of affairs, State relations,
and diplomacies. The remoteness of Scotland from continental life,
. its msularity and air of independence, helped to preserve the cake
of belief from breakage.
The Church erected a waU of defence around its dogmas, and
made it profanity to touch them in any critical way. And so the
confession stands in history as an example of hermetical sealing up
of formal theology, an instance of the mummification of a creed.
The Professor of Divinity in Aberdeen University put the case
accurately in his address to students at the close of the session in
March last. He said, "The attempt to rear the fabric of our holy
faith upon a single exclusive type of elaborated doctrine has faUed,
and the world is Uttered with the debris of ecclesiastical strife still
cherished by too many with antiquarian fondness."
The Standards now are felt to be a dead weight, and aU the re
sources of law and piety are being brought to bear upon the problem
of their decent disposal. The decision of the House of Lords, in
case of the Free Church of Scotland appeals, has brought the Con
fessional and other churches to the dread alternatives of adhering
strictly to the creeds or of altering or discarding them. They cannot
profess the creeds in the primitive sense, and to alter or discard them
would require a remodelling of trusts.
The crisis is serious and severe, and caUs for the wisdom which
is from above. The reconstruction of subscription and of trusts
wiU delay the required reformation of theology to foUow the renas
cence of Biblical scholarship and wide theological culture, but that
higher work wfll have to be done. The men for it are in the making,
and the necessity for it wUl eventuate it. The consciousness has
come to the soul of Scotland, after being for two hundred and fifty
years like a fountain sealed, that theology cannot have health and
truth except it is in contact with spiritual energies that make for
development. The thistle is stubborn, but wiU at last "break into
glossy purples, which out-redden aU voluptuous garden roses." In
that day the repentant Scot, leaving his vain dogmas, wiU say,

198
with a fervor more radiant than that of our poet and altering his
words a httle: — "All hail, Religion! maid divine!
I join with those
Who boldly dare thy cause maintain
In spite of foes,
In spite of creeds of olden time.
In spite of black dogmatic grime,
In spite of bigotry's long crime,
Thy worth and merit
At last will brightly, purely shine
With Freedom's spirit."

The Congress adjourned to meet at 8 p.m. in the Old South
Church.

199

FOURTH GENERAL SESSION OF THE INTER
NATIONAL CONGRESS.
Held in the Old South Congregational Church, corner Boylston
and Dartmouth Streets, at 8 p.m., Wednesday, September 25th,
Rev. George A. Gordon, D.D.. presiding. Religious services were
conducted by Rev. Dr. Gordon. The music was by the choir of
the Old South Church.
The Chairman introduced successively the three speakers of
the evening, Rev. L. E. T. Andre, D.D., pastor of the Evangelical
Church of Florence, Italy, Professor A. Gaston Bonet-Maury, D.D.,
of the University of Paris, and Abbe" A. Houtin, of Paris, whose
papers are printed below: —

200

MODERNISM AND MODERNISTS IN ITALY.
A Study of the Present Situation of Catholicism.
BY REV. L. E. TONY ANDRE, D.D., FLORENCE, ITALY.

Italy is essentiaUy a CathoUc country. Out of the 32,475,253
inhabitants enumerated at the census of 1901, 31,539,863 declared
themselves CathoUcs; that is, 97.12 per cent, of the population.
AU told, there were only 65,595 Protestants, 20,538 of whom were
foreigners. But, if the number of CathoUcs is so imposing, it does not foUow
that they are aU fervent and active in reUgious practice. It is a sig
nificant fact that at the time of this very census 795,276 persons
were unwiUing to say to what reUgion they belonged, and 36,092
declared they were of no reUgion. And how many others made a
profession of Catholicism merely as a matter of form!
"The Italians," says Signor G. S. Gargano in the Marzocco, an
important literary weekly paper pubhshed in Florence, "are not a
religious people in the strict sense of the word. With us rehgion is,
for the most part, either the outcome of habits contracted ever since
chUdhood ... or it springs from the conviction that we may find in
it a means of defence against those forces that tend to overthrow the
established order of things. . . . There are but few to whom the sense
of religion is a purely personal fact. . . . ReUgion, in Italy, is never
disassociated from what we ordinarily caU clericalism, . . . and cler
icalism has nothing to do with faith." (No. 22, June 2, 1907.)
What are the causes of this indifference to reUgion that has become
so marked in our time, or, should I not rather say, that has dared
to declare itself so openly?
There are several, and they affect aU classes of society. In aU
countries, as weU as in aU denominations, many reject reUgion

201
because it prescribes their duties. But this cause of indifference is
foreign to my subject. The same may be said of others of a Uke
kind which I shaU not mention further. I would here consider only
those of upright conscience. Moreover, I shall limit myself to those
causes that are pecuhar to Italy, or which, while passing beyond its
frontiers, are more strongly felt in the peninsula.
i. The first cause to be noted is a political one. From 1849 t° 1870
Italy fought for independence and unity with all the ardor that
springs from a high sense of patriotism. This great movement was
led by men of reUgious mind. But the Church, altogether unwiUing
to renounce her claim to temporal power, set herself in aU her might
against the national ideals. Nothing more was required to aUenate
from her the hearts of all those who deemed, and rightly, too, that
reUgion should consecrate and encourage the love of one's country.
On the 20th of September, 1870, the Italian armies entered Rome.
The Vatican might then have yielded to the national pressure and
have accepted the situation. But the Vatican never disarmed.
To the present day it persists in its ancient claims. And more than
this, so that there shah be no mistaking its attitude, it has forbidden
CathoUcs to take part in the elections and administration of the
•country; for to do so would be to make themselves accompUces in
the usurpation. And, if at times the Vatican has suspended the non
expedit, it has not been with a view to the advantage of Italy, it has
been in the hope of securing victories for the clerical party who are
adversaries of the government, — a proceeding certainly not calcu
lated to gain friends for the Church.
2. After having aUenated the patriots from herself, the Church
alienated the proletariat. She began by withdrawing her interest in
social questions. But, urged forward by the SociaUsts, these ques
tions succeeded in commanding attention. The Church then learned
to fear SociaUsts, to fear their programme and their earUer success;
and, in order to put a stop to the movement, she forbade CathoUcs
to engage in social questions independently of her guidance. "Let
no one undertake anything, either against or without the wiU of the
bishop," wrote the Cardinal Secretary of State. The Congregation
des Affaires Extraordinaires went further: "Individuals, as weU as
society, before acting upon any decision whatever, owe a fuU and
entire obedience to the authority of the bishops" (Unitd, Cattolica,

202

No. 50, March 1, 1907). The proletariat saw that the Church inter
vened in order to paralyze their efforts, not to bring about the tri
umph of justice: they drew aloof, then, from the priests and aUowed
themselves to be borne away in the current of anti-religious doc
trines. In the priest (anti-democrat) they beheld a dangerous
adversary, and in religion itseh they saw an enemy that must be
fought. 3. The third cause is scientific. The Church dreads the free
researches of the human mind, and disapproves of such conclusions
as do not agree with the old affirmations which an impartial science
has recognized as false. It is, above aU, in the region of reUgious
criticism that the Church is intolerant. Now reUgious criticism
touches upon a crowd of problems scientific in the strict sense of
the word, historical, psychological, etc. Learned men of aU kinds
are shocked at the pretensions of the Vatican, and cannot do other
wise than forsake a doctrine coming from a Church that wfll not
open her eyes, and that denies the right of a free examination, lest her
own system should be disturbed. It is but natural that one should
mistrust those who fear the hght and the inquiry of proofs.
4. In the fourth place the Church is upbraided for her incapacity
to satisfy the aspirations of modern consciences, when, tormented by
doubt, they come to her asking for light to restore their faith. The
Church, faithful to the apologetic method of the Middle Ages, does
not perceive that the arguments furnished by the scholastic are mean
ingless at this day, — not only, indeed, neither persuading nor con
verting, but calling forth smiles, and estranging souls more and
more from a religion which justifies and defends itself so poorly.
5. A fifth cause of discredit is to be found in the numerous and
frequently gross superstitions upheld and propagated by the Church, —
the worship of relics; minor devotions to the Virgin, under numerous
titles; petitions to the less authentic saints, male and female, such
as Saint Expedit and Saint Philomena; three and nine days' devo
tions, rehgious festivals, centenaries, pilgrimages, etc. This super
stitious formaUsm disgusts aU those who feel within their souls the
need of a close communion with God, and to whom it appears that
the clergy themselves are imbued with the superstitions they uphold.
"The Church is iU," says Senator Fogazzaro in "The Saint."
"Four evil spirits have entered into her body, there to make war

203
with the Holy Ghost" (p. 336). They are: the spirit of falsehood
(p- 336); the spirit of domination (p. 339); the spirit of avarice
(p. 341); and the spirit of immobihty (p. 342). "The Catholic
Church, who caUs herself the source of truth, sets herself to-day
against the search after truth when it affects her foundations, the sa
cred books, the formulae of her dogmas, or her alleged infallibility.
To us this means she no longer has faith in herself. The Catholic
Church, who calls herself the channel of life, to-day restrains and
stifles aU the youthful hfe within her, to-day she props up all that
is tottering and aged within her. To us this means her death,
remote, but inevitable, death. The Catholic Church, which proclaims
the wish to renew all things in Christ, is hostile to us because we would
contend with the enemies of Christ for the guidance of social progress.
To us this, with many other things, means that she has Christ
upon her lips, but not within her heart" (p. 290).
This is why, day by day, CathoUcs become more and more es
tranged from their Church. Many who stiU bear the name of
Cathohc have no longer any faith in the Church, and no longer
practise CathoUcism.
Good and gifted men, moved at this spectacle, are endeavoring
to lead their generation back to a reUgious life either by urging re
forms or in spreading abroad a reawakening spirit in aU the mani
festations of modern life, that shaU be in harmony with the spirit
of modern times, hence the name Modernists which has been given
them. Reformers there have always been in the Cathohc Church, although
their pious desires have been quickly stifled. Some have wished
to reform with the pope, some without the pope, and others in
opposition to the pope. The Modernists come under the first cate
gory. They would have the pope adopt and decree the reforms
they suggest.
Their immediate precursors, in Italy, were Rosmini and Gioberti,
two great reformers of the Catholic form of worship and hierarchy.
The Modernists, however, have not all the same programme.
Some are more radical, others more mystic: some have a clearly
defined programme of reform, others simply desire to sow ideas in
the minds of an intellectual elite of ecclesiastics and laymen, — that

204
is to say, they wish to prepare opinion and await the time when,
as a result, they shaU see the reforms take place naturaUy in the ordi
nary course of events. Some busy themselves with one special ques
tion, — e.g., the social question, or the rights of science, or the moral
and mystic aspirations of the human soul, — others would attack aU
questions at one and the same time. I will say, further, that a
number of aspirations are marked by a certain vagueness, and,
indeed, one may note in them contradictions and some want of logic.
But, however that may be, Modernism is a noble movement that
has a claim upon aU our attention and sympathy. Men who fight
for a religious life and freedom of thought cannot but win the sym
pathy of us liberal and non-conforming Christians who have been
caUed upon to make our sacrifices for the triumph of the freedom of
thought and free communion with our heavenly Father.
If the variety of individual opinions is great and if it is difficult
to classify them, there are amongst them, however, some that are
more or less common to the majority of Modernists. These opinions
I wiU endeavor to recapitulate.
GeneraUy speaking, the Modernists naturaUy wish to remedy the
evils from which the Church is suffering by removing the causes of
discredit that I have enumerated. In other words, the Modernists
wish to have a religion conformable to present needs and contem
porary thought. Such was the desire of the Church in the Middle
Ages, and she acted accordingly; and the methods which to-day are
old at that time constituted a veritable progress, since they brought
religion into harmony with the degree of the nation's culture. It
would be sufficient now, say the Modernists, to take up and continue
the work of the past, foUowing the same principle of adaptation.
I shaU here note three kinds of Modernists: —
(a) First, those who have in view political and social questions,
scarcely at aU disturbing themselves about dogmas and reUgious
opinions. (b) Those especiaUy interested in the search after truth through
science and rehgious criticism.
(c) The mystics who desire reforms more strictly rehgious and
pertaining to the forms of worship.
I would observe, however, that this subdivision is somewhat
artificial, for the same individuals fall sometimes under two of these

205
heads, sometimes even under all three. The most distinct of these
classes is the first. II.
POLITICO-SOCIAL MODERNISTS.
In their attitude towards the state and society what the Modern
ists demand is: the abandonment of the "Roman question"; liberty
to vote; the separation, if not of Church and State, at least of the
interests of the Church and those of the State; and autonomy, — that
is, freedom to act in society without seeking counsel of the ecclesi
astical authorities.
i. I have put the "Roman question" first. The Modernists will
no longer hear of it. A bishop who was interviewed said to the
representative of the Rassegna Nazionale (November 16, 1904):
"Temporal power is gone forever. It is buried. Do not let us dis
turb the tomb. It is wishing for the impossible to wish it even in a
smaU degree, and whoever wishes for the impossible is a fool."
I do not know the name of the bishop interviewed, but Monsignor
BonomeUi, bishop of Cremona, is of about the same opinion (Unitd
Cattolica, No. 62, March 15, 1907).
I wfll not make further quotations. Innumerable articles advise
the Church to accept what is accomphshed, and to recognize without
restriction the royal government of United Italy.
2. The liberty of taking part in the elections and administration of
the country is less urgently insisted upon. Not that the Modernists
are less desirous of it, but since numerous electors have formed
the habit of doing without the permission of the ecclesiastical
authority, and act as if the non expedit no longer existed. Besides,
the non expedit would disappear with the disappearance of the
Roman question.
3. With regard to recent events in France the bishop of Cremona,
of whom I have aheady spoken, has pronounced himself in favor
of the separation of Church and State. Don Romolo Murri is of
almost the same opinion, though he does not go so far. The prin
ciple of the Modernists is, in fact, " to render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"; and what
the Modernists desire above aU is that the Church should no longer

206
interfere with political questions, nor the State in ecclesiastical
matters. 4. Lastly, the Modernists demand autonomy. Cathohcs, they
say, depend upon ecclesiastical authority with regard to dogma and
ethics; but, as regards aU that which is neither dogma nor ethics,
they should be their own masters, free from the interference of either
priest or bishop or pope. As citizens, then, Cathohcs may think,
speak, and work independently of ecclesiastical authority, and engage,
as seems good to them, in everything that concerns the civfl, pohtical,
economic, and social life of the country.
These are especiaUy the claims of the "Christian Democrats."
They are socialists: their programme and their claims are those of
the proletariat, with the exception of one important point. The
Italian socialists are atheists. The Christian Democrats remain
Christians (Catholic) as their name indicates, and consequently, if
they speak to the proletariats of their rights, if they, indeed, insist
upon them, they also recaU to them their duties. For Christian
democracy is animated by a spirit of order and equity, in spite of
the confusion and vagueness that stiU envelop many points.
This movement, whose great apostle is Don Murri, the Vatican
endeavored to monopolize and direct at its own pleasure. But the
Christian Democrats claimed to be free. Hence the conflict with
the ecclesiastical authority which disputes their right either to act
or to bear the name of Christian if they do not submit to the bishop
of the diocese.*
But how are these many politico-social reforms to be brought about?
The Modernists are of opinion that there must first take place a
transformation and a purification in the government and adminis
tration of the Church. The Church is too monarchical. She must
abandon her old system of coercion. Let her recognize episcopal
autonomy, the right of laymen to religious initiative and activity.
More than all, she should make better choice of her priests, not
choosing priests trained to submission, but upright and moral priests,
conversant with the needs and aspirations of modern society. Lastly,
in order to remove causes tending to a conflict with Italy, the number
of foreign cardinals must be increased, while that of ItaUan cardinals
is as much diminished. To do away with the crushing numerical
* At present many have taken the name of "National Democrats."

207
preponderance of the Italian cardinals is the only means of rendering
the Holy See independent of local circumstances. Not to mention
that foreign cardinals are more favorable to progress than the Italian
cardinals. III.
Scientific Modernists.
Let us now pass on to the second class of Modernists, those who
are theologians or learned men, who demand the recognition of the
rights of science in the realm of religion as in aU other realms.
They desire, firstly, to assert this right in Biblical criticism. "The
Bible, they say, should be studied in the same manner as all other
sacred and profane books of antiquity" ("A Pio X.," p. n). Re
garding the New Testament, here is a statement of the manner of
criticising taken from an anonymous brochure, "Letter to Pius X.,"
which appeared four months ago: "The rehgion of Israel belongs
to us but indirectly. To-day we are Christians, and our civihzation
is Christian; but, before becoming Christians, we belonged to the
Graeco-Roman civilization, and, if Christianity is the fulfilment of
the rehgion of Israel, it had, however, in order to become our religion,
to transform itself by assimilating Oriental civihzation and becoming
Graeco-Roman. As a result of this, after we have accepted the Old
Testament, there stiU remains a great work to be done. Not only
must aU the books of the New Testament be submitted to criticism,
but the relation they bear to the books of the Old Testament and
to the Graeco-Roman civihzation must be studied. Only then shall
we be able to comprehend what was originaUy the spirit of the Chris
tian civflization, what were its primitive and authentic elements,
what those that were borrowed from the reUgion of Israel and those
that were due to the Greek civflization." ("A Pio X.," p. 12.)
But the Modernists deem that the Bible is insufficient to reveal
aU the aspects of truth, and to the critical study of the texts of the
Old and New Testaments they would add the study of the history
of religions.
Lastly, the Modernists attach a great importance to the study of
psychology and its free and sincere application in the realm of
religion.

208
Let us enter into some details.
The foUowing are some of the interesting conclusions the Mod
ernists have reached: —
i. The evolution of revelation. ReUgious consciousness, which at
first manifested itself in mankind under superstitious and imperfect
forms, rose little by little to forms that were purer, and in Christi
anity revelation reached its highest point.
2. Nevertheless, some good is to be recognized in other religions.
They, too, are revelations from God to the human soul, as was
recognized long ago by the Apostle Paul.
3. Revelation is not a communication of truth directly made by
God to man at one given time and by outward means. It is a psy
chological revelation that has its seat in the human soul, and which
arises from an uninterrupted succession of vivid personal reUgious
experiences. 4. We are to learn how to distinguish between religious truth and
the forms in which it is contained. The ancients succeeded in form
ing for themselves a certain idea of God and man's relation to him, —
a conception which corresponds to no reaUty in our days. Formerly,
mankind loved the supernatural, and God appeared great through
the miraculous. Nowadays, on the contrary, the divine majesty is
felt in the contemplation of the wonderful and immutable laws of
the world. Thus it is to take a step in advance (while stiU remaining
faithful to the spirit of religious truth), to detach it from those transient
forms with which it has been clothed in the past. If the recitals of
the creation, the faU, and the deluge, to cite some instances, are
legendary, and not historical, they none the less retain aU their moral
signification and their psychological character.
5. The evolution of faith, for this is co-ordinate with the inteUectua
and moral evolution of man. AU that is spiritual in man is closely
united; and, when one part of his spiritual being develops, all the
rest does so to the same degree.
6. Then, the evolution of dogma, which is the expression of faith,
must also be admitted. Father Semeria, a learned Barnabite, has
said, "The thought of God can only become dogma by becoming
incarnate — let the expression pass — in the mind of man" ("Dogma,"
gerarchia, p. 54). "No human thought, however divine may be its
import, can remain immobile" (op. cit., p. 96).

209
7. If aU religions contain divine elements, the Catholic Church
has no right to shut out from heaven those who profess other religions.
8. More than this, the Church should not be offended at an impure
or imperfect faith within her own pale where there is a pure life and
an upright conscience (cf. Fogazzaro, op. cit., p. 465).
9. The dogma of eternal punishment is contrary to the idea of
divine goodness and justice.
10. Lastly, theology can be identified neither with scholasticism
nor with Christianity, nor with dogma. It is the systemizing of the
various interpretations of faith throughout the centuries. It may
therefore be stfll further changed by assimilating contemporary
culture. StiU more, it is necessary that it should change if it is to
satisfy the needs of modern consciences. To-day, in order to con
vince men and reanimate their faith, the worn-out arguments of the
Middle Ages must be abandoned, and a new language, simple and
inteUigible, found. This new language, which would be embodied
in a new apologetics, cannot be otherwise than penetrated by a scien
tific spirit. The anonymous brochure from which I have aheady
quoted affords two examples of this. To-day, we read (p. 16), in
order to explain the nature of the Trinity, it is impossible to have
recourse to the ontologic terrninology of scholasticism. The words
"essence," "nature," "hypostasis," mean nothing to modern minds.
Let us separate, however, the rehgious signification from the dogma,
God is Father, Love, Wisdom, and this we understand. Similarly
(pp. 16, 17) we do not admit the traditional theory of transub-
stantiation, in order to explain the mystery of the eucharist. It is
through faith that the faithful are brought into contact with the
real, hving Christ.
These liberties that we take, add the Modernists, are those that
the Fathers of the Church have taken before us. Thus we are their
true continuators. A continuator is not an imitator or a copyist.
To continue is to enter into the spirit of one's predecessors, to con
sider their work in connection with the degree of culture belonging
to their times. We have the right, therefore, to reject many of their
opinions, seeing that since their day the times have changed.
Identical reasons prevent us from beheving the modern legends
of Saint Expedit and Saint Philomena, etc., and such assertions as
that of Cardinal Cavallari, that the Apostle Saint Mark was the first

2IO
bishop of Venice (Osservatore Romano, No. 91, April, 1907), or that
of the present pope, in his encychcal of the 27th of October, 1904,
" The Hebrew patriarchs believed in the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception." IV.
Mystic Modernists.
The Modernists of the third category are preoccupied neither with
social questions nor politics, nor theology. They caU for a reform
in Christian life and in the forms of worship. Of such is Senator
Fogazzaro in "The Saint," and many other men less weU known,
not to mention women, of whom there is in fact a greater number.
These Modernists are reproached with being neither theologians
nor historians, nor exegetes. And so much the better, if the charge
is true. Their voice is that springing from the conscience and the
heart, it is that of humble beUevers thirsting for divine communion,
that of true, sincere worshippers in spirit and in truth, that of men
who desire above all to realize a truly active Christian Ufe. And
these souls, it seems to me, have every right to make their wishes
known. They do not see in the Church simply a hierarchy. It is
in their eyes a universal community of the faithful, and they beUeve
that from the depths of every Christian heart the living water of truth
may spring up (cf. Fogazzaro, op. cit., p. 291).
1. What such souls long for more than aU is an actively Christian
life in conformity with the gospel and more especially with the Sermon
on the Mount.
They desire, so we read in "The Saint," a great moral task, the
return of beUevers to the practice of evangelic teachings (p. 71,
cf. p. 195); for Christianity consists, above aU, in living and acting
according to the spirit of Christ (p. 276). The Master cares little
for a multitude of words. What he desires, rather, is to be served
faithfully and in silence, our minds fixed always on his wiU (p. 220).
For, indeed, the supreme purpose of human creatures is to glorify
their heavenly Father. They that glorify him are they that have
the spirit of charity, of peace, of wisdom, of poverty, of purity, and
of fortitude, they that employ their vital energy for the weUare of
their brethren (cf. p. 295).

211
"We desire," adds Don Romolo Murri, "a purer, more intense,
more practical, more Christian Christianity, more in conformity with
its origin and, above all, more in harmony with the gospel" ("Li-
berta e Cristianesimo," p. 8).
2. This is not aU. The Modernists of this category, both men
and women (the women perhaps stfll more than the men), demand
a reform in the manner of worship. The present forms of worship
do not satisfy their consciences. We desire, they explain, that
Catholicism should be freed from the heavy impediment of outward
forms and devotions that uphold superstition.* We want more
spirituality and the practical mysticism that appeals to and feeds
the soul. We want direct communion with God.
The clergy, we read in "The Saint," neglect to teach the people
that inward and spiritual prayer purifies the soul, which certain
superstitions cannot do other than corrupt. . . . These priests are
Ul-pleased when souls communicate directly and in the natural way
with God, going to him for counsel and direction. . . . They them
selves wish to direct these souls, in the character of mediators (p. 339).
. . . But we desire to communicate with the Uving Christ (cf. pp. 67,
68). But how is a reform in the manner of worship to be brought about?
It must be begun, say the Modernists, by a reform in the disciphne
of the clergy. That is to say, it is necessary (a) first to make a reform
in the system of recruiting the clergy for the purpose of making sure
of the fitness of the young seminarists; (b) next, the seminaries,
with their courses of study, must be reformed, so as to send forth
wen-informed priests; for it is the ignorant clergy, stiU more than
the Vatican, that keep up superstitions; (c) more than aU, there
should be an aim to form priests of a real, living, and fruitful faith
and perfectly moral Ufe; (d) one of the best aids to a moral life on
the part of the clergy would be the suppression of cehbacy; (e) lastly,
the reform must be introduced in the same way into the monastic
orders; for monks and nuns, especiaUy monks, exercise, no less than
the priests, a continual influence over the minds of the faithful.
* Among the superstitions that have been most severely attacked I will mention that of the
transfer of the House of the Virgin to Loretto, near Ancona.

212

Conclusion.

Such are the Modernists. I repeat it, they are not aU of
Uke opinion, nor do they see things from the same point of view.
Some are preoccupied above aU with the relations of Church and
State or with social questions; others with theology and science;
others with the ideal of a reUgious Ufe; and, lastly, others who interest
themselves in aU these questions at one and the same time. And,
whatever may be their purpose, they have not been able to avoid a
certain amount of vagueness, and even certain contradictions, of
which I have not here treated. But what is there astonishing, in
this, seeing that they are stfll feeling their way and are passing
through a difficult period of transition ?
I have said, too, that the Modernists do not mean to leave the
Church within whose pale they were born. I reiterate this point.
It is from the legitimate authority that they expect these reforms.
They wish to remain, so we read again in "The Saint," "on abso
lutely Cathohc ground, looking for the new laws from the old authori
ties" (p. 66). The editors of the Rinnovamento (a Modernist peri
odical of real worth published at Milan), when censured by Arch
bishop Ferrari, replied that, though they should not cease to pubUsh
the review, they did not any the less cherish "a profound love for
the Catholic . Church from which they did not wish, nor could they
ever bring themselves, to separate" (May, 1907, p. 612). There is
the same declaration in the anonymous pamphlet from which I
have aheady quoted: "We have no wish to be rebellious CathoUcs,
but sincere CathoUcs, desirous of saving Christianity. Our rebellion
is at most the force that a loving son might use towards his sick
mother to obhge her to conform with medical orders indispensable
to her health" ("A Pio X," p. 23). "Everything wfll be done to
rank us as apostates, but we shaU hold firm to our position, ready to
endure aU, to sacrifice all, except the truth" (loc. cit.).
This resolution has disconcerted the pope himseh, and greatly
irritated him. On the 17th of April, 1907, in bestowing the cap on
the new cardinals, Pius X. complained of the Modernists in violent
terms. He caUed them "sowers of tares, apostles of monstrous
heresies, rebels." In the recent new syUabus that appeared two

HENRY W WILBUR
Philadelphia, Penn.

PRES. FREDERICK W. HAMILTON, D.D.
Tufts College

REV. J. B. WESTON, D.D.
Defiance, Ohio

DR. JAMES M. WHITON
New York, N.Y.

213
months ago their opinions were formally condemned. As for the
clerical party, they do not hide their anger and scorn. The pope
only, they repeat, may suggest reforms: he only can guide the con
sciences and minds of men, and the Modernists who pretend to
arrogate unto themselves this right, and yet remain CathoUcs, are
inconsistent. They are dangerous rebels, wolves in sheep's clothing.
Modernism is an octopus of a thousand tentacles (Unitd, Cattolica,
No. 90, April 19, 1907), a serpent that hides itself, in order to be more
sure of inoculating its venom (Osservatore Romano, No. 94, April 21,
1907). It is a great enemy of the Church, a fatal enemy, more
dangerous than socialism, UberaUsm, and even than freemasonry
(Unitd Cattolica, No. 96, April 26, 1907).
These expressions, ladies and gentlemen, wiU give you a feeble
idea of the numerous attacks to which the Modernists have been
exposed. Censure, espionage, calumny, low and vulgar defamation, —
such are the ordinary means, they say, that have been employed
against us ("A Pio X.," pp. 21, 23). We are attacked in the news
papers, in the reviews, in pamphlets, and in books. Our pubUca-
tions have been placed on the "Index." Signor Fogazzaro has been
condemned. Don Murri has been suspended from his divine offices
(a divinis). There is no annoyance to which we have not been
exposed. But the Modernists, so far, have held out weU.
If they are condemned, they submit to ecclesiastical authority.
They reply: Certainly, we admit it. From your point of view we
are in the wrong. It is clear that the present ecclesiastical authority
does not think as we do, and we recognize this since you wish it.
Having said this, they continue, nevertheless, to think, speak,
and even write, without modifying their ideas.
We can understand that there should be among the Modernists
such an employment of expediency which would be inexcusable
in men who are masters of their own thoughts, for they believe they
can have no influence over their contemporaries except by remaining
united to the Church in which they were bom. And I think they
are right. " So long as we are in the Church, we are Ustened to,"
several ecclesiastics have explained to me. "If we separate from
the Church, it wiU be aU over with our influence. All those who
follow us to-day would then become suspicious of us."

214
Besides, the Modernists do not purpose doing anything abruptly.
They wish to sow ideas and wait patiently until they germinate.
They wish to prepare men's minds, to accustom them, Uttle by little,
to reflection and liberty, to create an opinion that shall spread and
establish itself in due time. And in thirty, or perhaps fifty, years
they believe the reforms wfll come about of themselves, seeing that
the ecclesiastical authority wiU then no longer be able to escape from
them. It is what has taken place in the case of "Americanism." In the
United States of America, the country of independence and free indi
vidual action, the Roman Catholics enjoy privileges that the old
continent has never obtained. The general opinion demanded them,
and the Vatican, which knows how to bow to imperious circum
stances, acceded to the demands. Why should it not be the same in
Italy ? think the Modernists. Why should not the reforms in Cathol
icism be accepted also amongst us? And why should not a first
series of reforms bring about others in their train until the complete
programme be realized?
WiU these reforms be made ?
The r61e of prophet is a thankless one, and it is not for me to
divine what the future holds in store for us. However, I cannot
help expressing my fears. The Vatican is strong, strong indeed by
reason of its inertia, and then the people at the present time, especiaUy
in the south of Italy, are not ripe for rehgious spirituality, and wiU
not be for long to come. And, as long as the Vatican is able to rely
upon the masses, which are capable of sudden revulsions and of
jeering at their former object of superstitious worship, it wiU not
disarm. Moreover, is an internal reform of official Catholicism possible?
at least, reform as the Modernists understand it ? The papacy has
woven such a close web about itself that, supposing it should one
day wish to reform, it would find it impossible to set about the task
without breaking away from the past, and in a way putting an end
to its own existence. To touch the present system would be to
shake the whole edifice built up by the authority throughout the
centuries; and what pope will resolve upon such an undertaking?
Is not the Catholic Church true to herself in spuming the claims of
the Modernists? To satisfy their desires, it would not be sufficient,

215
indeed, to revise the essential dogmas, common to aU confessional
Christian communities, — to revise them, that is, by modifying their
expression and their theological interpretation while stiU preservmg
the fundamental terms; but it would be necessary to transform and
often suppress many articles of ecclesiastical doctrine that in the
present state of Catholicism are considered necessary to the unity
and for the safeguarding of the system.
And wfll not the Modernists, despite their desire of remaining
united to the Church, and patiently waiting thirty or fifty years,
tired at last of obtaining nothing, be compeUed one day to form a
separate party, and create a new form of national and liberal Cath
oUcism? In the sixteenth century, too, the reformers wished to remain united
to the Church of their fathers, but they were compeUed to separate
from it.
Now the Modernist movement of to-day, as you have doubtless
remarked, presents great analogies to those of Luther, Calvin, and
ZwingU at the beginning of their reforms.
The Modernists have aheady been accused of a tendency towards
Protestantism. They have vigorously and earnestly protested.
And, indeed, it would not be to the advantage of the scientific and
critical Modernists to unite their cause with that of the Protestants
in Italy, where ItaUan Protestantism is conservative and dogmatic.
Besides, they wish to act, I repeat, in the interest of their own Church,
in the hope of securing the vitality and prosperity of Catholicism
in the future. But wfll they succeed ?
These are some of the questions I put myself, but which I make
no pretension to answer. But, however it may be, from this move
ment that I have endeavored to describe to you, and which is of
thrilling interest, some good wfll certainly arise. Even should it be
momentarily arrested, it wfll not be suppressed. No human power,
we are firmly convinced, can arrest the march of truth. And, sup
posing the Modernist movement should remain a long time in an
unsettled state, individual spiritual Ufe, the hberty of conscience,
reUgious criticism and science, the daily practice of duty, and the
triumph of social justice can only gain thereby.
As for us, we can only with our wishes accompany these priests
and laymen absorbed in the search of truth and the means of prog-

2l6
ress. They wish to act alone. They are men of independent soul.
Let us respect their desire. Let us not compromise their cause
by an unseasonable interference, but let us foUow them in thought
with aU the interest that the conquest of the noblest and most sacred
Uberties arouses in our minds, — the hberty to open our hearts spon
taneously to every manifestation of individual Christian activity,
the Uberty to worship God in spirit and in truth, in perfect accord
with our conscience. MODERNIST NEWSPAPERS AND REVIEWS.
I.
Politico-ecclesiastical Questions.
La Rassegna Nazionale (fortnightly). Florence, 46-48, via Gino Capponi.
Subscription for foreign countries: 30 fr. a year; 16 fr. six months; 9 fr.
three months.
It is not devoted to exegetical or dogmatical questions, but treats occasionally those
concerning politics or ecclesiastical government. It is inadequate to give a complete idea
of the Modernist movement, being especially a literary review.
II.
Social Questions.
Atione democratica, organo della Lega Democratica Nazionale (fortnightly).
Turin, 33, via Garibaldi. Subscription, 1.50 fr. a year, not including postage.
Organ of the National-Democratic League.
Battaglie d' Oggi (fortnightly). Editor, Gennaro Avolio. Neapel, S. Antonio
a Tarsia (Ventaglieri), No. 2. Subscription for foreign countries, 3 fr. a
year.
La Fiaccola Democratica Cristiana (weekly). Bologna, 18, via Zamboni. Sub
scription, 3 fr. a year, not including postage.
Giovenlu Nuova (fortnightly). Cittk di Castello (Perugia). Subscription,
2 fr. a year, not including postage.
La Giustizia Sociale (weekly). Florence, 10, via del Corso. Subscription,
2.50 fr. a year, not including postage.
La Liberia (fortnightly). Fermo (Marche). Subscription, 2 fr. a year, not
including postage.
La Montagna (fortnightly). Editor, G. Traina. Palermo, 8, via Giusino.
Subscription, 1.50 fr. a year, not including postage.

217
* Rivista di Cultura (fortnightly). Rome, Societa Nazionale di Cultura, 83
piazza S. Eustachio. Subscription for foreign countries, 8 fr. a year.
Not aU those newspapers are equal in importance, nor have they the same religious
character. Most treat only questions of local interest. Especially good is the Rivista ii
Cultura.

III.
Theology, Dogma, Biblical Criticism, Philosophy, History op the
Church, Christian Life, etc.
* II Rinnovamento, rivista critica di idee e di fatti (monthly). Editors, Aiace
Antonio Alfieri, Alessandro Casati, F. Tommaso Gallarati-Scotti. Milan,
15, via Bigli. Subscription for foreign countries: 16 fr. a year; 8 fr. six
months. A very good and important review, giving a clear knowledge of the Modernist movement.
* Rivista Storico-crtiica di Sciense Teologiche (monthly). Editor, Rev. Ernesto
Bonaiuti. Rome, Libreria editrice Francesco Ferrari, 102, piazza Ca-
pranica. Subscription for foreign countries, 10 fr. a year.
Rivista delle Riviste per il Clero (monthly). Pubblicazione mensile dell' Unione
cattolica tipografica di Macerata. Macerata, 5, piazza del Duomo. Sub
scription for foreign countries, 7.50 fr. a year.
* Studi Religion, rivista critica e storica promotrice della cultura religiosa
in Italia (bi-monthly). Editor, Rev. Salvatore Minocchi, D. Theol. Flor
ence, Bibliotheca Scientifico-religiosa, 21, via Ricasoli. Subscription for
foreign countries, 12.50 fr. a year. IV.
A Woman's Paper.
Pensiero e Azione, rivista femminile Italiana (fortnightly). Milan, 2, via
Dogana. Subscription for foreign countries, S fr. a year.

A Daily Newspaper.
Avoenwe d' Italia. Bologna, 16, via Albiroli. Subscription: 16 fr. a year; 8.50
six months; 4.50 three months, not including postage.
Political daily newspaper. Contains occasionally religious or politico-ecclesiastical
articles, some of a Modernist character.
Note.— The topic of Religion in Italy has been treated in an illuminating manner by Dr.
Andr4 at previous congresses. See " The Liberal Movement in Italy," Proceedings of the
Congress at London, 1901 .

2l8

THE FRENCH HUGUENOTS: THEIR PAST AND
PRESENT CONDITION.
BY PROF. GASTON BONET-MAURY, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS, FRANCE.
The subject of my address, "The Huguenots," brings to my
memory the remarkable words of President Abraham Lincoln at
Gettysburg: "We have come to dedicate a portion of that field
as a resting-place for those who gave their lives, that the nation
might live. . . . But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot
hallow this ground. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated
to the unfinished work they have so nobly advanced. It is rather
for us to be here dedicated to the great task, that from these hon
ored dead we take increased devotion to that cause, for which they
gave the last fuU measure of devotion."
Our forefathers, like yours, the heroes of the CivU War, deserve
our admiration and gratitude, since we owe the liberty of conscience,
this priceless treasure, to their sacrifice of property and life. How
ever, they were men, consequently sinners. We shaU be careful
not to canonize them, as Roman Catholics do their great men.
To God alone be given the glory! Let us, first, recaU shortly what
the Huguenots were and what they did.
The Past.
Above all, they were genuine Frenchmen. It is simple calumny,
when some Roman Catholic writers describe them as foreigners,
or Frenchmen who had adopted German or English doctrines.
Faber Stapulensis (1512), who five years before Luther asserted
the principle of "justification by faith," was a Frenchman from
Picardy. French, too, were GuUlaume Farel (of Gap in Dauphin^),
Gerard Roussel (of Vacquerie in Picardie), Robert 01ive"tan, Jean
Calvin (of Noyon, Picardie), Theodore Beza (of Vezelay, Burgundy),
and other founders of the Reformation in our country. Erasmus,

219
Luther, and Knox had only a stimulating influence on the evangelical
movement in France. By others it has been asserted that the
Huguenots were a party of ambitious noblemen, that the cause
of the reUgious wars Of the sixteenth century was the enmity of
the ChatiUon, the Conde", and the Rohan against the Guise and the
Montmorency. These assertions are all untrue. No doubt there
were among the Huguenots a number of iUustrious lords, but also
many working people, such as Jean Leclerc and the wool-carders
of Meaux, Cavaher and the farmers of the Cevennes, who made
the Camisards' War. Among them were not only lawyers, like
Anne du Bourg and Francois Hotman, but also many priests,
monks, and even bishops of the Roman Cathohc Church. In short,
the Huguenots were an inteUectual and moral elite of Frenchmen,
selected from the various social conditions. You would find, too,
among them women as conspicuous by their character as by their
Uterary abUity. In the first rank, three princesses of royal blood:
Renata, Louis XH.'s daughter, Duchess of Ferrara; Margaret of
Orleans, the "Maecenas" of the scholars and poets, and who was
at times the guardian angel of the persecuted Calvinists; Johanna
of Albret, her daughter, the incomparable mother of Henry rV.
To these we can add the flower of the nobility: Louise of Mont
morency, mother of the three ChatiUon (Admiral Coligny, D'Andelot,
and Odet); Charlotte of Laval, wife, and Louise, daughter of Co-
Ugny, who married Prince WiUiam I. of Orange; Eleanor of Roye,
Princess of Conde", etc.
A steadfast trust in God Almighty, who has foreordained the
elect and leads them through many tribulations to heaven; an
entire faith in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, an invincible hope in the
final victory of the gospel; an acute sense and strong feeling of
responsibUity, — aU these virtues formed the common link between
these Huguenots of aU conditions, and gave them great likeness
with your PUgrim Fathers.
They suffered and fought heroicaUy during two generations in the
sixteenth century, and after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes
(1685) during another century, in order to defend religious liberty
and to vindicate the right of worshipping according to the true
gospel of Christ, purified from aU mediaeval abuses and super
stitions.

220

During the first period of that very long struggle the kings of
France condemned to the stake hundreds of Huguenots. Then,
backed by the Guise, the Montmorency, and St. Andre", they drew
the sword and tried to exterminate them by the sword as weU as by
the stake. But in vain. After aU these wars, Henry IV., their
former defender, granted them the Edict of Nantes (1598), which
gave them great liberty of worship and many financial and miUtary
privUeges. These heroes who won the first victory were Louis de
Berquin, Anne du Bourg, and the great martyr, Admiral Coligny,
the Prince of Conde", La Noue Bras de Fer, Duplessis Mornay, etc.
This edict secured them, besides religious freedom, sixty-seven
years of peace, during which they became prominent through agri
culture and industry, and founded a remarkable system of education.
As for the revocation of that edict by Louis XIV. (1685) and the new
era of armed persecution which it opened (the dragonnades), the kings
had no better success in the extermination of the Protestant faith.
The main result was to distribute about 400,000 of our best work-
ingmen and tradesmen, sailors and soldiers, in aU parts of Europe
and even on the shores of America, where by their industry they
enriched foreign countries.* As for the 500,000 to 600,000 men who
stayed in France, — deprived of their ministers, schools, and churches,
— they became outwardly " New CathoUcs, " but compeUed by force
to attend mass, which in their eyes was a kind of idolatry, they
remained in their heart faithful to the Protestant doctrine, and
prayed and chanted Psalms on the ruins of their destroyed churches.
Responding to the appeals of Claude Brousson, Jacques Roger, and
Paul Rabaut, who risked their lives coming back to France, they re
sumed their worship in the " Desert." Then, in the year of the death
of Louis XTV. (1715) Antoine Court, one of these heroic preachers,
restored disciphne and Presbyterian government among them and
preserved them from anarchy and fanaticism. At last, owing to the
spirit of toleration spread by the philosophers of the eighteenth
century, and especiaUy to the energetic attempts of La Fayette
(suggested by George Washington), they got from King Louis
XVI. the Edict of 1787, which granted them civil rights and free
dom of domestic worship. This was the second victory won by
our forefathers. In short, it is through this struggle of the Hugue-
* Samuel Smiles, " The French Huguenots and their Industries."

221
nots, heroic as it was tenacious, that modern France conquered
religious liberty, and was set free from the tyranny of the Roman
Cathohc clergy. The French Revolution and Napoleon I., by the
Concordat (1801), consecrated this double victory of the Huguenots,
and gave them back complete liberty and self-government. Ever
since, Protestants, whether Lutherans or Calvinists, have enjoyed
fuU citizenship in France.
The Present.
Let us now glance over the present situation of French Protestant
ism. Here are its three characteristic features: it is most influential,
energetic, self-dependent, and abounding in works. French Prot
estantism exerts in pubUc affairs an influence quite disproportionate
to the number of its foUowers (about 650,000). Availing itself of
the liberties granted by the different constitutions of France since
the First RepubUc and of the advantages granted to it by Napoleon
Bonaparte (Law of 18th Germinal, An X, 1802), it has organized
itself, buUt scores of churches, made thousands of proselytes, and
acquired a great social and political influence. But for the loss of
Aisace in 187 1 French Protestantism would have reached again the
number of one miUion which they had in 1685. No better proof of this
can be afforded than these complaints of the Roman Catholic ultramon-
tanes, Drumont, the author of "France Juive," and his foUowers.
"The offspring of the Huguenots," so says a Roman Catholic clergy
man* "avaUed themselves of the neutrality of the modern State,
and, making alliance with the Jews and Free Masons, little by little,
took possession of aU the avenues leading to power, helping each other
and excluding the Roman Catholics. A great many conspicuous
politicians, who most contributed to bringing about the present
persecution of the Roman Catholics, are Protestant or have
married Protestant women." How untrue the last reproach is,
you wUl understand when I teU you that Waldeck Rousseau and
EmUe Combes, the leaders of the last anti-CathoUc movement, were
not at aU Protestant, but educated as Roman Catholics and became
later infidels. On the contrary, many Protestants — i.e., Georges
Berger, R. Waddington, members of Parliament, Auguste Sabatier,
* " De la Tolerance Protestante," by E. Camut, cure1 de St. Jean (Seine et Mame), January, 1906.

222

and myself— have come to the defence of some Roman CathoUc
institutions, when unjustly suppressed.
Nevertheless, it is true that Protestants have a great number of
eminent representatives in the various government offices; i.e., the
Department of Education. But there are for this fact very good
reasons: first, because they gave from the beginning their adhesion
to the Republic; secondly, the Protestants displayed remarkable
self-dependence, an enterprising and organizing power in critical
circumstances, whereas Roman Cathohcs showed themselves help
less and inoperative. The Lutherans of Paris and Montbe"liard
after the annexation of Alsace, which deprived them of two-thirds
of their congregations, reorganized their church according to the
episcopal form of government, and, although adhering to the Con
fession of Augsburg, left it to the free interpretation of every member.
In their turn the Calvinists, conforming to the Act of Separation
(Dec. 9, 1905), although it restricts unjustly the rights of a Chris
tian congregation, formed everywhere the so-caUed associations
cultuelles and "societies for beneficence." Through these means
they maintained and secured for the future their divine worship, their
Sunday and Thursday schools, and provided for the assistance of
the poor; while the Roman Catholics, having refused to accept the
said law, are still in the most precarious and ambiguous situation.
Let us now return to Protestantism.
Unfortunately, owing to the dogmatic exclusiveness and fanatical
egoism of the orthodox party, we have not been able to maintain one
common church. The orthodox party has constituted the EvangeUcal
Reformed Church, with about 400 congregations, and compeUed
aU their ministers to subscribe to the unchanged Confession of
Faith of 1872. On the other hand, the Liberal party, having made
at MontpelUer a most evangelic declaration, formed the United
Reformed Church with about 120 congregations. FinaUy, in
October, 1906, the moderate evangelicals seceded from the ultra-
orthodox, and founded at Jarnac a larger platform in order to
unite all Presbyterians, under the name of " Union of the Reformed
Churches." The Jarnac movement has spread widely in France,
especially in large cities, like Lyons, Rouen, LiUe, Nancy, Bor
deaux, and held its organizing synod at Paris, June, 1907. It num
bers 156 churches, of which 94 belong to the liberal party. There

223
are, besides, the Lutheran Church with ioo congregations, the
Free Evangelical Church with 60, the Wesleyan Church with 28,
the Baptist Church with 26, and, last, 28 churches independent
of any denomination, which makes a total of 824 churches.
However, even more than by its social influence or organizing
power, a rehgious body shows its vitaUty by the works it produces.
Is it not the Lord Jesus who said, "The tree is known by its fruits " ?
Now French Protestantism has displayed in the nineteenth cen
tury a wonderful richness of works. The institutions founded by it
may be divided into three classes: I. Religious works, or works of
propaganda; II. Works of education; III. Charities, or works of
social assistance. I. Works of Propaganda.
The Holy Scripture is the "Magna Charta" of every Protes
tant church. The Bible, indeed, by showing the contradictions of
the doctrines and practice of the Roman Cathohc Church with the
Apostohc Church, was instrumental in the victory of Reformation,
and it is stiU to-day the most powerful means of propaganda. For
that capital reason, Protestants began their social work in France
by founding the Bible Society of Paris, 1818. Its business is not
only to distribute scores of copies of the Holy Scriptures, it cares,
too, for the quality. It constantly improves the translations of the
original texts, in order to render more faithfuUy the thought of the
sacred writers. Besides the canonical books, it is at present preparing
a translation of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, unjustly for a
long time excluded from the Protestant Bible. We have, too, in
Paris, working for the same purpose, the Bible Society of France
and a branch of the British and Foreign Bible Society. *
After the Bible Society was born the Tract Society (1822). Its
object is to publish and spread smaU booklets, expressing under
various forms the most important and beautiful lessons of Christian
ity, such as are contained in the Gospels. Amongst its publications we
ought to mention the popular "Almanach des Bons Conseils " and the
Ami de la Jeunesse et des Families, Ulustrated monthly. The emula
tion of the French Protestants was early stimulated by the example
* Its present secretary edits a most interesting monthly, Le Messager de Messagers.

224
of the British and German Protestants, and they founded (1823)
the Society of Evangehcal Mission to convert the heathen. After
having begun with the Bassoutos, a branch of Betschouana, South
Africa, Uttle by Uttle it extended its activity to aU parts of the world
where France has colonies, the Tahiti Islands, New Caledonia, Sene
gal, Congo, and Madagascar. In the latter country the task is
colossal, and has incurred great expense of men and money. Two
younger sisters of the Missionary Society have been born since, —
the Society for the Evangelization, of French Colonies (1869), a
branch of the Socie"te" Centrale, and the Society of CoUgny (1888).
The latter, founded by Dr. Gustave Monod and Rev. Ch. Fros-
sard, intends to help the Protestant farmers or workingmen, miserable
in their native country, who wiU settle in the colonies in Algeria.
There it cares for their religious interests in gathering them around
a chapel with a minister. However, our Protestants have been care
ful not to sacrifice for the sake of the conversion of the heathen the
people of our vUlages, bound by the chain of Roman CathoUc super
stition or fallen into infideUty. From this need have issued several
societies, vying with each other in the work of the Domestic Mission: the
Evangelical Society (1833), formed by free Presbyterians; the Central
Society for EvangeUzation, with its branches at Bordeaux and
Nimes, founded by Presbyterians of the EstabUshed Reformed
Church; and the Inner Mission, founded by the Lutherans. These
three associations, having the same purposes, differ only in the kind
of people they approach. The first one appeals especiaUy to Roman
Cathohcs who are dissatisfied with their priests and have become
indifferent or infidel. The second and third give help to the Presby
terian and Lutheran Protestants scattered among the Roman Cath
oUc multitudes and running the danger of becoming Roman CathoUc
through intermarriage and propaganda. In addition to these so
cieties for Inner Mission ought to be mentioned the MacAU Mission,
because of its pecuUar unsectarian character. It has its name from a
generous Scotch clergyman who, having visited Paris after the Com
mune in August, 187 1, moved by pity for the moral abandonment of
our workmen, resolved to devote his whole energy to their moral upUft-
ing, through the knowledge of the gospel. Therefore, he opened
some lecture-rooms in the poorest districts of our capital, where he
taught them Christian morals and the hfe of Christ, and to sing hymns.

225
His object was not to convert them to Protestantism, but to make
them true Christians and honest men. Helped by his admirable
wife, who had musical gifts, Rev. MacAU succeeded very well and did
splendid work. After thirty-five years of uninterrupted work the
MacAU Mission has 23 branches in the different cities of France and
10 stations in Paris, where its agents, partly lay men and women, have
to deal with the wUdest and most corrupt elements of our people,
caUed the "Apaches"; that is, "ruffians." Besides, they have two
missionary boats, named "Bon Messager" and "Bonne NouveUe,"
which, saiUng on the rivers and channels, penetrate the inland of
France. The expenses in the year 1905-06 amounted to $57,210,
for which they had received only $54,364, leaving a deficit of $2,846.
Through these four or five societies for Home Mission, many
thousands of souls have been brought from darkness to light or pre
vented from losing all beUef. The Socie"te" Centrale d'Evangeliza-
tion at the end of 1906 founded and made self-dependent 89 congre
gations. From 1903 to 1907 it buUt 27 churches. Before the Law
of Disestablishment, it maintained 1,200 churches or temporary
places of worship in summer resorts. Since 1906 it supports only
184. Its expenses during these fourteen years amounted to $1,116,-
55°-
H. Works of Education.
Protestants have always been friends of education: remember the
motto of the Genevese Church, — Post tenebras lux. The French
Presbyterians understood that the primary want of their Church was
to have clever ministers and learned laymen. Therefore, they
founded schools and academies; the latter, above aU, for the educa
tion of Protestant ministers. The Huguenots had in the seven
teenth century seven academies, besides the Genevese Academy
founded by Calvin, of which Theodore de Beze was the first presi
dent and in which taught so many eminent professors.* The most
flourishing academies were at Montauban, Saumur, and Sedan.
All these were aboUshed some years before the Revocation. After
the restoration of pubhc worship in France (1802), the French govern
ment estabhshed two academies, at Montauban (1808) and Stras
bourg (1818). One ought to add the National School of Divinity at
* Borgeaud, " L' Acad&ue de Calvin," Genfcve, 1900.

226
Geneva; for, as reward for the services rendered during two and a
half centuries to the Presbyterian Church of France, the French
students have been permitted to study theology there, provided they
pass their examination of B.D. in a Faculty of France. After the
annexation of Alsace to Germany (1871) the French Faculty of
Strasbourg was transferred to Paris, at the suggestion of W. Wadding
ton (1877), minister of public education, and annexed to the uni
versity of our capital. This Protestant School of Divinity succeeded
very well, and, owing to the able exertions of Dean Fr. Lichtenberger
and of Dean Auguste Sabatier, soon became an intense centre of the
scientific study of reUgion. According to the Strasbourg tradition our
Faculty, in spite of the utmost efforts of the leaders of the orthodox
party in Paris, never would subscribe to any creed nor impose it
upon our students, so that it became suspicious to the Evangehcal
party. The School of Montauban, on the contrary, submitted to
the Confession of Faith of the Synod of 1872, and, as a reward, has
been maintained by the rich Orthodox of Paris and Toulouse, who
make exclusively subsidies to it. Both Faculties, whose professors
and students, nevertheless, keep mutuaUy in friendly intercourse,
have victoriously overcome the crisis of the Disestablishment, owing
to the liberality of their friends, and because they took advantage
of the law of the 9th of December, 1905.
However, the dark spot on the horizon is that the precarious
financial condition of many churches in remote and poor districts
may discourage the candidates for the ministry. We ought, on the
•one hand, to secure to the ministers of small parishes a satisfactory
salary, and, on the other hand, stimulate the incUnation for the
ministry among the weU-to-do classes of the nation.*
Whereas the Schools of Divinity assure the future of our congre
gations, the Society of Huguenot History is a representative of our
glorious past. Founded in 1853 by a committee of which Charles
Read, Charles Waddington, Athanase Coquerel Jr., were the pro
moters, its object is "to search for, gather, and pubhsh all manu
scripts or printed documents of interest for the French Protestant
Church." For this purpose the society has a Ubrary, the building
* The present number of our candidates for the ministry is as foUows: Geneva, 7; Mon
tauban, ia; Paris, n, — some 30 in all. This sum corresponds to about rao students in the
ministry in the three Schools of Divinity.

227
of which is a gift of Baron F. de Schickler, with 50,000 volumes
and scores of precious manuscripts and prints. It edits an illus
trated monthly by Rev. N. Weiss, which reproduces rare manu
scripts, thus saving them from oblivion or from nearly certain
destruction. However, it was necessary to make our working people and
farmers capable of reading the Bible and the news about Missions,
or the glorious annals of the Huguenots. Therefore, some noble
men, as Marquis de Jaucourt, Count Ver-Huel, Baron Delessert,
etc., founded in 1829 the Society for Spreading Primary Education
among the French Protestants. The latter, incorporated by ordi
nance of Charles X., a king who was not at aU favorable to Protestant
ism, was the prime mover of popular education in France. In 1833
a member of the committee, Francois Guizot, became prime minister
of King Louis PhiUppe. On his initiative the Parliament passed the
first biU organizing schools for boys and girls in our country. Since
1835 the said society, according to Guizot's plan, tried to have the
schools previously opened adopted as pubhc schools by the town
councils. Thus it created, in the midst of the ignorant and supersti
tious countries, centres of hght and free inquiry, and, after having in
trusted them to the parish, went farther to establish new schools.
The advantages gained increased the financial means, so that it could
found several training coUeges, at Courbevoie (1846), Boissy St.
Le"ger (1856), and gave subsidies to the standard schools at Dieulefit
(Drome), Glay (Doubs), etc.
During the 78 years of its existence the Society for Primary
Education has paid 8,217,199 francs ($1,643,439). It has opened
and supported 1,300 primary schools, 6 normal and standard schools.
Since 1883, deprived of the subsidies and scholarships granted by
the State in consequence of the secularization of aU schools, the
society was obhged to hmit the number of new schools. But, re
ligious teaching having been excluded from the public schools,
they considered as an urgent duty the task of providing it on
Thursday, which is a school holiday in France. From 1893 to
1907 it gave grants to 3,000 existing Thursday Schools and helped
to create 500 new ones.
Thirty years afterwards the Sunday School Society, formed by the
Rev. Paul Cook and Montandon (1852), completed the work of the

228
latter society by providing for the Bibhcal education of children.
However, the Sunday-school work of France had begun much
earher. The first Sunday-schools were estabUshed by Rev. Cadoret
at Luneray (1814) and by Rev. Martin at Bordeaux (1815). Paris
owed its Sunday-school to Rev. Frederick Monod at the Oratoire
Church (1822). Now we have 1,200 Sunday-schools, of which
800 are in connection with the Sunday School Society, teaching
about 70,000 children by means of 6,oco teachers. Besides, since
our primary schools have become secularized, it has been necessary
to provide our school boys and girls with rehgious instruction. For
that purpose we estabhshed Thursday Schools. There are now a
thousand such schools, attended by about 50,000 children. The
Sunday School Society pubhshes a Book of Hymns, a Handbook of
Sacred History, and iUustrated leaves. Its general agent, Rev.
Charles Bieler, is the author of a "History of the People of God."
From 1884 to 1886, when the Parliament of the Third RepubUc,
under Jules Ferry's energetic impulse, voted the bills on secular,
free, and compulsory education of the people, it was only among
Protestants that our great minister could find co-operation, because
this need of primary education was in our tradition. Let us
pay our tribute of gratitude to Ferry's eminent coworkers, Fer
dinand and Benjamin Buisson, Felix Pe"caut, Jules Steeg. The
two last, who had been Protestant ministers, were directors of the
School for Head-mistresses at Fontenay-aux-Roses, and stamped it
with the Protestant mark.

III. Charities and Social Work.
Although devoting much of their efforts and their money to the
expansion of the gospel, of Christian schools, and to the theological
training of their ministers, French Protestants did not neglect the
works of brotherhood and mutual help, remembering Saint Paul's
saying, that "love is the most exceUent of virtues." The foUowing
are the foremost of these institutions, in the order of time. (1828)
A Swiss watch-maker, M. Vauchez, seconded by Marquis de Segur
and M. Laffon de La-de"bat, founded in Paris the Socie"te" de Prevoy-
ance de Secours Mutuel, which was incorporated (1829) and ap
proved by an imperial decree (1857). Its by-laws were taken by

229
Emperor Napoleon III.'s ministers as the standard in forming
the Societies of Mutual Help. Our Protestant society was the
prime mover in the MutuaUst movement in France, which counts
now 26,000 societies. It has a branch in every one of the twenty
wards of our capital, besides six branches in the suburbs, each with
its physician, chemist, and clergyman. They meet each year at
a familiar dinner. (1841) Rev. Frank Vermeil, aided by Mile.
Malvesin (of Bordeaux), estabhshed at Paris the first House of
Deaconnesses, the main object of which was to give a shelter to re
pentant women. It was also to serve as an institution for nurses,
with an infirmary annexed. During sixty-six years it has made great
extension in the Departments: it created branches at Strasbourg and
Montbe"liard. There are, besides, in the Lutheran Church so
caUed "parish deaconesses." (1841) In the same year Count
Agenor de Gasparin founded at Ste. Foy a reformatory school for
vicious boys, on the model of Wichern's Rauhe Haus (Hamburg),
and of the Mettray Colony established by Judge Demetz. (1848)
Rev. John Bost, a philanthropist of the same stock as Saint Vincent
de Paul and Tuckermann, estabhshed at La Force (Dordogne)
an asylum for epUeptic, blind, and crippled children generaUy con
sidered as incurables. There he renewed the miracles of apostoUc
love and generosity. In the foUowing year, the Lutherans founded
at Montbeliard a Society for the Protection of Apprentices (1849)
that served as standard for the manifold Protestant Patronages d'Ap-
prentis at Paris, Lyons, Nimes, etc.
In connection with these, ought to be mentioned with encomium the
Young Men's Christian Association, which, owing to the liberality of
Mr. Stokes (a New York man), was able to build a splendid home at
Paris, 14 rue de Trevise, and has now branches in nearly aU churches
of France. It is open also to non-Protestant youth, so that their
moral influence spreads in much wider circles.
(1868) MM. Rossignol and Jacques Dubochet founded a so
ciety to find, gratuitously, employment for working men and clerks,
under the name "Socie"te" du TravaU," without consideration of
nationality or worship. It has brought forth many other societies
for help by means of work, such as the "Work of rue de Berlin"
(for women) and the "Hospitable Houses" at BelleviUe (for men),
and others at Paris, at MarseiUes, Nlmes. To-day, indeed, the en-

230
lightened philanthropists, instead of giving alms, which often morti
fies and enervates, prefer to help poor people by procuring them work,
which stimulates energy and develops self-dependence.
Finally, Protestant charity has gone a step further. It has under
stood that the question of helping the poor is inseparable from eco
nomical conditions. Therefore, it has suggested other remedies for
pauperism, such as a more equitable distribution of the products
of work between the employer and the employees, the smoothing of
intercourse between them, and the improving of the abodes of work-
ingmen. Hence the establishment of Cercles d'Ouvriers, the society
for workingmen's houses, to which M. Jules Siegfried, Cheysson,
have contributed largely. The principle of profit sharing among
employees has been adopted by several of our manufacturers,
and the Co-operative Societies and Brotherhoods. In aU these social
reforms our laymen, Charles Robert, Sautter, J. Siegfried, and, also,
our clergymen, Tony Fallot, Charles Wagner, Louis Comte, Wil
fred Monod, bore the greatest part.
The Revue du Christianisme Social, edited by Rev. Chastand,
who is also editor of the Signal, a daily paper, gathers all informa
tion about this subject, and either through articles or through con
gresses, which met at Nlmes, Rouen, and Geneva, has given strong
impulse to the study of social reform.
In addition, French Protestantism has held first rank in art, in
literature, and in the political press. I may quote only the most
celebrated names. In art we are proud to mention Baron de
Triquety and Bartholdi, the sculptor, weU known in your country;
the painters Leopold Robert, Ary Scheffer, the Girardets; in litera
ture, J. J. Rousseau, Mme. de Stael, B. Constant, F. Guizot, Eng.
Pelletan, Edmond de Pressense", etc.; in the press, Ad. Michel,
N. Peyrat, Albert ReviUe, and other contributors to the Siede,
Nefftzer, Scherer, and Auguste Sabatier, who started the Temps.
After having reviewed the work of French Protestantism in these
different fields, you wiU, no doubt, be persuaded of its undiminished
vitality. Protestantism shows in France, as in other countries, its
peculiar virtues of probity, self-dependence, and initiative. It is
owing to their public spirit and disinterestedness that they exert so
powerful an influence in aU branches of activity. The end of their
ambition is less to win numerous proselytes for their Church, than to

231
propagate in the soul of our countrymen the Christian principles of
instruction and free inquiry, mutual help and self-sacrifice.
In spite of their small number, surrounded by a mass of Roman
Catholics, and of ecclesiastical divisions, French Protestantism
is stiU increasing, marching towards spiritual union. This unity is
aimed at not by means of a dogmatic formula, but by means of a
deeper and more intense Christian life.
There are two signs of this better future: (i) The aUiance made
between Rev. Edouard SouUer, general agent of our Young Men's
Christian Association, and Marc Sanguier, the founder and head of the
CathoUc -democratic society named Le SiUon, to maintain Christian
behef and morals against the dissolving influence of militant atheists;
(2) The Union of Free Thinkers, Free BeUevers, for Ethical Culture,
founded at Paris recently by Rev. I. H. Kaspar, a former missionary,
Admiral ReveUere, Professor G. Seaillez, F. Buisson, Pierre Pecaut,
and myself. The object is to preserve from gross materialism
an important body of free-thinking Republicans. "The latter, so
they said in their Declaration, admit that religious feeling is a
powerful motive of action, acknowledge that ethical culture ought
to give to it a place, and are ready to inquire about the religious
forms of culture in order to see what of the principles or methods
or ideals of ReUgion may be used to build up the conscience,
without requiring any sacrifice either to Science or to Reason."
(June, 1907.)
More and more people are judged from their work, rather than
from their creed. Our men lay more stress on what unites than on
what divides, and begin to understand their responsibility towards
the multitude of indifferent or infidels, wandering astray, sheep with
out a shepherd.
A glorious prospect lies before us. If we acquire full conscious
ness of our duty, we can help to raise up our countrymen from their
moral and religious depression, and lead them to the overflowing
source of moral force and grandeur, which is in the freely interpreted
gospel of Jesus Christ. We are, indeed, sowers of a divine seed.
Note.— See also articles on Protestant and Liberal Christianity in France, by Profs. Bonet-
Maury, Jean Reville, E. Fontan&, and others, printed in the Proceedings of previous Con
gresses in London, Amsterdam, and Geneva.

232

THE CRISIS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
BY ABBFl A. HOUTIN, OF PARIS.
When one reads a manual of history, one sees that anxieties of
conscience, theological discussions, politico-theological rivalries,
have always disturbed the heart of man. At times the struggle is
particularly poignant and radical: then an ancient form of religion
disappears before a new faith, destined to supplant it perhaps com
pletely. The Christian world is at present, in my opinion, in one
of these particularly critical periods. Among individuals the best
informed, among the peoples the most civilized, who by their birth
or history are those adhering to the teaching of Jesus, the religious
idea, the religious sentiment, have entered into a crisis extremely
grave. The Church of Rome, despite its strictly authoritative
constitution, has not escaped any more than the other churches,
wherever the theories of a free examination have been vigorously
applied. A priest of this Church, I desire to picture to you the particular
manner in which she experiences this crisis. You are already
weU informed, no doubt, on this matter; but, exact as your informa
tion may be, I hope to make it more precise and complete on some
points, as one on the inside should be able to do for those outside
the Church. Need I add that no one loved his Church more than
I; that no one experienced more sorrowfuUy than I its afflictions,
or sought to acquaint himself more exactly with them, in order to aid
in remedying them according to his ability, to the fuUest degree
possible ?
The Catholics for whom the traditional orthodox teaching no
longer suffices, those who, as a consequence of their historic and
philosophical studies, desire that the ecclesiastical authority accord
them more liberty of thought and religious conduct, may be separated
into three classes.

233
The first comprises those CathoUcs, comparatively orthodox, who
beUeve in the foundation of the Church by Christ, the second person
in the Trinity, incarnated in a man. They agree that the pope
is the head of the Church, as the successor of Peter, to whom Jesus
is reported to have said (to him, and, in his person, to his successors),
Thou art Peter (Petros), and on this rock (Petra) wiU I build my
church. But, though they are convinced that the authority of
the Roman Church is legitimate, they aUow that this authority
has been sometimes exercised by ignorant, incapable, and vicious
men. They hold that there exist in the Church grievous and super
annuated customs, which it is necessary to reform, and opinions
wrongly founded or erroneous, which need to be modified. One
point they have especially at heart. They do not like the inter
ference of the spiritual power in temporal questions. They dis
avow the Inquisition. The SyUabus of Pius IX. appears to them
a manifestation badly made and inopportune. If the adaptation
•of the old Church to the new social and political order particularly
¦occupies them, in the domain of science they show themselves
imbued with the same Uberal principles. They demand more
latitude for scholars and savants. They wiUingly recaU the story
of Gahleo in order to impart to theologians a wise discretion. They
admit the inspiration of the Bible, but would confine it to questions
of faith and morals. Despite the prohibitions of the pope, they do
not hesitate to declare that, as concerns other matters, the Holy
Scriptures may contain errors. FinaUy, just as they hold that in
poUtical affairs the time for absolutism and the coup d'itat is passed,
so they desire that questions of conscience be solved by reason, by
persuasion, and not by the hurUng of anathemas and by excommuni
cation. The second group is better informed concerning the conclusions
of historical science. It knows more exactly what was the teaching
of Christ. Jesus beUeved that the coming of the Messianic Kingdom
was close at hand, and consequently he did not found any church.
Neither did he dream of identifying himself with the eternal God.
He beUeved himself to be man, and it was only as the consequence
¦of equivocations and misunderstandings that the disciples of his
o^sciples adored him as God.
Many Catholics admit these conclusions. They have solved the

234
fundamental problem of the personality of Jesus and reject the
mythology of Christianity. At the bottom they are Deists, whom
one may caU, because of their attachment for certain traditions,
Christian Deists.
With other Catholics, finaUy, — this is our third group, — the sur
render of ancient beliefs is stiU more extreme.
Many among the members of this Congress may not understand
very weU the Catholic mind, not knowing, perhaps, that one of the
greatest and most frequent temptations which assail the faithful
of the Roman Church is that of aU or nothing. A God has estab
lished upon the earth an infaUible Vicar and founded a visible Church,
outside of which there is no salvation, or else the anguish and suffer
ings to which man is abandoned prove that no superior being exists,
for a superior being would have pity on him. As God has not
founded the Church, neither instituted the papacy, he does not
exist. Deism is a mythological residuum. With the personahty
of God there disappears also the thesis of the immortality of the
soul — a myth and an impossibility — and of free wiU — an iUusion.
To these ancient terms there is no corresponding ontological reahty.
But our fathers beUeved aU that. Our civilization has been founded
on these beliefs. We have in our blood ineffaceable traces of them,
which will stiU, although in a less degree, affect our remote descend
ants. We ought not, therefore, we cannot break with this past.
It is necessary for us to let faU very softly these dead ideas or to
transport them- with precaution into that convenient repository,
the history of religions. Looking forward to a scientific era, those
who form this third class caU themselves Cathohcs, — positivist
CathoUcs, atheistic Catholics, if you wiU.
These, then, are the three principal categories of those who
caU themselves at present indiscriminately "liberal CathoUcs,"
"modern Catholics," and "progressive Catholics" (les Catholiques
libSraux, les Catholiques modernistes, les Catholiques progressisles).
In reality, it is only the first group which truly merits this name.
LogicaUy and according to the historical sense of words, the two
other groups are not Catholic, are not even Christian. They are
such only through policy, and attach themselves to Catholicism
by means of a symbolical interpretation more ingenious than weU
founded.

235
That the true liberal CathoUcs are consistent in remaining in the
Church ought, it seems to me, to be accorded. Since they believe
in the divine institution of the papacy, they ought not to separate
themselves from either. According to their own theories, all reform,
in order to be legitimate and efficacious, can only take place by
authority and with its consent. They therefore beseech the papacy
to be wiUing to modernize itself, and they await the issue.
It is more difficult to understand why the Deists or the atheists
should desire to continue to make an external profession of Catholi
cism. But it is a fact. There are many among them doubtlessly
partisans of the axiom, "A man of probity does not change his
rehgion." Others may equally think that the form of religion
which no longer inspires them is stiU exceUent for the masses of the
people, and that it is not advisable to destroy it. It may also be
that ecclesiastics who have lost their faith retain their livings. Others
remain in order to proselyte, in order to work more conveniently
in liberalizing their co-religionists. Others, finaUy, go so far as to
cherish the idea of alienating the Church itself, of secularizing it.
The Deists wish to make it a deistic church. The atheists would
transform it into a society for moral culture, the guardian of duty,
of the moral ideal which humanity pursues in its endeavors for what
is good, and which it expresses, they teU us, under the symbols of
God and Immortahty.
AU these CathoUcs work, speak, and write in order to assure the
triumph of their ideas. But the one and the other, even the more
moderate, are compeUed to use great precautions in order not to
offend the reUgious conservative authorities, and in order not to repel
their timid coreUgionists, whom they wish to gain to their cause. Such
is the extraordinary variety of subtleties which characterize modern
or progressive Catholicism. The, unsophisticated reader is lost
in it. He cannot understand these writings of which the one appears
Catholic without being Christian, while the others are Christian
without being Cathohc: some again express pantheistic, monistic,
agnostic ideas in an orthodox form of words, according to the pro
cedure caUed by these innovators "the reinterpretation of formu
laries." Thanks to their prudence, these tactics have much success. The
spread of the conclusions of history, and the impossibility of to-day

236
grasping dogmas framed under the philosophical system of the
Middle Ages, have given rise to a great crisis of faith in the CathoUc
world. Those who undergo this crisis are led into this progressist
Uterature, which has now foUowers in aU countries. Their most
moderate prototype has for his pseudonym "Giovanni Selva," and
his sponsor, the Italian Senator Fogazzaro, says that his true name
is Legion. "He lives, thinks, and works in France, in England, in
Germany, in America, as weU as in Italy. He wears the priestly
garb and the uniform of the soldier, as weU as the coat of the civilian.
He shows himself at the universities, he hides himself in the sem
inaries. He fights in the press, he prays in the inmost recesses of
the monastery. He almost no more preaches sermons, but he holds
conferences. He is exegete and historian, theologian and scholar,
journalist and poet. He does not always write. He is at times
only an impassioned reader, only a believer as also a thinker. He
is a republican, he is a royalist, he is a Christian democrat, he is
simply a liberal" ("Les Ide"es ReUgieuses de Giovanni Selva," dans
Demain, no. du 8 fevrier, 1907).
As you know, the ecclesiastic authority is vividly alarmed at the
extent and depth of this crisis.
One can divide the existing hierarchy of the Church into two
sorts of prelates, the sincere and the politic.
The sincere take no account of the mortal wounds which history
has inflicted on their theology. They beUeve that an orthodox
faith has been committed to them as a sacred deposit, and that
the gates of heU wiU never prevail against them. They also refuse
consent to any doctrinal change.
The politicians in the Church know how criticism has under
mined the ancient beliefs and what danger confronts the Church.
Certain among them — these are the minority — say: "The Church
is wrong: she is dying. Let us end her with honor. Let us give
our mother a becoming funeral. Let her dogmas pass away; let
us keep her spirit of charity, of devotion, of sacrifice." The others
say: "It must be that criticism is the truth, and that truth is assured
the final victory. But to confess the truth would be our immediate
death. To a suicide we prefer a slow natural death. We wUl
close our eyes and ears to the truth."
The present pope is not only a sincere man, but also a simple-

237
minded one. He accepts the traditions of the Church much more
than do the ordinary orthodox theologians. In order to give an idea
of his mentality, it is without doubt sufficient for me to teU you that
he has defended the legend of the Santa Casa; i.e., he believes that
the house in which took place the conception of Jesus was trans
ported by angels to Italy. Also Pius X. does not comprehend why
and how the Cathohc faith of the Middle Ages could be changed.
After having multiphed his warnings, complaints, and threats, he
has declared, in his aUocution of the 17th of April, 1907, the innova
tors to be rebels. "Rebels are such as profess, and repeat under subtle
forms, monstrous errors concerning evolution, concerning dogma,
concerning a return to the pure gospel, — that is to say, to the Gospels
purified, as they teU us, of the explications of theology, of the defini
tions of Councils, of the maxims of asceticism, — concerning the
emancipation of the Church according to their new manner, without
being in revolt, to end that they be not expelled; . . . finaUy, concern
ing the adaptation to the present time in aU, in the manner of speak
ing, writing, and preaching, of a charity without faith; very indulgent
toward unbelievers, but which opens to all the way of eternal destruc
tion." "AU these errors, and a thousand similar ones, they make popular
in treatises, in reviews, in books of devotion, and even in romances;
they envelop them with certain equivocal terms, with certain nebulous
formulas, in order to contrive a pretext, always on the defensive,
of such a kind as not to incur open condemnation, and meanwhile
to catch the unwary in their web."
The pope has also taken energetic action. By virtue of measures
which he has secretly or publicly taken, Father TyrreU, the ex- Jesuit,
has not said mass for nineteen months past, Abbe" Loisy for eleven
months, Abbe" Murri for six months. Thus have been deprived
of their priestly functions in England the greatest philosophical
apologist of the Church, in France its greatest historical apologist,
in Italy the apostle who aims to reconcile the Church and democracy.
Later, on the 4th of July last, Pius X. has hurled through the me
dium of the Inquisition a new SyUabus condemning nearly aU the
conclusions of the reUgious sciences.
FinaUy, in an encycUcal issued in the present month, he has
repeated the same condemnations. The outcome wiU be either to

238
excommunicate at once a great number of heretics, and thereby
provoke much trouble in the Church, or to tolerate the innovators
who wiU quietly continue their formidable propaganda.
In any case, however the pope may decide, he has before him
something which he wiU not be able to arrest. This is the populariza
tion of history. With this penetration of historic knowledge among
the people the present crisis wiU become unceasingly more radical
and more terrible.
The Church of Rome has surmounted great crises: that of the
fifteenth century, when, as a result of the Renaissance, Reason
reasserted itself against the legends of the Middle Ages; that of
Deism in the eighteenth century, when, after the awakening of the
sciences, Reason began to know the laws of the universe. But these
crises took place among a smaU Mite. Orthodox Christianity was
stiU very powerful. It was able to dominate Reason, as yet poorly
armed. At the present day the solutions of the problems of Jesus
are very clear, and those Roman institutions, the Index and the
Inquisition, can no longer shackle the liberty of the press. Sapped
in its historical bases, the Roman Church, Uke other orthodoxies less
marked, wiU be obliged to become a smaU sect or to adapt herseU to
new religious conceptions.
But can the Roman Church thus adapt herself? The Church
which declares herself infaUible, which imposes as dogmas so many
historical errors, which utters her anathema on all attempts at a new
interpretation, — the Church of Rome, is she not petrified? Can
any one hope for a different hne of conduct on the part of the popes
of the future? There have been learned popes, tolerant popes,
even sceptical popes. What attitude have they taken toward the
truth ? What attitude have they taken toward charity, and especiaUy
toward the important question of the reunion of Christianity? As
a great historian has said, "It is not always the same pope, but it is
always the same papacy. "
But confronting the papacy are no longer the humble, respectful,
timid men of former times. The new generation is, above att,
logic and fond sincerity. In response to the refusal of the papacy
we hear to-day in France the outcry of the modern spirit: "The
Church does not admit that she is mistaken, she does not retreat
from a false opinion. To those who demonstrate her in error she

239
responds with an anathema. Rather than extend a hand to Justice
she embraces Fatality. For this no mercy wiU be shown her, and
she wiU drink to the brim the chalice of her stupidities and her
adulteries." O sons and heritors of the Reformers of the sixteenth century!
You see beginning in this Church of Rome, which condemned
your fathers without listening to them, — you see beginning, I repeat,
a religious struggle better informed and more radical than that of
Wickliffe, of John Huss, of Luther, and of Calvin. Great is the
sorrow and distress of us who see crashing down upon us the ancient
and venerable dome under which we had believed we might safely
remain. For you, who have never considered Rome as the whole
Church and have held her action to be often only a tyrannical op
pression, — for you there is nothing surprising in our destruction,
our sufferings, and the struggles which we must encounter. Your
fathers and you, even you, have known the same vicissitudes, and
in the sweat of your brow and the tears of your heart have recon
structed for yourselves rehgious shelters where you live in peace
and fuU of energy for the service of God and of humanity. In our
present anguish your experience remains our encouragement and
our hope.

240

FIFTH AND CLOSING SESSION OF THE INTER
NATIONAL CONFERENCE, SANDERS THEATRE,
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, SEPTEMBER 26, 10 a.m.
President S. A. Eliot. — The Council wUl come to order. We
wiU have for our presiding officer this morning a former governor
of Massachusetts, a former Secretary of the Navy, president of the
Board of Overseers of Harvard University, — Hon. John D. Long.
[Applause.] Mr. Long took the chair, and spoke as foUows: —
The time has come in the progress of this International Con
gress of Liberal Religions, in which we are aU so much interested, to
welcome it to this most ancient of American universities, which, by
the way, recognizes liberal religion as the highest education, and
especially to welcome here the members of this Congress from other
lands than our own, — other, however, only in territorial boundary,
not in the sympathy of thought and culture and ideal. It is of course
fitting that this welcome should be given by the head of this univer
sity. It is not necessary that I should introduce him, for he is known
the wide world over. I need only name him, — President Eliot of
Harvard University. [Applause.]
CHARLES W. ELIOT, LL.D.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, — There cannot be a place
in the wide world where a great body of reUgious liberals can be
more welcome than at Harvard University. The principles which
unite this Congress, these believers, are the principles on which Har
vard University was founded and has ever lived, — pure reUgion, per
fect freedom, voluntary co-operation in service to mankind.
Pure religion. You may read on the coUege gates declaration
of the purpose for which this institution was founded: "In order

241
that the churches may not be left to an iUiterate ministry when our
present ministry shaU lie in the dust." There was the fundamental
motive for the estabhshment of this institution in 1636. Our ances
tors came hither in search of religious liberty: they also met to find
here political Uberty. They also had in mind, and their descend
ants have always kept in mind, that perfect liberty is individual
Uberty. Not hberty for a class, not hberty for a tribe or a nation or
any section of mankind, but perfect liberty is individual liberty.
I venture to think that pure rehgion is also individual. What is
the best definition of religion that mankind has invented in 2700
years? Micah's "To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly
with thy God, " — not our God, not your God, but thy God, — the
individual God, different for every individual. Can we imagine
that Moses and Aristotle and Saint Augustine, Luther, Pasteur, Dar
win, worshipped the same God? Their ideas of God were their
own, individual, different, and aU that pure religion requires of us
is that each should walk humbly with his own God.
Now Harvard is intensely individualistic, because we have always
beUeved in individual Uberty and individual religion. Therefore,
we welcome here all religions, all types of the Christian religion, and,
in addition, the Jewish, the Buddhist, the Confucian, every mode
in which men may, each for himself, walk humbly with his God.
I Ustened with great admiration to the address given on Monday
by Dr. George Gordon. He spoke of the very significant principle
that rehgion and liberty going together meant considerateness,
tenderness towards others, not assumption of power or pride of
opinion, but liberty with religion should be humble. That is exactly
what we try to teach in Harvard University concerning liberty and
concerning rehgion. We believe with the prophet Micah that every
rehgious man and every free man walks humbly with his God. And,
then, you must have aU observed that in several of the addresses
made before the Congress there has been a tendency to desire for
reUgious liberals something more than what has been mentioned as
the product of "the cool reason." There has been expressed a long
ing for the warmth and glow of faith and belief and hope and happy
expectation. Now every university must say Amen to that longing,
and for a university it is more than a longing, it is a confident belief.
The university stores up acquired knowledge, and maintains care-

242
ful methods of diffusing and perpetuating that knowledge. This
knowledge is fact or truth, and precious indeed is the deposit. But
the university does much more and something much greater. It
knows the power of the human imagination, it knows that the human
imagination has invented, discovered, created, aU letters, numbers,
arts, trades, societies, poetry, philosophy, governments, and reUgions.
These are aU the products of this ineffable human imagination. Can
there be any place in the world where the power of the imagination
is more clearly understood and more reverently cherished than in a
university? At any rate, in Harvard University we know, study,
honor, and almost worship this power of the human imagination.
But we believe that in religion, just as in science, the processes of
asserting truth and of belief, hope, expectation, faith, are different,
and that for the progress of the truth and the increase of the power
of the imagination this distinction should be carefuUy observed, in
religion as weU as in research and investigation. This distinction I
have sometimes felt reUgious Uberals, like many other people, were
in danger of losing sight of. We know in the university that the
progress of exact science is dependent on the play of the human
imagination. But we know, too, that, when the imagining genius
throws his searchlight out into the enveloping fogs, at every moment
he must submit his glimpse of what he thinks he sees to the tests of
subsequent observation, to the test of the cool reason. It is just
so with liberal rehgion. The hope, expectation, visions, of relig
ion should be aU the time submitted to the tests of the sincere,
candid, truth-loving reason.
The Chairman. — A report will now be made by the Committee on
Resolutions by its Chairman, Rev. Valentine D. Davis, of London,
editor of the Inquirer.
Mr. Davis. — Sir, I have the honor on behalf of the Committee
on Resolutions to present for your acceptance three separate resolu
tions. The first is a pious aspiration in which we invite the mem
bers of this Congress all to unite, —
That the members of this International Congress of Religious Liberals,
assembled in Boston September 22-27, send greetings to those who in all lands

243
are striving to unite pure religion and perfect Uberty, and a message of special
sympathy and encouragement to those who labor amid difficulty and hard
ship in lonely places, that they may stand fast and realize the greatness of the
fellowship to which they belong. [Applause.]
The second resolution is one in which we invite the guests of this
Congress, the guests of Boston, to unite. It is impossible for us to
put into words what we feel as to the manner in which we have been
received here by the city of Boston and our friends. But we could
not be content to leave the city without some expression of our feel
ing, and it is put into the words of this resolution: —
That the members of this Congress, the fourth biennial gathering organized
by the International Council of Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious Think
ers and Workers, having been received in Boston with boundless hospitality,
desire to express their heartfelt gratitude to all who have contributed to the signal
success and happiness of these days of meeting, and especially to the Hon.
Curtis Guild, Jr., Governor of Massachusetts, for his cordial reception of the
Congress; to the ministers and members of the churches of Boston and the
vicinity; to the President of Harvard and other members of the university
for their much-appreciated welcome; and, finally, to the members of the Exec
utive and other Local Committees under the leadership of Dr. Samuel A. Eliot,
the President, and the Rev. Charles W. Wendte, the devoted Secretary of the
Council. (Long applause.]
The third resolution is concerned with the future: —
That the next meeting of the International Council be held in the year 19 10,
the centenary of the birth of Theodore Parker and the four hundredth anni
versary of the birth of Francis David, the martyr bishop of the Unitarians of
Hungary; That the invitation received from the Protestantenverein and other liberal
associations of Germany to hold the next meeting in Berlin be cordially ac
cepted. [Applause.]
The resolutions submitted were adopted by a unanimous vote.
The Chairman: — "John Calvin and the Reformation Monument
in Geneva." An address under this title wiU now be given by
Professor Montet, of Geneva, whom I have the pleasure to present
to you.

244

JOHN CALVIN AND THE REFORMATION MONU
MENT AT GENEVA, SWITZERLAND.*
BV PROFESSOR BDOUARD MONTET, D.D., OF GENEVA.
In speaking of Calvin before an assembly Uke this, — an assembly
which, owing to the fact that it is composed of the representatives of
so many different churches, even of different reUgions, bears solemn
witness to the eternal principle of freedom of reUgious thought, —
I feel that an imperative duty is laid upon me, first of aU, to condemn
in the great Reformer of the sixteenth century what is deserving of
condemnation. What we condemn in Calvin is that narrow dog
matism, so intolerant, which led him into the worst excesses of per
secution; also the dogma of predestination which sharply divided
humanity into two distinct, irreducible categories, and offered as
the only justification of so terrible a decree — concerning which Calvin
himself said, "I confess it must fiU us aU with fear and trembling" —
the affirmation that it was the wiU of God.
What we condemn in Calvin, I say, is the intolerance inseparable
from his theology, which has been one of the bitterest fruits of the
propagation of Calvinism wherever it has spread.
Just as in Geneva we felt the need, for conscience' sake, of erecting
in 1903 a monument in honor of Servetus before dreaming of erecting
one in 1909 in honor of Calvin and the Reformation, so for me it is
a command of conscience openly to break with the intolerance of
the Reformer before proceeding to make an apology in his favor.
How can a Liberal Protestant, a Unitarian, a disciple of Christ,
free from aU dogmatic bonds and from all narrowness of mind,
undertake an apology of Calvin ? If I ask this question at the outset
of my address, it is because, in Europe at least, it has been more
than once put to me. Various liberal reUgious thinkers in Switzer
land, France, HoUand, and elsewhere, have not concealed their sur-
* All quotations from Calvin are taken from the "Corpus Reformatorum," edition Baum,
Cunitz, and Reuss.

245
prise at the news that the idea of a monument to Calvin and the
Calvinistic Reformation took its rise (for such was the case) amongst
the Uberal religious section of the Church. And, more, it must be
admitted that not a few Liberal Protestants gave it a cool reception,
manifesting an evident lukewarmness in the enterprise, especiaUy
when it became a question of contributing to its realization.
As for me, Liberal Protestant as I am, I yet feel perfectly free to
speak in praise of Calvin, and it is for the express purpose of showing
the perfect freedom with which I do so that I desired to condemn
at the outset what in Calvin and his doctrine ought to be con
demned. Yes, through the centuries which separate us men of the twentieth
century from our reUgious ancestors of the sixteenth, through the
lapse of time which has toned down differences and righted all things,
the Unitarians and Independent Rehgious Thinkers of to-day,
forgetting the intolerance from which they have suffered, and judging
doctrines with the impartiality of the historian of dogmas, can reach
out a hand of feUowship to Calvin and his foUowers, and caU to them
across the ages: "You and we both belong to the same spiritual
Uneage: you and we are, in fact, children of the Reformation. It is,
in truth, the same reUgious work which you started and undertook
which we are carrying on and which we shaU accomplish. It is
the eternal gospel, of which we are, after you and with you, the
apostles and preachers." I.
The first bond between Calvinism and Unitarianism is the master
conception of the theology of the great Reformer; namely, the
Sovereignty of God.
Doubtless the Deity of Calvin's theology is Trinitarian, and implies
the absolute divinity of Jesus.
To us, on the other hand, God is One, and, however sublime the
rank we assign to the person of Jesus, we attribute to him in no degree
the character of Deity.
But it is neither at the Trinitarian nor the Unitarian point of view
that we have to place ourselves in treating the question of the Divine
Sovereignty. The opposition, in itself so radical, between the dogmas

246
of Trinitarianism and Unitarianism does not enter mto the question
here. The important thing is that, by Calvin as by us, God is re
garded as AU-Powerful, whatever may be our conception of his
nature and essence. In reaUty, Calvin was as convinced of the
Sovereignty of God as is the Mussulman, who, hke the Unitarian, is
out and out monotheistic.
"The power of God," says Calvin, "is manifested in His creation
and continual government of the world" (I. C, i. 5). "In fact, the
Lord takes to Himself omnipotence, and His wiU is that we should
recognize it in Him. Ruler of heaven and earth by His providence,
He so nearly measures aU things with His compass that nothing hap
pens which has not been decreed by Him (Ps. 115: 5). For, when
He says in the Psalm that He does all He wills, He says it with un
wavering determination and deliberate intention" (I. C, i. 16, 3).
The will of God is the first and sovereign Cause of aU things, for
nothing happens without His wUl and permission.
On this declaration of the Sovereignty of God I am at one with
Calvin, and consequently could not accept the theories of some
modern theologians as to the Umitation of the Divine Power.
An eminent Christian thinker, Pastor Wilfred Monod, weU known
in French Protestant churches for his breadth of thought, his zeal in
furthering the cause of Christian sociahsm, and likewise the boldness
of his dogmatic theories, affirms that God, as we know Him, and to
the degree in which we can follow His action in the universe and in
society, is powerless, and has need of our co-operation in order to
triumph over sinful humanity, and that, as a consequence, the power
of God increases and extends in proportion as we lend Him
our aid.
I am quite wiUing to admit the originality of this point of view,
and I realize in a measure that the social evils, to the cure of which
Mr. Monod is so devoted, may weU suggest to the sensitive and
thoughtful mind such an hypothesis as a limitation of the Divine
Power. But, so far as I am concerned, I could not bend the knee to
an infirm and powerless Deity, and from my point of view such an
imperfect human conception of God is anthropomorphic.
No! I can only conceive of God as omnipotent, as absolutely
sovereign, and on this question of the Divine Sovereignty I remain
as uncompromising as the authors of Deuteronomy or of the Second

247
Isaiah, the leading representatives of Monotheism in the Old Tes
tament, and I am prepared to repeat with the disciple of Mahomet,
"God is the Mighty (El 'Aziz), the Powerful (El Kddir), and every
thing, absolutely everything, is under, absolutely under His om
nipotent control."
The dogma of predestination is the form par excellence under
which Calvin affirms the Sovereignty of God.
A few quotations from the "Institutes" may not be out of place
here : —
"That the gospel of Ufe," writes Calvin, "is not to be freely
preached to aU the world, and that even where it is preached all are
not to receive it, in this diversity there appears an admirable secret of
the judgment of God, for there can be no doubt that it is only ac
cording to His good pleasure. ... It is evident that it is ordained
by the Divine WUl that Salvation should be offered to some and
foreclosed to others" (I. C, iii. 21, 1).
"We affirm, then, as the Scripture has evidently shown, that God
has once predestinated in His eternal and immutable counsel those
He desires to save and those He desires to send to perdition " (I. C,
iii. 21, 7).
"And what I affirm should not seem strange: the fact is, God
not only foresaw the faU of the first man, and in his faU the ruin of
the whole of his posterity, but He predestinated it" (I. C, iii. 23, 7).
It foUows from these passages, as weU as from the whole tenor of
Calvin's theology, that original sin, " that hereditary corruption and
perversity of our nature, which renders us deserving of the wrath of
God" (I. C, ii. 1, 8), and predestination, which is, in reality, but
another way of putting the same thought, only throw into fuU light
the Sovereignty of God who by an absolute act of His wiU pre
determined the faU of the first man, and consequently of the whole
of the human race, and sovereignly predestinated some to eternal
life and others to eternal perdition.
I am not seeking here to raise the question of the contradictions
contained in the Calvinistic conceptions of original sin and pre
destination. I am looking at the subject from a higher point of view,
and trying to disengage what may be caUed the philosophy of these
dogmas.

248
Inspired by the true Christian spirit, I would seek for the soul of
:truth embedded in these erroneous doctrines, and under the form in
which the great Reformer has expressed them. For an error which
has dominated the thought of successive generations has only done
so by virtue of the element of eternal truth of which it is the im
perfect embodiment or travesty.
The truth at the bottom of the doctrine of predestination is just
this beUef in the Divine Sovereignty and Providence, to which all
here can subscribe. It was because Calvin was profoundly convinced
that God reigns over the world and humanity, it was because this
conviction was so deeply rooted in his conscience, that his reUgious
genius, nourished on the Bible, to which he attributed an absolute
authority, was at first led little by Uttle, and then urged on to rear
the whole structure of Christian theology on the foundation of the
dogma of predestination.
I am happy to be able to quote, in support of what I am here
bringing forward, the opinions of two men of widely different tenden
cies of thought, one a native of your own country and the other
a native of mine.
Mr. Edwin D. Mead, of Boston, in a speech he dehvered in Geneva
at the Palais Eynard in 1905, a speech which was heartily applauded,
said, "Do not forget that to Calvin the doctrine of predestination
meant specially the Providence of God" (" Actes du 3c Congres In
ternational du Christianisme Liberal et Progressif, " p. 64).
A few years before, in 1901, one of the most distinguished repre
sentatives of aggressive orthodoxy in France, Professor Doumergue,
the author of a masterly work on Calvin, which is now in process of
publication, declared in an assembly of students at Geneva, in which
I had the honor to take part, that "to Calvin the doctrine of pre
destination was but an expression of the idea of providence."

II.
Faith in the sovereignty of God is not the only point of contact
between Calvin and Liberal Protestants and Free Religious Thinkers.
There are other bonds which unite us to the great Reformer and his
school, and I desire to bring before you what is, historically speaking,

249
a new fact which of itself is enough to explain the line of descent of
the Unitarians in English-speaking countries from the Puritans.
This fact may be defined thus: Calvinism, by its narrow and in
tolerant dogmatics, by its uncompromising religious and ecclesiastical
spirit, has produced men of will and action. It has communicated
to its disciples a germ, so to speak, of that sovereignty of wiU which
it attributes in so peremptory a manner to God. To employ a char
acteristic French expression, Calvinism, by its very intolerance,
"has carved men out of one sohd block of spiritual substance," men
of inflexible wiU. Islam, too, with its unyielding monotheism, its
doctrine of fatality which has found in the East so many defenders,
has produced the same results. It also has given birth to men of
iron wiU.
And here we put our finger, so to speak, on what has been caUed
the vertus-defauts (defects of the virtues) of Calvinism.
The dogmatic narrowness of orthodox Calvinists, the conviction
that they alone were in possession of reUgious truth, and that beyond
their church and creed there was naught but error and darkness;
their belief in "The little garden walled around,
Chosen and made peculiar ground";
their assurance of their own salvation and their certitude of their
own election, — in a word, that agglomeration of convictions in which
the true and the false were evidently mixed, but which was dominated
by a wiUing release from evil and a passionate desire after good, —
that ensemble of convictions, I say, forged characters of iron and
steel. It is said that on his death-bed CromweU asked his chaplain, " Is
is possible to faU from a state of grace when one has once been in
it?" " No, my lord," replied the minister. "Well," added Crom
weU, "I am sure that I was once in a state of grace." * This episode
and these declarations are an historical demonstration of the truth
for which we are here contending.
It is in this irresistible strength of will, the source of which is in
Calvin's doctrine, that we find the foundations of more than one
state and republic.
?Guizot, "Histoire de la Republique d'Angleterce et de Cromwell" (1640-58), vol. ii. p.
393. Paris, 1854. This fact is attested by numerous English historians.

25°
Such was the Repubhc of the Seven Provinces. It was not tiU
after William the Silent (1584) had embraced Calvinistic Protes
tantism and had become leader of the Gueux in 1572 that the Union
of Utrecht named him, in 1579, stadtholder, and that later, in 1581,
the RepubUc was founded. Such, too, was England during the
Protectorate (1653 to 1658) under Cromwell, that zealous Cal-
vinist. Such were the Puritan States successively estabhshed in America
by the followers of Calvin: in 1630 in Massachusetts; in 1636 in
Connecticut; in 1638 in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, —
States which formed in 1650 the Federation of the United Colonies
of New England.
Such also in more recent times were the Transvaal and Orange
Repubhcs, founded in 1834 by the Calvinistic Boers, partly of Dutch
origin and partly descendants from the French Huguenots.
M. Brunetiere, in a brilliant lecture on Calvin and the Reformation
deUvered in Geneva a few years ago (1901), said that Calvin had,
if I may be aUowed the word, aristocratized rehgion. Mixing up,
in the principle of his Reformation, politics and ethics, Calvin, by his
religious and moral severity, could not but estabUsh the most authori
tative of rules, alike in Church and State.
Without doubt, he was authoritative in these two domains. In
deed, he was so by nature, by inteUectual temperament, and in the
very native hue of his resolution.
But the fact remains, not less certain, that his Reformation, as the
statements we have brought forward prove, eventuated in the De
mocracy. In Calvinism the democratic form of government, both in State
and in Church, proceeds from the principle of equality between aU
behevers, resulting from the fundamental doctrine of the Divine
Sovereignty. Professor Osgood, an American author, writes: "The modern revo
lutionary movement began, not in the eighteenth, but in the sixteenth
century. Protestantism, especiaUy in the form which Calvin gave
it, was hostile to absolutism, both in Church and in State, and carried
with it a moral vigor without which the mere revival of classical
learning would have been powerless to effect any deep social changes.

251
Calvinism meant democracy in church government. The local
church furnished a much better model than any Greek state. The
theory upon which it was based was easily transferred to the domain
of pohtics." *
" Everywhere where Calvinism has spread," said Mr. E. D. Mead
at the Palais Eynard, "it has sown broadcast the seeds of democ
racy." This remarkable fact is visible in aU churches of Calvinistic origin.
Whether we turn to Knox and the Presbyterian churches in Scotland,
to the Walloon churches in Holland, to the Reformed churches in
France, or to the Calvinistic communities of other countries in Europe
and America, we find that the ecclesiastical poUty of them aU is
democratic. The last and profound cause of aU these events, so striking both
in rehgious and pohtical polity, was undoubtedly the genius of Cal
vin, that sculptor of strong characters.
From this point of view Calvin has been the leader of Unitarian
and Liberal Protestant beUevers. In the United States and in
England the Unitarians, in the energy of their will to Uve, in es-
tabUshing their faith and church, in spite of all the difficulties they
encountered, have given proof that they were men of indomitable
force of character, true descendants of those of whom your poet sings:
"They were men of present valor, stalwart old iconoclasts,
Unconvinced by axe or gibbet that all virtue was the Past's." Lowell.
In Europe also Liberal Protestants have given evidence of their
vitality by the capacity to survive they have never ceased to mani
fest. Everywhere in the minority, everywhere resembling " the little
one that afterwards became a thousand," not only have they main
tained their right to exist as churches, but they have compeUed the
respect and consideration of the orthodox majority.
It is for the reasons we have here enumerated, on the one hand
the spiritual rehgious ties which unite us to Calvin, on the other the
force of wiU and energy of character we have inherited from him, —
* Quoted by J. J. Roget, "The Projected International Monument to the Heroes of the
Protestant Reformation at Geneva, a Plea for Anglo-Saxon Support" (p. 24)1 Geneva, 1007.

252
it is for these reasons, I say, that we Liberal Protestants would offer
our meed of praise to Calvin, and would contribute to the erection
of a monument in honor of his genius and his Reformation in the
ancient Swiss city of Geneva, the centre of his activity.
We desire to invest this event with an international character worthy
of it. Calvin's influence has been world-wide. PohticaUy, sociaUy,
and religiously, his sanative and invigorating spirit has breathed
through Europe and America, and modem democracies are all,
in one way or another, inheritors of his genius.
We desire that Calvinists of aU countries, and aU churches of
Calvinistic descent, should take part with us in this work. Repre
sentatives of the ancient Calvinistic faith, believers in the Trinity
and Predestination, representatives of moderate orthodoxy who
have made a selection from the dogmatic faith bequeathed them to
Calvin, representatives of modern belief, Unitarians and Liberal
Protestants, all should unite in this act of gratitude to the great
Reformer of the sixteenth century.
The monument which wiU be erected in Geneva in 1909 wiU be
the testimony of aU the spiritual descendants of Calvin to that prin
ciple of liberation from aU religious and political servitude which
is the manifest result of the work accomplished by the French Refor
mation in the sixteenth century.
The central figure of the monument will, of course, be that of
Calvin himself. Around this central figure will be grouped his prin
cipal collaborators, Farel, Beza, Knox, etc., and these again wih be
surrounded by the figures of great Calvinistic statesmen, such as
William the Silent, CromweU, Coligny, and one of the great Puritans
of New England and others, — aU men who were inspired by the
spirit of the Reformer and had something of his indomitable will.
These were aU, in the different circumstances in which they were
placed, men of faith, of that faith of which Christ said " it could re
move mountains."
In 1909 we shall celebrate a double anniversary in Geneva: the
fourth centenary of the birth of Calvin (1509) and the three hundred
and fiftieth anniversary of his Academy, to-day the university, founded
by the Reformer in 1559. The foundation stone of the monument
to the heroes of the Reformation wiU be laid in the presence of a
concourse of persons from all parts of the world, and we shaU invite

253
to the glorious three hundred and fiftieth anniversary of our uni
versity representatives from aU sister universities.
Members of the International Congress of Religious Liberals, you
wiU be present on that occasion ; for, as representatives of the culture
of the New World, your place wiU be with us at Geneva in 1909.
Dr. J. M. Whtton, of New York. — AUow me, Mr. President, to
present the foUowing resolutions: —
Resolved, That this Congress has learned with great satisfaction of the move
ment initiated at Geneva, and seconded in various European countries and
America, to mark in 1909 the four hundredth anniversary of the birth of John
Calvin by a monument in that city commemorating that illustrious man and
the influences proceeding from him, and from the great men to whom he passed
on the torch of progress for the advancement of freedom, education, and ethical
religion. Recognizing a just distinction between what Calvin inherited from his great
master Augustine and what he himself contributed to the thought of his time,
and in view of the latter as shared consciously or unconsciously by the freest
and most catholic religious fellowship of to-day, this Congress heartily com
mends the proposed memorial to the favorable regard and co-operation of all
who stand for a free church in a free state, for individual liberty under individ
ual responsibility, and for the religious unity of all faithful souls.
It was thought best- Mr. Chairman, by the committee of this
Congress that with this resolution should be coupled another which
has been prepared by them, and which in conjunction with this I
wUl proceed to read: — ¦
Resolved, That this Congress also expresses its sympathy with the action taken
toward the erection of a. monument in the ancient city of Vienne, France, in
commemoration of its former distinguished citizen and good physician, Michael
Servetus, the martyr to freedom of thought and religious veracity.
The Chairman. — The question is upon the adoption of these res
olutions. If there is no objection, I wUl put the vote on them both
at the same time.
Voices. — Separately, separately.
The Chairman. — There is objection. The question is upon the
adoption of the first resolution with reference to the monument to
Calvin. Those in favor of the adoption of this resolution will say

254
"Aye." ["Aye."] Those opposed wiU say "No." ["No."] It
is a vote.
The question is upon the adoption of this second resolution.
Those in favor of the adoption of this vote wiU say "Aye." ["Aye."]
Those opposed wiU say "No." [A single voice, "No."] It is a
practicaUy unanimous vote.
"The Tendency of Positive Religions to Universal ReUgion."
Under this title an address will now be given by Professor Pfleid
erer of Berlin. [Applause.]

255

THE TENDENCY OF POSITIVE RELIGIONS TO
UNIVERSAL RELIGION.
BY PROFESSOR OTTO PFLEIDERER, UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN, GERMANY.
Until the middle of the eighteenth century it was generaUy be
lieved that the history of rehgion began with the knowledge and
worship of the one true God, Creator of heaven and earth, and that
the many false or heathen religions arose later through apostasy
and deterioration from this original faith. For the Church this
beUef was grounded and estabhshed upon the early Biblical narra
tives, according to which God revealed himself to our first ancestors
in paradise and then again to Noah, the father of all who survived
the deluge. But even in the rationalistic circles of the so-caUed
IUuminati, whose rise dates from the seventeenth century, and
which traced the origin of rehgion not to a positive, primitive
revelation, but to the innate human reason, it was at first con
sidered self-evident that the original religion of humanity could
have been no other than that monotheistic faith which alone can
satisfy the universal reason of man. The origin of the many
different heathen religions was explained as the result of human
caprice and perverseness, and especiaUy the deception of selfish
priests, by which the truth once known and accepted was distorted
and corrupted.
The pMlosopher and historian, David Hume, with his keen in
teUect, was the first to see that this theory is pure fiction and utterly
unhistorical. He distinguishes between the basis of true religion,
which is certainly the reason, and the origin of the actual religions
of the peoples, which must be sought on the irrational side of human
nature, especiaUy in the feelings of fear and hope and in fantasies
of the imagination, which invented beings like unto men as the
efficient causes of those natural events and phenomena whose real
causes were unknown. Therefore, the primitive religion was not

256
monotheism, but polytheism and animism, or the belief in spirits,
as the earliest historic reminiscences of mankind everywhere bear
witness. Only later on did monotheism develop out of polytheism,
and even then not by means of the rational observation of the order
of nature, but owing to irrational motives, such as national vanity,
which may have led one people to declare its god to be the highest
and finaUy the only God, or to interested devotion, which led to
the adulation of an especially beloved divinity in higher and higher
terms, until infinity and eternity became his predicates and attributes.
So it happened that ordinary fear and adulation accidentally led to
the same result as reason and philosophy; namely, monotheism.
But, even when this result had anywhere been attained, human
nature proved too weak to adhere to it permanently. Man's
imagination and his need of communion made him yearn for nearer
and more approachable gods, to mediate between the supreme God
and the world. In practical life the importance of these mediatory
beings soon surpassed that of the highest God. Thus the whole
history of religion osculates between the movement toward mono
theism and the tendency towards polytheism. It is a purposeless
play of irrational motives, whose results only accidentally and tem
porarily coincide with the demands of reason. According to this
theory, reason is wholly without influence in the real history of
religion, although, according to Hume's own premise, she is the
basis of true religion.
This theory is undoubtedly interesting. It is equally significant
for its keen insight into the empirical reaUty of the historical relig
ions, in which the irrational undeniably plays a great r61e, as well
as for its lack of understanding of the inworking and co-operation
of reason in the purposive development of the religions upon which
their growing content of truth and real value rests. Hume has
the merit of having set up, for the philosophy of religion as weU as
for epistemology, the problem of a reconcUiation of rationalism
and empiricism.
German philosophy, since Leibnitz, has been at work on the solution
of this problem. According to Leibnitz, the positive historical relig
ions are related to the rational kernel of religion, just as accidental,
empirical truths in general are related to the necessary and eternal
truths of reason. As the latter virtuaUy exist unconsciously in our

257
souls from the beginning, but are cahed into conscious existence only
through and by means of our experience, so the idea of God as the
perfect being is not innate in the mind as a complete cognition or
clear perception, but as an unconscious tendency, which becomes
conscious of itself in the experience of the positive religions, which
are related to the reUgion of reason not, as the English and French
iUuminati thought, as contrast or contradiction, but as the neces
sary preparatory stages and the essential means to the realization
of the latter. As the confused mental presentations of actual ex
perience furnish the material out of which the clear perceptions
of reason must be developed, so the presentative forms of faith
and the ceremonies of the positive religions must serve as the means
for raising the mind to the knowledge of the religion of reason.
Herein Ues their historical justification and necessity, and also their
limitation and relativity. Out of this view a new problem arises
for the phUosophy of reUgion; namely, to comprehend the positive
religions historicaUy, as relatively true stages in the development
of the rational religion which lies concealed in them, and can only
realize itself through them, instead of, as heretofore, criticising them
and measuring them by our preconceived idea of the religion of
reason, only to condemn them.
Lessing and Herder proceeded stiU further in this direction.
Lessing viewed the history of rehgion as a gradual and continuaUy
progressive education of the human race by divine revelation, which
adapted and accommodated itself to the gradual growth of man's
powers of comprehension; that is to say, passed through a process
of evolution in which every stage contained truth commingled with
error. This, also, holds true of BibUcal religion; for, according to
Lessing, the Old and the New Testaments are simply two primers
of the divine pedagogics, for the elementary instruction of the race.
They both contain valuable truths, but these need to be developed
into the universal truths of reason, if they are to be of service or
benefit to mankind. Out of a Biblical religion, founded upon acci
dental historical truths and such heteronymous motives as the fear
of punishment and the hope of reward, Lessing expected the devel
opment of an eternal gospel of human perfection, in which the
good should be loved and done for its own sake. Lessing did not
identify the Biblical Christianity of the Church with the universal

258
religion of reason, but considered it simply as the highest stage in
the evolution towards this ideal goal. GeneraUy speaking, he has
also succeeded in bringing out the value of the two sides of the con
ception of the relative truth and the temporary stage of an historical
•evolution with a juster sense of proportion and with less partisan
feeling than many who have come after him.
Herder's strength lay in his broad sympathy, which enabled him to
catch the accents of the spirit under the most diverse forms, from the
hymns of the nature religions to the lyrics of the prophets and the
psalm singers of Israel and on to the gospel of Jesus. For him
Christianity was not only the highest, but also the perfect religion,
and identical with the universal religion of humanity. The smaU
residue of positive doctrine which could not be resolved into universal
religion he calmly ignored as of no consequence.
Kant, on the contrary, carrying his critical method into the domain
of religion, emphasized the contrast between the ideal of his ethical
religion of reason and the positive statutory religions so strongly
that the worth of the pre-Christian and non-Christian religions
remained altogether doubtful. He would almost place them in the
category of religious delusion and superstition. Only to Christianity
did he attribute real moral value, and he endeavored to interpret its
chief dogmas in the terms of his ethical idealism. Nevertheless, he
would have us distinguish clearly between the positive ecclesiastical
religion, established by accidental statutory power, and the one uni
versally valid faith of pure reason. These, however, are not mutually
contradictory, for the one is contained in the other in germ or principle,
and therefore even the accidental statutory forms of every positive
ecclesiastical faith possess a relative right and worth just in so far
as they are utilized as serviceable and expedient means for the further
ance and development of the ethical religion of reason, as means which
will become superfluous in time, and may eventuaUy be entirely
dropped. Yet Kant leaves us in doubt whether the positive eccle
siastical religions will ever pass over entirely into the universal religion
of reason or not. The only thing that seemed essential to him was that
the ideal of the universal religion of reason should remain the regu
lative principle for the interpretation and the further development of
the positive ecclesiastical faith.
The irrationalism of romanticism, on the contrary, would have

259
nothing to do with any universal rehgion of reason, not even in the
Kantian sense of a simply regulative ideal.
Schleiermacher declared that since rehgion is the feeUng excited or
aroused in the individual by the Whole, there can be none but positive
religions, of which there must be indefinitely many, as many as there
are pecuharly impressed or influenced individuals. That which they
hold in common is of secondary importance, smaU in extent and of
constantly changing dimensions, and rests solely upon the accidental
affinities of souls pitched in the same key. In this view the distinc
tion between true and false also disappears, since every reUgion is
true just in so far as it has been felt and experienced as a fact of
consciousness. But every rehgion must acknowledge the equal
validity of an infinite number of other religions besides itseh, just
because they also have been as reaUy experienced as facts of feeling.
From the origin of religion in irrational feeling, Hume had drawn
the pessimistic conclusion that aU reUgions are equaUy false. From
the same premise, romanticism drew the optimistic conclusion that aU
are equally true. This judgment was very soon reversed in favor of
the pessimistic side in Feuerbach's pathological theory of reUgion.
This was quite natural, for on the purely empirical ground of irra
tional emotional experience we are left without any criterion for the
objective determination of the truth and value of the psychological
facts which are given. Nor can we speak here of the evolutionary
stages and relativity of reUgious truth, because this, too, would require
some universal principle or ideal to serve as a standard of values for
the measurement of the separate phenomena.
Thus this purely positivistic empiricism proved itseh as incapable
of a true understanding of the history of rehgion as the rationaUsm of
the iUuminati, which was based upon pure abstractions drawn from
the facts of experience.
Leibnitz and Lessing hit the golden mean between these two
extremes. They beheld in the positive religions the forms and the
means for the development of the universal religion of reason. On
this path, which they were the first to tread, Hegel has traveUed
further. He took up the same method, and carried it through to its logical
consequences. Like Hume, Hegel also distinguished between the
essential foundations of religion in reason and its actual beginnings in

2,6p
bistory. Hegel felt just as sure as Hume that the primitive religion
was not the rehgion of reason, but its very opposite. But, while
Hume saw nothing in the actual history of reUgion but the accidental
and irrational play of human passions and fictions, Hegel was con
vinced that, in spite of the irrationality of isolated facts and appear
ances, that which is reasonable is also the actual in history, taken as a
whole; that is to say, reason is the operative and regulative principle of
the evolution from the unreason of nature to the reasonableness of the
spirit. Just as he interpreted history in general as the process or
method of the self-realization of the spirit, out of and by means of
the natural, so he considered the history of rehgion as the process
of the evolution of the religious consciousness, through which and
in which the human spirit graduaUy becomes conscious of its essen
tial relationship and oneness with the divine spirit; or, briefly, as the
gradual elevation from the humanity of nature to a divine humanity.
The evolutionary stages in this process are the positive reUgions, in
which the rehgious consciousness expresses itseh in a manifold variety
of forms, differentiated according to different peoples and times.
Christianity Hegel considered as the absolute religion, because in it
humanity had arrived at the consciousness of its true relation to God.
But even within Christianity itseU this evolution must be continued,
because even here the truth, though present in principle, is neverthe
less stiU veUed or concealed under the symbolical forms of the eccle
siastical dogmas and cult. Thus, according to Hegel as weU as
Lessing and Kant, it becomes the task of the philosophy of religion
to interpret the ecclesiastical articles of faith in such a way that the
content of truth which they contain and conceal may be brought
clearly into consciousness. The positive ecclesiastical forms are not an
end in themselves, they are not truth itself, but they are the means
which subserve the continuaUy progressive evolution of the truth.
The universal truth of reason is the ideal and the regulative principle
for the criticism and treatment of the accidental historical forms,
which per se can have only limited validity.
Since Hegel's time our knowledge of the history of reUgion and
the materials for such a science have increased so considerably that
the details of his philosophy of religion may be considered as anti
quated. But it does not fohow by any means that the idea of devel
opment—which, like a scarlet thread, runs through the whole of

26l
German philosophy since Leibnitz — must be given up. On the
contrary, it seems to me that the more massive this historical material
grows and the more difficult it becomes to orient ourselves in this
labyrinth of infinitely manifold details and introduce order into
this chaos, the more urgent becomes our need of the Ariadne's
thread of a reasonable teleology. But of course the peculiar form
which the idea of development has assumed in the dialectic method
of Hegel has now been given up entirely: his construction of history
as the logical dialectics of ideas changing into their antitheses is
rightly considered nowadays as an arbitrary violation of actual
history; but it does not therefore foUow that we should not look
for any rational development in history, but simply that we must
understand it more clearly, that we must observe the real factors
and impeUing forces of this evolution more closely than was the
case in speculative idealism. In the same way the old nature phi
losophy of ScheUing has had to give way to the exact sciences, but
its central thought of development has triumphantly come to its
own in Darwin's theory of descent, though in a new form more
consonant with and adequate to the facts, in so far as real vital
forces and their struggle for existence has stepped into the place
of the logical categories. If we apply this analogy in the observa
tion and study of the history of the spiritual life of man, and espe
ciaUy to reUgion, we wiU not conceive of the development of religion
as a simple, straightforward progress in reasonable ideas, but as
a constant interworking of universal and particular ideas, of rational
and irrational tendencies, in which the latter by no means act simply
as hindrances or impedimenta, but also serve as means for the
deepening of the rehgious hfe, and furnish the impulse to new and
higher progress. This view enables us to do justice to the facts
of rehgious history which the sceptic Hume pointed out so ener-
geticaUy, and at the same time to hold fast to the optimistic evolu
tionism which has been the soul of German philosophy since Leib
nitz and which has been the condition and ground of its attitude
towards the positive ecclesiastical forms of reUgion, — an attitude
which has been one of freedom and at the same time of a discreet
and sober conservatism and a broad-minded, wide-hearted toler
ance.

262

II.

That religion did not begin in monotheistic faith is now almost
universally acknowledged by reUgious philosophers. The worship
ping cultus-community was at first circumscribed by the narrow
bounds of kinship and blood relationship, and so the object of its
worship was the god of the tribe, who possessed only Umited and
locaUy restricted powers and found his rivals in the gods of neighbor
ing tribes. Polytheism arose through the union and combination
of various tribes into larger groups and peoples with a weU-organized
civU order. The earlier tribal gods were converted into the mem
bers of the same pantheon, subordinated to one supreme god, and
set up as the rulers of the separate departments of nature and society.
As civilization increased, the impulse of the reason toward unifica
tion awakened, and strove to rise in one way or another above the
multiphcity of gods to a unity. This was accomphshed in two
principal ways, that of theoretical reflection and that of the practical
ethicaUy induced postulate. The more the understanding inteUect
learns to observe the unitary order of the world, the less it is satis
fied with a multiplicity of gods, and so it seeks the ground of this
order in a unitary power from which aU things proceed, or of a
world-soul, which gives life to aU and is manifest in aU things.
The One in aU now becomes for him the only true God, of whom
the many former gods are different manifestations, corresponding
to the various natural phenomena, or the names of the many gods,
to whom aU real existence is now denied, become so many worship
ful and honorable appellations of the one God. Thus we read in
the Vedas, "They have caUed him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni,
for to the One the poets give many names." In this way arose
the weU-known Pantheism of the Brahmins, the Tao-doctrine of
the Chinese, the esoteric speculation of the Egyptian priests, of
the orphic theosophists, and of the Eleatic phUosophers among the
Greeks. But it is significant that this pantheistic doctrine of the
unity of God was restricted everywhere to a narrow circle of the
initiated, such as philosophers or priests, and remained without any
perceptible influence upon the actual faith of the people, who con
tinued the worship of the traditional and many gods, and who, when
the prestige and consideration of the recognized official gods de-

263
clined, sought substitutes for them in the storehouse of the oldest
superstitions; namely, in the gods of the mysteries, of which we will
speak later.
The other way out of polytheism led to monotheism. Here it was
not so much the observation and reflection upon the order of nature
which was decisive, but rather the ethical consciousness, which
caUed for a just government of human affairs, and could therefore
believe only in a morally good ruler of the world, who could satisfy
this demand. Attempts in this direction are often found in the
polytheistic reUgions, in which the monarchical position of the
supreme god is so strongly emphasized that by the side of his world
wide rule the other gods become practicaUy unimportant. Thus
in the language and manner of speech of the Greek lyric and dram
atic poets the name Zeus is used almost as if it were the designation
of the one ruler of the world, so that some upon good grounds have
ascribed a practical monotheism to them. The Sun-god Ra fills
a similar place in some Egyptian hymns.
There has also come down to us a purely monotheistic hymn
to the Sun-god Amen, the god of the heretical king Amenophis IV.
The Chinese heaven-god and high emperor of fate, Tien, and the
Babylonian Creator-god Marduk may also be mentioned here.
The nearest approach to monotheism, however, was made by the
Ahuramazda-faith of the Iranian prophet Zarathustra. As the
wiU of the good, Ahura is raised so high above the nature gods that
he becomes the one and only Lord, while they are degraded into
his servants and messengers. To be sure, his rule is stiU limited
by the power of the hostile and evil spirit Angromainyu, but, since
this resistance is to be conquered in the end, this Persian dualism
is by no means absolute, and is hardly essentially different from
the BibUcal opposition between God and the devil. Of course,
we may take it for granted that the old nature gods, who were de
graded to the rank of angels, in the system of the Avesta, stiU played
an important r61e as independent beings in the popular faith of
the Persian people, otherwise it would never have been possible
for Mithraism to arise to such great importance as the later rival
of Christianity.
Even in the case of the Israelites, monotheism was no more
the primitive form of faith than in the case of any other people.

264
Jahve, whom the tribes held in common as their national God after
their entrance into Canaan, was worshipped side by side with the
Canaanite Baal for centuries. As long as the being of Jahve
(Jehovah) was not specificaUy conceived to be different and higher
than that of the nature gods, the worship of Jahve alone could not
become the one religion exclusive of aU others. The prophets of
Israel after Elias were the first to rise to this conception. Their
quickened moral consciousness and ethical insight beheld in Jehovah,
before aU else, the holy God, who wiUed the holiness of his people,
sat in judgment upon their sins, and used the foreign nations as
instruments for the punishment of Israel's trangressions.
In the faith of the prophets, Jahve's being was one with the wiU of
the good, with the ethical order of the world, and thereby he was
already practicaUy the one God, the World Ruler, who guides the
destinies of the nations and uses them as means for the accomphsh-
ment of his final moral aim and ethical purpose. We must not forget,
however, that in the pre-exUic period, at least, this prophetical faith
was very far from being the faith of the whole people: the prophets
themselves are constantly complaining that their preaching met with
so little response, and that the majority of the people hardened their
hearts against their message. We may therefore beheve that the
consciousness of the multitude had not yet developed to that degree
of inteUectual and spiritual maturity which would have been necessary
for them to grasp the ethical ideal of God which the prophets pro
claimed. The faith of the prophets first became the common pos
session of the Jewish people in the post-exilic community, which out
of the general shipwreck of their national existence had saved their
religion only, to which it now clung with greater fidelity than ever
before, without ever again relapsing into polytheistic tendencies.
With this, pure monotheism for the first time became the exclusive
religion of a people, or a church-state. However, the more anxiously
the Jewish people separated themselves from all others in order to
maintain the purity of their faith, the narrower their religion grew.
Although, theoreticaUy, Jahve was stiU thought of as the one only
God and Ruler of the world, nevertheless for the religious conscious
ness of the Jews he became once more simply the particular and
special God of their nation, to whom alone he had revealed his wUl,
whereas he maintained no positive or direct relations to other men.

265
"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Of course, this
Jewish pretension to a peculiar possession of God stands in direct
contradiction to the universalism of the monotheistic idea of God, and
me might easily see in it the proof of a colossal national pride, but we
must not forget that precisely this Jewish exclusiveness proved to be
the inevitably necessary means by which the religion of the prophets
was preserved for mankind. The more the later Jewish theological
thought separated God from the world by an abysmal gulf and
placed him at an infinite and inapproachable distance, the more men
felt the need of bridging this gulf by means of more accessible medi
atory or intercessory beings whom it was easier for the mind to con
template. For this the Jews found the acceptable types in the Persian
religion. The Amshaspands and Yazatas, who formed the court
of Ahura, found their counterpart in the archangels and angels who
peopled the Jewish heavens and served as managers of the different
departments of the life of nature and humanity, and as instruments of
God in his government of the world. And just as in the theology of
the Avesta the spirit of Ahura, as weU as his good thoughts and his
wisdom, were personified and posited as independent separate beings,
so in the later Jewish speculation the Spirit, the Wisdom, and the
Word of God were Ukewise personified and posited as separate,
self-existent, and creative powers, as personal, divine, mediatorial
beings. This process was carried furthest among the Alexandrian
Jews, who were acquainted with Egyptian and Greek speculation,
under the influence of which the Alexandrian theologian Philo
plainly distinguished the divine Word (Logos) as a second god and
first-born son of God from God himself, and described this Word as
the mediator of the divine revelation in the world, in the history of
Israel, and in the hearts of the pious. There can be no question that
this idea is a mythical invention of the phantasy, and it is patent that
it stands in contradiction to the pure thought Of God as the infinite,
omnipresent, and all-energizing spirit. ShaU we, like Hume, consider
this development as an irrational relapse from monotheism to poly
theism? Or should we not much rather see in this reversion the
providential means whereby God in his divine education of humanity
prepared for the transcending of the one-sided Jewish monotheism
and the introduction of a deeper and richer universal religion ? The
Jewish monotheism was unquestionably one-sided, and that in two

266
respects: first, inasmuch as the one only God, the Lord of the whole
world, was conceived as standing in an exclusive relation to a partic
ular people, the Jews; and, again, in so far as He is thought of only as
the transcendent, supermundane God, standing out in a so rugged,
exclusive opposition and contrast to the world that this visible world
of nature and man appeared more and more to be without God or to
be even hostile to God, having been given over to the rule of the
demons and being destined to destruction in the final judgment.
This pessimistic conception of the world and of human hfe, especiaUy
as it exists in the later Jewish apocalypses, was due in part to the evil
conditions of the times. Nevertheless, its deepest source lay in this
one-sided transcendence of God, in this duaUstic separation of God
from the world and man, which made any real inner communion of
God and man impossible, and left room only for the cowering fear
of the slave before his terrible Judge and Lord.
From this point of view the Jewish speculation concerning divine
mediatory beings no longer appears to us as a meaningless relapse
into heathen superstition, but as a perfectly justifiable reaction against
the one-sidedness of a transcendental duaUstic theism.
By the doctrine of the Logos, PhUo and his successors reaUy meant
to say that God is not only the transcendent and supermundane
Lord and Judge of the world, but that he is everywhere present and
everywhere at work in the actual world, as the energizing and order
ing, the inner, shaping force of nature, and as the power within the
inteUectual, moral, and religious life of man. This basic thought,
which can easUy be separated from the original mythical form of the
doctrine, also constitutes its essential and permanent truth. This
development of Hellenic Judaism by no means denied the mono
theistic faith in God, but, on the contrary, simply freed it from its
Jewish narrowness and limitation, and broadened and deepened it by
means of the relative truth of pagan Pantheism, which may be ex
pressed in two utterances of Saint Paul: "For God is not only a God of
the Jews, but also of the Gentiles"; and " God is not far from any one
of us, for in him we live and move and have our being; for we also
are his offspring." These are fundamental truths of universal
religion, and the recognition and acceptance of these truths was the
essential condition without which Jewish monotheism could never
have developed into a world-religion.

267
But at the very time that Hellenic Judaism took this step towards
an understanding and agreement with Greek philosophy and the
Greek conception of the world, the national and official polytheistic
religions had shared in the decay and death of the separate national
ities composing the universal empire of Rome, and in consequence
we find on every hand new religious movements and attempts at
religious reconstruction, which had their origin in popular religious
needs and feelings and grew out of the depths of the human soul.
Mysterious customs and doctrines, strange fantastic mixtures of
the oldest ancestral traditions with the newest wisdom of the day,
spring up everywhere. To the superficial observer all this may seem
like a reversion from the clear inteUectual sanity of the Graeco-
Roman civilization and culture to the fantastical mysticism and
asceticism of an earher and uncultured time. But, if we observe
more closely, a strong undercurrent of deep religious need, aspira
tion and intuition, reveals itseh beneath aU that is strange and fan
tastical. "What must I do to be saved?" This question strikes
the keynote of the cultus of the many kinds of mysteries of the
decadent antique world. In their need, men did not turn to the
highest gods of the national religion, but to the inferior gods, who,
according to old popular legends, had descended into hades, and
had encountered as weU as triumphantly overcome the terrors of
death. To be united to these by mysterious vows and consecra
tions, to make men partakers of their divine hfe and thereby give
them the assurance of happiness and bUss in the beyond, such was
the aim and goal of aU the mysteries; and the purpose which was
served by their manifold rites and ceremonies, such as baths of
purification and castigations, eating sacramental food, speaking
mystical names and formulae, and contemplating holy symbols, — aU
of these were used as means to excite ecstatic emotional states,
which were considered as the demonstration and manifestation
of the Ufe and power of the God by which the individual was pos
sessed and by which he was transported into that life himself.
Much superstition undoubtedly mingled with aU this, and mystical
enthusiasm often degenerated into immoral and orgiastic practices,
as witness the Bacchantes and the priests of Cybele and Isis. Yet
who would deny that there is manifest in these phenomena a deep
ening of religion, which had now become the personal concern of

268
the individual, as weU as the desire for a personal inner experience
of the divine life and for the elevation of the spirit above the com
mon reality into an ideal world of eternal values? The deepest
and most fundamental religious feelings of the human soul have
expressed and revealed themselves in these phenomena, and these
feelings have universal significance and importance, although they
may have been wrapped in and buried under the husks of tem
porary and fantastical ideas.
Contemporaneous with the deepening of the inner rehgious Ufe
of the individual by the mysteries was the strengthening and hu
manizing of the ethical consciousness by the philosophy of the Stoics.
They taught that a man's moral worth must be found in that
inward disposition of the wiU towards the good which is indepen
dent of nationahty or social position or the outward conditions of
his life. True felicity belongs only to the Wise Man, who seeks
happiness not in outward possessions, but in the purity and freedom
of his soul from low and base passions, who respects the worth
and dignity of human personality in every man, and who feels him-
seU united to all men through brotherly love and phUanthropy, as
a citizen of the universal state of God, which embraces aU mankind.
By its ethical doctrine of motives and inward disposition and by its
cosmopolitan and humanitarian ideas the Stoical philosophy helped
mightily to prepare the way for the universal reUgion, but it could
not quite reach that goal, it was powerless to realize the universal
religion, because as a rational philosophy it lacked the religious
enthusiasm which clothes ideal truths in concrete forms and sym
bols, by means of which they first gain real power over the feelings
of the masses of men and can become the faith of an ecclesiastical
community. Christianity became the world-conquering religion because it
united in itseh the most powerful religious and ethical tendencies
of its times in a form which, although paradoxical, was generaUy
comprehensible, and which gripped the hearts of men as weU as
gave the inteUect food for thought. It took over from Judaism
its monotheism, but stripped it of its national limitations and cor
rected its one-sided transcendence by the immanence of God in
man, which was expressed by the doctrine of the incarnation of
the son of God, and of the indweUing of the spirit of God in the con-

269
gregation, — in short, by the teaching of a divine humanity. It
took over the pessimistic apocalyptic attitude of contempt for this
world and the hope for a new world, but modified and softened
both by its faith in the present existence and the gradual coming
of the kingdom of God in the congregation of the faithful. It took
over from the mysteries the mythical representation of a suffering
and dying God, of his resurrection, his sacrificial atonement, and
his final conquest of death, but for the mythical heroes of the mys
teries it substituted the historical person of the sufferer of Golgotha,
and it ethicized their orgiastic enthusiasm by converting it into
the inspiration of faith and the enthusiasm of the love which reveals
itseh through sacrifice. Like the Stoics, it treated national and
social distinctions with indifference, but to the negation here im
phed it added the positive duty of aU to work together for the king
dom of God. Thus Christianity combined the various rehgious
and ethical ideas and tendencies of its time into the unity of a new
positive reUgion, and it was precisely this creative, unifying, and
elevating synthesis which made it possible for Christianity to lay
claim to an unconditional superiority and universahty as against the
old reUgions.
But does this claim in its fuU and strict sense stiU hold good for
us? Is this positive rehgion, with aU its accidental historical, its
mythical, apocalyptic, and ascetic elements, the absolute, universal
rehgion, vahd for aU men and for aU time ? To answer this ques
tion in the affirmative is becoming more and more impossible in
these critical times. We are no longer naive enough to overlook
the contrast of aU those historical antique elements to our modern
habits of thought in the naive way which has been the custom
in the past. ShaU we, then, simply strike out those parts of positive
Christianity which are no longer acceptable to us, after the manner
of the rationalism of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, and de
clare the remainder to be true Christianity? I believe our keener
historical conscience would forbid that, nor can we be blind to the
fact that this radical operation throws overboard just those very
elements which give to Christianity its distinctive character as weU
as the depth and richness of its religious ideas and its capacity to
satisfy the most varied reUgious needs. Or shaU we foUow the pro
gramme of modern rationalism, and declare Christianity to be whoUy

270
antiquated, and then proceed to evolve out of our own conscious
ness the new reUgion of the future, which is to take its place?
Here, again, we would find no thoroughfare. Such a course would
be forbidden not only by our pious regard and feeUng towards the
religion of our fathers, but also by our historical insight into the
fact that religions cannot be constructed or made to order in this
fashion, like a system of philosophy, because religion is life, and only
life can beget lUe, and new life can only spring and grow out of
pre-existing life.
What, then, can we do ? What course remains open to us ? What
action is possible and best ?
Our German phUosophy has given the answer to this question long
ago. It has shown, as we saw in the beginning, that universal reUgion,
understood in the strict sense as the whole truth in its purity, is an
Ideal, and as such cannot and should not suddenly or immediately
take the place of positive religion, but this Ideal has always con
troUed and guided the development of the positive reUgions as its
living and regulative principle, and should and always wiU continue to
do so. As Christianity in its origin was itself the fruit of the religious
evolution preceding it, and the synthesis of its elements of relative
truth, so in its own history it has passed through manifold develop
ments, in the course of which it has adapted itself anew to different
peoples, to different habits of mind and thought, and to different
periods of time; it has transformed the old and appropriated much that
was new; it has overcome morbid states and conditions of spiritual
paralysis by the inexhaustible vitality of its spiritual power; and the
churches of the Reformation at least have always acknowledged and
recognized the constant purification and renewal of ecclesiastical
forms through the spirit of truth as the task of every generation.
They who have become clearly conscious of the difference between
the traditional and positive form and the ideal truth of Chris
tianity are caUed, before aU others, to contribute their honest and
patient labor towards the solution of this problem. But they wttl
accomplish this task aU the better, the more they are impressed with
the thought, which has even greater validity in the domain of reUgion
than in any other, that it is not revolution, but evolution, which leads
to the happy solution of aU difficulties. This maxim should determine
our whole attitude towards and our treatment of reUgious problems

271
in pubUc or in private. Not destruction, but construction, is our
task. We are here not to tear down, but to buUd up. We must not
oppose our own dogmas to those of others with the same pretension
to infaUibUity and exclusive validity, for thereby the strife of con
troversy would simply be everywhere embittered and perpetuated.
But we wish to tolerate every sincere religious conviction, providing
it does not work positive harm, and we wiU try to understand its
psychological motives and their relative truth, to seize upon these as
the essentials, and to strip off the error which cleaves to them with
gentleness and consideration, hoping that then in the course of time
it wUl disappear of its own accord. Those who have faUen out so
completely with the faith of the churches that they are in danger of
losing all religion whatever we wiU try to lead to the understanding
that the things which are an offence and a stumbling-block to them
are in reaUty only the temporary and perishable shells which contain
the precious pearls of eternal truth for him who looks not upon the
visible, but upon that which is invisible and eternal. If we thus
speak the truth in love, we shaU not increase strife, but will prepare
the way for a peaceful and wholesome solution of the present crisis of
Christianity, — a solution which will continue and complete the un
finished work of the Reformation in such a way that the now hostile
confessions, sects, and parties wiU finaUy acknowledge, respect, and
esteem each other as brothers in the one house of their common
Father. Fixing our gaze upon this high aim, let us continue to work,
with fideUty and patience, upon the great task which has been set
before us, always keeping weU in mind the motto, "Nicht mitzu-
hassen, mitzulieben bin ich da," — "I am here not to hate with
those who hate, but to love with those who love."

272
The Chairman.— The next and closing part on the program will
be an iUustrated description of Harvard University. It wUl take a
moment or two to let down the curtain on which the iUustrations
wiU appear. During that time it occurs to me that the audience
may desire to stand for a minute. But you wiU not be relieved from
voices on the platform, for our Secretary, Mr. Wendte, desires to
make two brief announcements.
The Secretary. — We were fortunate in securing yesterday an
excellent photograph of the foreign delegates, but we did not succeed
in obtaining the photograph which we desired of the entire Con
gress. Therefore, as we leave the theatre, we will assemble on the
steps and be taken in one great group photograph, of which copies
can be obtained at headquarters. Secondly, with regard to the pro
ceedings and papers of the Congress, I wiU announce that the Chris
tian Register of this and two successive weeks wiU contain very full
reports, the Register this week publishing forty-eight pages for that
purpose. The volume which wiU contain the papers and proceed
ings of this Congress, together with photographs of the principal
delegates and speakers, wiU be pubUshed in December, and subscrip
tions are in order at any time.
Professor Peabody wiU now give an iUustrated description of
Harvard University. It wiU occupy fifteen minutes.
Professor Francis G. Peabody, D.D., then gave a brief historical
sketch of Harvard College, with the description of the buildings,
showing pictures of the prominent buildings, also a copy of the char
ter of the college.

273

ADDRESSES MADE AT THE NATIONAL CONFER
ENCE OF UNITARIAN AND OTHER CHRISTIAN
CHURCHES, IN TREMONT TEMPLE, MONDAY,
SEPTEMBER 23, 1907.
The National Unitarian Conference, which united with the Ameri
can Unitarian Association in inviting the International Council to
hold its fourth session in Boston, in order to give the largest oppor
tunity for the international meetings, not only abbreviated its own
customary biennial session this autumn to a single day, but in its
selection of speakers and the topics they were to treat was governed
by an expressed desire of their guests from abroad to acquaint them
selves more fuUy with the principles, ideals, and working methods of
American church hfe, and especiaUy with those of the hberal de
nominations of the United States.
It has seemed advisable under these circumstances to include in
this volume several papers read before the National Unitarian Con
ference, but possessing permanent interest and value for the mem
bers of the International Congress.

274

THE NEW COMITY OF NATIONS.
BY HON. CARROLL D. WRIGHT, LL.D., PRESIDENT CLARK COLLEGE,
WORCESTER, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL UNITARIAN
CONFERENCE.
Two years ago this Conference voted that this year one day only
should be given to its own work, and that the rest of the time of the
week should be given up to the International CouncU of Unitarian
and Other Liberal Religious Thinkers and Workers. This was a
deserved courtesy to the delegates who are gathering this week from
aU parts of the world. It is therefore eminently fitting that the sub
jects to be considered on this one day should take a broader and
wider field than when simply the wants and the interests of our
own country are to be considered.
This International Council is an important step or element in the
great undertakings that are continuaUy going on for broadening the
outlook of nations. These undertakings are bringing about a new
comity of nations. They are teaching us what may be called the true
intercourse of different races, of different nationalities, under which
new forms of procedure are being projected, and this great inter
national effort wiU grow and expand as inteUigence increases and
religion finds practical fields for work. For, unless the new comity
of nations is based upon high religious principles, these efforts wUl
either fail or in a measure disappoint those who are fostering
them. I do not think it is too courageous to assert that aU these great
movements are based upon that practical religion which in our time
we find supreme in the government of all our forces.
The great watchword is the fatherhood of God and the brother
hood of man, and the principle of this watchword should be, and I
believe is, the corner-stone of all the great efforts of which we know
and read.

275
If this foreword be true and indicative of real conditions, then this
Conference of ours is taking a part of which it in the future will be
proud, and which in the present means assistance, sympathy, and
influence for all the others.
We welcome here to-day not alone the delegates who constitute
the Conference, chosen from our various churches all over our land,
but we welcome the delegates from other nations who come from
afar to join with us in our acts and in our deUberations. We wel
come the men from far Hungary, from England, from HoUand, from
Switzerland, from Germany, from France, and from the Far East, —
a goodly company bent on presenting the highest ideals of their
constituents and of bringing to America the news of their progress
and of their efforts. And we welcome, too, those members of dif
ferent communions, Jew and Gentile, who are bearers of the word
of God; educators, whose hearts and minds are devoted to the high
est work; business men, who are willing to lay aside the affairs of
the day and join us in reorganizing the very highest religious ideals.
They make a councU of wise thinkers and workers, free from dog
matic theological tenets, free to stand before the public as repre
senting the necessity of applying the highest religious ideals to the
affairs of the world.
Our deliberations, therefore, take on the character of a conference
devoted to the very best interests of humanity.
What are the great movements to which I have aUuded? They
are great and ever-present and ever-increasing elements which are
bringing about the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God,
the chief elements in international intercourse and international
righteousness. We have in the world now a new diplomacy, — a diplomacy based
on truth, sincerity, and the welfare of contracting nations, not the
old diplomacy based on duplicity, chicanery, and an effort to secure
the highest means of international selfishness. Great nations,
sovereigns, peoples, now recognize the necessity of honest dealings
with each other, — dealings that shall represent the interest of hu
manity and not narrow sectional politics. Our own John Hay put
his religion into the initiatory steps which led to the adoption of this
new diplomacy. Everywhere now an ambassador must be not only
a representative of the government whose commission he bears, but

276
a representative of the highest ethics under which he may deal with
the government to which he is accredited. This new diplomacy
means much for the welfare of the peoples of the earth.
And in education the same movement is going on. The teachers,
the scholars of the great universities of different countries, are ex
changing not only their services, but their thoughts, the representa
tive of one country giving to the people of the other the best thought
which can be carried.
What stimulates such a movement as this, broad, comprehensive,
and grand as it is? Could it have been done under the old comity
of nations, which simply sought selfish ends and not broad human
itarian results ?
Education and religion are so closely aUied that we cannot sepa
rate them, and in this new movement, which wUl extend as time
goes on, we see the motive of the man who originated it, primarily
for an exchange of scholarship; but reaUy it is an element in the
extension of the truest religious principles.
And we have had great delegations, hundreds of teachers coming
from Great Britain to the United States to study our ways, our
methods, and their results. ShaU we not reciprocate and send our
delegations to different countries to study their methods and the
results thereof? IndividuaUy, this has been going on for years. The
exchange of students, the exchange of thought and ideas, the famil
iarization of methods and processes which to one or the other seems
strange, is doing much to place education on a universal basis and
relieve it of local conditions.
And now the great peace movements are bringing the peoples of
the world nearer together. The grand spectacle of forty-five nations
represented at The Hague at the recent Peace Conference stimu
lates each man who reads of their doings, who reads of their discus
sions, who understands their methods, to feel that he is something
more than a citizen of his particular locality. He feels that he is a
part of the movement which shaU bring about a cessation of war,
and bring in a movement for the settlement of great international
difficulties on a basis of justice, of reason and enlightenment.
The gathering here of the delegates to the Council as the guests
of America stimulates such a movement, and adds to it power and
influence.

REV. W. COPELAND BOWIE
London, England

PRINCIPAL J. ESTLIN CARPENTER, DJ).
Oxford, England

»-%

sElJl^
Im
''
[Vii ^r •
MR. FRED MADDISON, M.P.
England
SIR WILLIAM B. BOWRING, Bari.
Liverpool, England
277
The increasing interest in investigations by governments is hardly
appreciated. Not a year, perhaps not a month, goes by that there
are not government agents — experts in their various lines — looking
into sociological conditions in various countries, whereby they may
benefit by the experience of those who have undertaken practically
to carry out some great reform in the interests of the people at large.
Our own government is not behindhand in this matter. These
experts investigate and report upon the labor conditions, economic
relations of government and people, the relations of employer
and employee, child labor, the employment of women, and aU
the great elements of the great question which we label labor.
How capitalists deal with affairs, how capitalists deal with
employees, how employees conduct themselves, the conditions
under great combinations of capital and great combinations of
labor, — aU these things are the subject of grave inquiry and
honest candid report.
We learn what is being done in other countries, other countries
learn what is being done here, and we profit by the example. And
this example is a distinct recognition of great underlying reUgious
principles, which are rapidly teaching the world that the solution of
the labor problem is reUgious in its nature, and that there can be no
solution unless these principles are recognized and put into practical
effect. These investigations cover that compUcated and difficult problem
of immigration. Our government agents are constantly studying
conditions abroad with a view of making immigration a force in
society. The treatment of immigrants, the efforts to utiUze their
services by sane methods, — aU these things bespeak a higher plane
of civilization for many, many people.
The International Prison Association is a body of philanthropists
of practical experience in deahng with the delinquents of society,
which is doing God's service. The welfare of what we were wont to
cah the outcasts of society has been improved, aU previous condi
tions bettered, and the moral tone of everything relating to criminology
and penology brought to a higher plane, — truly practical interna
tional rehgion of the loftiest type.
But there is one very important question which ought to be con
sidered by this Conference and by the International CouncU, — a

278
question on which this country can throw some Ught. We are not
troubled here by the question of the relation of State and Church.
England, France, Germany, Austria, nearly aU advanced nations,
are considering this grave question. The delegates from countries
where this trouble exists, whether in an acute or other condition, can
learn much from us. We can learn many, many things from them;
but on this one point we have an experience here that can only be
beneficial to aU.
We beUeve in the separation of State from Church. We beUeve in
the voluntary support of religion. We beUeve that such voluntary
support makes for the very highest elements of rehgious work. You
may marvel, some of you who are here as our guests from far-away
countries, that the Church can survive without State aid. The
facts here wiU show that rehgious faith, theology, can grow most
naturaUy and effectively in an atmosphere of freedom; but this is
not aU the facts wiU show to indicate how generously churches and
aU institutions of reUgion can be maintained by exclusively voluntary
contributions. And, again, it is seen and testified to on aU hands
with us that the habit of voluntary maintenance has had its own
influence upon the morale of our reUgion and its viriUty.
You may ask, Does not the State in some way aid the church?
and the answer must be yes. AU over our land church property is
exempt from taxation, and, so far as the value of the church property
of the country is concerned, the pubhc treasury loses what it would
secure, were such property taxed. The value of the exempt church
property in the United States is roughly estimated at $3,300,000,000.
With the average rate of taxation this would bring into the various
State treasuries about $56,000,000. These estimates are far under
the truth.
This is the aid the State gives to the churches; but it extends the
same aid, or aid in the same way, to all charitable and educational
institutions. It is the theory of the State that it should encourage aU
charitable and religious institutions, not by gifts, but by exemption
from taxation. In our Commonwealth of Massachusetts alone the
value of church property exempt from taxation is estimated at over
$64,000,000, resulting in an indirect aid to churches of over $1,000,000
annuaUy. But, so far as the general support and maintenance of
reUgious institutions are concerned, the voluntary habit prevails,

279
while the State has no interest whatever in the government or direc
tion of church business or church work.
In the beginning here with us in the Eastern States the parish was
the political town, and afterward the parish became the town through
incorporation by the State, and the separation has been complete
since those days. Nor would the people of the country change this
condition to in any way partake of the elements of the relation of
State and Church, as it is found in other countries.
The changes in the principles of missionary work are changes
which mean more than their recital indicates. We are beginning
to see everywhere, through our missionary efforts, that duplication
in one locality means weakness. We are beginning to see, further
more, that the best way to aid missionary work is through the de
velopment and character of the moral lives of those for whom the
efforts are undertaken. No longer does dogmatic theology prevail
in these efforts, but instead we have that deep, underlying religion
which means the upUfting of people in a lowly state.
AU these movements, and others of which I have made no men
tion, are, as I have said, reUgious in their nature, and they would
seem to indicate that the time is coming when we shaU have what
somebody has caUed a universal patriotism. This, however, it
seems to me is neither possible nor desirable, in fact it is illogical.
A man may have fihal affection and he may have sympathy with
aU mankind, but he cannot apply his filial affection to mankind. A
man can be a patriotic Briton or Austrian, but he cannot at the
same time be a patriotic Frenchman or American. He may elevate
his patriotism to the point of sympathy with his brothers of other
nations, but without a national patriotism the world's progress would
recede. But that patriotism which embraces all his brothers of the
same household may temper aU the questions of nations, so that we
shaU have a patriotism broader than locality develops, kinder and
more generous, less selfish, and of a character which means what I
have caUed the new Comity of Nations. And this will lead aU our
efforts to the securing of an international conscience, a conscience
which shaU govern the leaders and the administrators of all progres
sive nations in their conduct with each other, a conscience which
shaU recognize honesty, truth, sincerity, as the leading elements of
international relations, and which wiU in time do away with many

28o
of the hardships that come now wherever the old diplomacy and the
old form of comity exists.
This new form, or this new international conscience, wih estabUsh
on earth a general and firm behef that God is the father of us aU,
and that we are brothers under the same divine administration.
Nations wiU grow under this, they wUl prosper, and they wiU be the
true examples of the highest civilization and of international right
eousness.

28l

THE FREEDOM OF CHURCHES IN THE UNITED
STATES AS REGARDS PROPERTY-HOLDING
AND SELF-GOVERNMENT.
BY PRESIDENT C. W. ELIOT, OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, an
amendment proposed by the first Congress in 1789-90, provides
that Congress shaU make no law respecting the establishment of a
reUgion or — a very different thing — prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; and among the powers which the Constitution itself specifi-
caUy gave to the national government there is no power to acquire,
maintain, or regulate churches or other reHgious organizations. In
Section 10 of the Constitution, which declares what States shall not
do, there is no reference whatever to churches or the holding of
church property, so that the several States are left free to determine
how church property shah be held, protected, and transferred. The
several States have therefore determined how church property is
to be held, chiefly by enacting statutes, which have been revised
from time to time, as occasion arose, to meet new needs or new
conditions. Although several of the original provinces had, at
some stage of their history, before the adoption of the Constitution
of the United States, maintained established churches, — as, for
instance, the Congregational Church in Massachusetts and the
Church of England in Virginia, — not a single State has ever main
tained a rehgious estabUshment, while all the States have provided
by statute for the holding of real and personal property for reUgious
uses by corporations, trustees, and various voluntary associations.
The American States have had no direct experience of the possible
evUs of permanent foundation or endowments, and therefore have
felt no serious distrust of them. Since the Constitution of the United
States was adopted, none of the States has had experience of a domi
nant and oppressive church. No State has had occasion to take any
action at all resembUng that of the English government when, for

282
poUtical reasons, it took away the property of the Roman CathoUc
Church in England and bestowed it on a new creation of its own, —
the Anglican Church. In short, all the conditions have been favor
able to the legal establishment of a large freedom for churches.
One of the leading considerations determining the policy of the
several States toward reUgion has been the existence within every
State of a great variety of reUgious denominations, all of which were
voluntary associations, but which differed among themselves as to
the particular manner in which they wished severaUy to hold their
properties. Accordingly, we often find separate statutes concerning
the property of the separate denominations, such as the Methodist
Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches, the
Protestant Episcopal Church, the Quakers, the Presbyterians, the
Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, and Baptist Churches, and the inde
pendent local churches which are not affiliated with any similar
churches elsewhere. The variety of Christian denominations and
the absence of a church of the majority have been real safeguards
of reUgious Uberty in the United States. As a rule, the poUtical influ
ence of any one church is not dreaded in the United States, in spite
of the fact that there have been occasional outbursts of no-popery
fury in some of the Protestant populations. These infrequent out
bursts have been quite as much racial as rehgious, and have quickly
been recognized as temporary and unreasonable panics.
The States have aU given large rights and powers to voluntary
associations for reUgious purposes in great variety, because they
have distinctly recognized that the churches as a whole contribute
to the welfare and efficiency of the people, and therefore to the
success and stabUity of democratic government. They have believed
that the primary sources of the iUs and wrongs which society has
long endured, and stiU endures, are ignorance and lack of opportu
nities and means to acquire salutary knowledge; and they have
regarded churches and schools as the best constructive agencies for
deliverance from these long-endured evils.
The States, with unimportant exceptions, have also fostered
churches of all kinds by exempting their property from taxation,
just as they have exempted educational and charitable foundations
from taxation on the ground that such institutions are rendering a
pubhc service by means of endowments derived from benevolent

283
private persons. DecUning to own and maintain churches itself,
the State has given all possible assistance to every group of people
that wUl voluntarily undertake to build and maintain a church.
An element in the great problem of a free church in a free State,
which complicates the reUgious situation in European countries, is
whoUy lacking in the United States. There are no ecclesiastical
edifices here which could possibly be considered monuments to be
owned and maintained by the nation or by a State. The public
monuments owned and maintained by the national, State, or munic
ipal governments in the United States are capitols, court-houses,
universities, school-houses, custom-houses, and city haUs, but never
churches. The cathedrals and other monumental churches of
Europe have no paraUel in the United States. And if, in the future,
such structures shaU be built here, they wUl be clearly the property
of rehgious corporations which have been created, protected, and
fostered under State statutes.
The desire of the State to promote religious associations for relig
ious purposes appears strongly in the Statutes of the State of Maine
(5th revision, 1903, chapter xvi., sections 1 and 2), which provide
that any persons of lawful age may, by applying to a justice of the
peace and getting a warrant for a meeting, meet and choose a clerk
and other needful parish officers, and shaU thereupon be a corpora
tion, bear the name which they assume, and have aU the powers of
parishes and religious societies. The extraordinary freedom to form
societies for religious purposes and the distinction between a church
and a religious society are brought out clearly and authoritatively
in the case of Silsbee v. Barlow et al. (i860) by the Supreme Court
of Massachusetts, as foUows: —
"A church is understood, among those whose polity is congrega
tional or independent, to be a body of persons associated together
for the purpose of maintaining Christian worship and ordinances.
A reUgious society is a body of persons associated together for the
purpose of maintaining religious worship only, omitting the sacra
ments. A church and society are often united in maintaining wor
ship; and in such cases the society commonly owns the property,
and makes the pecuniary contract with the minister. But in many
instances societies exist without a church and churches without a
society. Churches are not corporate bodies, and commonly have

284
no occasion for the exercise of corporate power. By our statutes
their officers have sufficient corporate powers to enable them to hold
any property that may be given to their church. OriginaUy, aU our
religious societies were corporate bodies. The towns at first exer
cised parochial powers, most of the people of this State being of one
denomination. But, as varieties of opinion sprung up, it became
necessary to separate the parochial from the municipal business, and
the parishes formed separate organizations. Other religious societies
were incorporated by special acts; but many congregations remained
unincorporated. Some persons had conscientious scruples against
corporations, and others preferred to manage their rehgious affairs
in a different way. The statute of 1811, chapter vi., section 3, was
enacted for the benefit of such persons. It enabled unincorporated
religious societies to take and hold property, manage, use, and employ
the same, and choose trustees, agents, and officers thereof, and con
stituted them corporations so far as might be necessary."
A corporation organized for religious purposes may hold as much
real and personal estate in addition to its meeting-house as may be
necessary for its objects, and no more. It may vote to alter and en
large, repair, rebuild, or remove its house, or to build a new one.
Pews in churches are personal estate. (Massachusetts Revised Laws,
1902, chapter xxxvi., sections 25, 27, and 38.)
Many States have been careful to provide a statute under which
an unincorporated religious society may become a corporation, and
may hold as much real and personal estate as may be necessary to
its objects. Such statutes recognize the fact that the beginning of
a religious society may be extremely modest, the society containing
but a few persons and having little or no property, and yet may in
a few years become strong in numbers and in the pubhc spirit of
its members, and then may wish to hold in a safe and permanent
way real and personal property to considerable amounts. A rehgious
organization may maintain regular worship and exercise other appro
priate powers without being a corporation; but, if it wishes at any
time to become a corporation, it can do so. Incorporated or unin
corporated religious societies may appoint trustees to hold and man
age trust funds for their benefit. Care has been taken to provide
that a religious society, whether incorporated or unincorporated,
may take and hold any estate which may be given by wiU for the

285
purposes of the society; and some States are careful to provide that,
if such a bequest should exceed in amount the existing limitation
in the amount of property said society is authorized to hold, it shaU
be lawful for the society to take and hold such an estate, obtaining
from the legislature, within one year, authority to take and hold
real and personal estate to an amount large enough to include the
property which has been given to the society by wiU.
The composition of the corporation which may hold real and
personal property for rehgious uses has been the subject of numerous
statutes. The members of the church proper — that is, the com
municants in any church — are not usuaUy incorporated; but the
corporation is a body composed of the members of the congregation,
or of certain officers or trustees, chosen or appointed in accordance
with the discipline and customs in each religious denomination.
It is common for statutes to provide that no corporation organized
for reUgious purposes shall at any time possess an amount of prop
erty, excepting church buildings, parsonages, school-houses, asylums,
and cemeteries, the income from which shaU exceed a stipulated
amount. In such statutes we find a survival of the ancient English
dread of unlimited permanent holdings by reUgious bodies. It has
been easy, however, to get such limits extended by new acts of the
legislature. It is clear that aU through the legislation concerning church prop
erty in the several States of the Union the holders of such property
are not regarded as proprietors in the common sense, but as trustees.
They are not even partly proprietors and partly trustees. Under
the statutory provisions, however, the freedom of churches to acquire
and hold property for rehgious uses is almost as great as the freedom
of a person to acquire and hold property for his own uses, except
that there is ordinarily some statutory limit to the amount of real
and personal property which a church organization can hold in addi
tion to the meeting-house.
OccasionaUy a survival of European precautions against the abuse
of power by the priests of a dominant church appears in an American
statute. Thus, in the Revised Laws of Louisiana, published in
1897, we read (page 140), "No church corporation or minister of
the gospel for himself or the benefit of a church corporation shaU be
aUowed to accept a bequest made in articulo mortis."

286
The variety of uses which are accepted as reUgious uses deserves
notice. Thus homes for the aged and the poor, mission houses,
school-houses, medical dispensaries, residences for ministers, teachers,
or employees, cemeteries or lots in cemeteries and buUdings in ceme
teries, are aU considered religious uses by the Statutes of New York
State (chapter xiii. of the General Laws of New York, sections 5
and 7) ; and such provisions are not at aU exceptional.
The aUenation of the property of rehgious societies is generaUy
regulated by statute, the general purpose of such statutes being to
prevent the conversion to any private use of property, real or personal,
which has once been devoted to religious uses. For example, the
Statutes of New York State (chapter xUi. of the General Laws,
section 15) provide that, when an ecclesiastical governing body, hke
a diocesan convention or an annual conference, having jurisdiction
over several churches, has been incorporated, the incorporated gov
erning body may decide that any church under its control has be
come extinct if for two preceding years it has held no reUgious ser
vices according to the custom of the church, or has had less than
thirteen resident attending members paying annual pew rents or
making annual contributions to its support, and that the governing
body may then "take possession of the temporaUties belonging to
such extinct organization, and seU or dispose of the same and apply
the proceeds to the purposes to which the property of such governing
reUgious body is devoted; but it shall not divert such property to
any other object." Section 19a of the same chapter provides that
the trustees of property devoted to religious uses, and held by them
for a corporation, may apply to the Supreme Court for dissolution
when the corporation ceases to keep up reUgious services, and the
Supreme Court may, except in the city and county of New York,
if it deem it proper to do so, decree a dissolution, order a sale of the
property, and direct the surplus over debts to be used for any reUg
ious, benevolent, and charitable objects or purposes suggested by
the said trustees in their petition.
The laws of 1905 in the State of Connecticut (chapter cxxxviii.)
contain an interesting provision for winding up the affairs of a re
Ugious society to the following effect: when any reUgious society has
failed to keep up an active organization for two years or more, any
members or interested persons thereof, or the attorney-general, or

287
the State's attorney of the county, may present a petition to the
county court, asking for a winding-up, whereupon the debts of the
society shall be paid; but none of the property shaU be appropriated
to private uses. These provisions are, however, not universal. A
New Hampshire statute (compilation of 1901, chapter cliii., section
1) provides that the proprietors of a meeting-house which has ceased
to be occupied as a place of public worship for a space of two years
may seU the same and divide the proceeds.
Many States provide that the minister of any church, if a United
States citizen, shall be capable of taking in succession parsonage
land granted to the minister and his successors, or to the use of
ministers, and may prosecute actions touching the same.
The comprehensive purpose of the States to further gifts for re
Ugious uses is often iUustrated by the statutory provision that a
legacy to a reUgious society is good, if there be enough to identify the
party intended, although not incorporated.
The civU courts in the United States have done much to explain
and interpret the relation of the State governments to churches and
reUgious societies. In general, they have been very careful to main
tain the complete separation of Church and State, to avoid exercis
ing even a general supervision over the work of ecclesiastical tribunals
or judicatories, to decUne intervention in disputes relating to church
discipUne or in questions relating to faith and practice, and to con
fine their own action to questions relating to property dedicated to
reUgious uses and to the legal rights of members and officers of reUg
ious organizations. The courts have declared, for example, that
the State legal tribunals have no jurisdiction over a church (that is,
the communicants) or its members; that the communicants of a
church have no greater rights as corporators than any other members
of the congregation who attend divine worship; and that the ecclesi
astical judicatories cannot interfere with the property relations of a
religious society or congregation, and cannot remove a minister with
out the consent of a majority of the members of the corporation if
the reUgious society is incorporated. On the other hand, the courts
have held that, if a minister be suspended or deposed for an ecclesiasti
cal offence, his right to his salary and emoluments is gone, and that
the decision of the ecclesiastical court is final as to what constitutes
an offence against the disciphne of the church. The independent

288
churches, of course, have no concern with any superior ecclesiasti
cal authorities; but for the rest it is important to observe that neither
the doctrines nor the practices of the civil courts affect the discipUne
and canons of any highly organized church hke the Roman Catholic,
the Protestant Episcopal, or the Methodist Episcopal, so far as
ecclesiastical matters are concerned. The courts have thus main
tained the boundary between Church and State, leaving each active
and effective in its sphere. It has been their view that "the free ex
ercise and enjoyment of reUgious profession and worship without
discrimination," as provided by the Constitution of the United
States, cannot be maintained if the civil courts trench upon the
domain of the Church, construe its canons, and supervise its trials.
The courts have universaUy declared that they wiU interfere with
churches and rehgious associations only when rights of property or
civil rights are involved, being in accord in this respect with the best
Enghsh authorities, who have declared that "there is no authority
in the courts ... to take cognizance of the rules of a voluntary so
ciety, entered into merely for the regulation of its own affairs, save
only so far as it may be necessary for the due disposal or adminis
tration of property," or again, "A court of law wiU not interfere with
the rules of a voluntary association unless it is necessary to do so to
protect some civil right or interest which is said to be infringed by
their operation." (Forbes v. Eden Cases, in the House of Lords,
3d Series, vol. v., 36, 1867.)
The courts have insisted, however, that religious and secular
purposes must not be mixed or combined. If a religious society,
based on the acceptance of a given creed and the maintenance of a
certain form of worship, teaches also a system of treating diseases by
persons trained in the doctrines of the reUgious society, a sharp dis
tinction has been made by the courts between the rehgious objects of
such a society and its secular objects, and the society has been left
free in regard to the one, but not free with regard to the other. In
regard to its system of treating disease, it has been required to con
form to the law regulating the practice of medicine.
The legal tribunals have interpreted and enforced the statutory
provisions that property once devoted to religious uses cannot be
ahenated and converted to any private uses whatever. An interest
ing case of this sort concerning the new South Meeting-house in Bos-

289
ton was the occasion of a clear and forcible decision on this subject
by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (13 AUen, 497). Suit was
brought by a majority of the members of this corporation, the petition
setting forth that the corporation owned certain land, with a meeting
house thereon, in Boston; that it had become much decreased in
numbers, and owed a large sum of money which it had no present
means of paying, and that its annual expenses exceeded its revenues.
The petition further set forth that a meeting of the proprietors had
voted to apply to the courts for the dissolution of the corporation and
the appointment of a receiver, who might seU the real estate and dis
tribute the net proceeds among the members of the corporation.
The land on which the meeting-house stood had been granted by
the town of Boston, for the erection thereon "of an edifice for a meet
ing-house, for the pubhc worship of God." The meeting-house had
been built by private contributions. The court held that it had no
power, by statute or otherwise, to authorize sale of the property
of this corporation and the distribution of the avaUs thereof among
its members, and also that, if the court had such power, it would not
be reasonable to exercise it. The opinion of the court declares that
"there is no ground for supposing that the trust was created for
the private pecuniary advantage or gain of the individual members of
the society. The object to be accomplished and perpetuated was
a much higher one. It was to establish a permanent society for the
pubhc worship of God, with aU the incidents, rights, and privileges
which, according to the usage and practice in this Commonwealth
at that period of time, have pertained to such bodies. . . . We look in
vain for any provision which authorizes, even by impUcation, an
alienation of the property by the act of the majority for purposes
foreign to those for which it was held by the corporation, with a view
to its appropriation for purposes of private gain or a distribution
of it into shares by which the owners of pews are made stockholders,
entitled to the whole beneficial use of the property discharged of all
trusts." And again, "The power of the proprietors acting by a
majority, in this as in aU other corporations, is Umited to matters
properly embraced within the purposes for which the corporation
was created." And, finaUy, "We are unanimous in the opinion,
for the reasons we have stated, that, if we had the power, it would be
most unreasonable for us, on the facts disclosed at the hearing, at

290
the request of a majority of the members and against the protest
of a minority, to sanction the destruction of trusts reposed in the
corporation which is the subject of this proceeding, and pervert the
property from the uses to which it was dedicated by the pious founders
of the parish."
Under this American legislative and judicial method of maintaining
and fostering free churches in free States, churches, States, and
citizens are alike contented. AU kinds of Christians, together with
Jews, Confucians, and Buddhists, enjoy a perfect reUgious Uberty,
aU kinds of ecclesiastical organizations find their property rights
secure and their internal discipUne in no way interfered with, whUe
the States are exempt from the intense rehgious strifes which Euro
pean governments stiU have to dread. The civU status of churches
in the United States has no paraUel, because the conditions under
which it arose and has been developed are unparalleled. Never
theless, it is a good model for cautious imitation.

291

THE GOOD AND EVIL OF DENOMINATIONS.
BY PROFESSOR FRANCIS A. CHRISTIE, MEADVILLE THEOLOGICAL
SCHOOL.
Church freedom culminates in CongregationaUsm, the resolution
of the visible church into local units. Being asked to appraise the
gain and the loss of such a result, I would fain justify such a poUty
by justifying aU differences of polity and yet repudiate the spirit of
schism. Denominational divisions are an accomplished fact.
Grant that they wiU long continue or even be permanent, do they
preclude a genuine cathoUcity in sentiment and in practical co-opera
tion? Can the spirit of denominationalism consist with the claim of
the Church Universal? Though we may hesitate to claim a com
plete solution of such a problem, we may expect some benefit from
any attempt to define the problem.
Church, Denomination, Sect, — this is a descending scale of merit,
and probably no man is of so low a preference as to admit that he is
a sectarian. But what is church and what is sect? The answer is
not easy unless we start from the principle of catholicity and from
that zealous practice of catholicity which sought to gather and con
strain aU citizens within the confines of one ecclesiastical institution.
With Father TyrreU we may understand catholicity as "the ideal of
a spirituaUy united humanity centred around Christ in one divine
society." In 1500 England acknowledged a Roman Catholic Church
which for aU Western Europe was the embodiment of that ideal. In
1600 there was one reformed Church of England, no longer Catholic,
since reduced to national limits and alienated from many features of
the Cathohc past, but retaining stiU a Catholic consciousness in pre
scribing one reUgious system for the entire nation. Since 1700 there
have been denominations without pretence to actual catholicity,
though something of the old sentiment survived in their hopes and
aspirations for the aUegiance of the whole community. Even the in-

292
dependent autonomous congregations which repudiated the idea of a
national church and limited their membership to the covenanted
saints retained so much of the CathoUc social consciousness as to
insist on moulding and controUing the life of the non-elect. We
seem to reach the point of sect when this coUective social conscious
ness wholly vanishes and a group sequesters and secludes itself from
the general community without offering itself as the ideal of that
community. Such a point may be hard to discover in any group of
men. If there were tendencies thereto in the past, they have ceased
Ever since the irritating, coercive policy of the state was definitely
abandoned, a Catholic spirit, a Catholic social consciousness, has
been reviving in aU bodies. With the recent powerful growth of
social soUdarity in other spheres of Ufe, denominations desire more and
more to conceive themselves as religious expressions of the whole
community, as societies which mirror the ideal of the whole body of
man. This tendency and aspiration is not due to any institutional
form of organization. Even those of us who, with our passion for
freedom from external authority, seem to be the extreme expression
of Protestant individualism, hear from our own midst a clamor for a
better title than any inherited name, for a title descriptive of our
aim rather than our origin, — the title of the Free Catholic Church.
The generous idealism of young men, impatient of any name that
falls short of the catholicity of universal reUgion, is often bUnd to
the larger and finer intentions of old designations, though the growth
of historical sympathy and historical comprehension enables an ever-
widening number to view the whole past with a new temper and to
claim its saints and its sanctities as contributive to the one consecrat
ing and dynamic spiritual life which bears us onward. That social
unity of brotherhood in one spiritual family unchecked by time or
place, that unity which the CathoUc claims as his ideal, is an ideal
increasingly sovereign among divided Protestants and acknowledged
by them as entering into the essence and definition of Christianity.
The idea of evolution has given a new validity to the CathoUc insist
ence on tradition, if only tradition is seen and held as something
elastic and capable of permutation, — an evolution through us rather
than simply an inheritance brought unchanged to us, an evolution
with vistas into a spiritual future richer, freer, larger than past or
present. With this new temper and tendency, how shah we judge

293
the great diversification which our Protestant world exhibits? Do
these divisions of organization divert us from one destiny, one ideal,
one duty? Are they symptoms of malady or of health? Are they
disintegration or wholesome differentiations of one expanding vitality ?
Let us not ignore the bitterness and animosity attending the birth
of these divisions. There was enmity and strife so long as society
aimed at coercive uniformity either through state law or social mis
prision. But, now that the diversities are accepted, reflection shows
that the breach of harmony was overestimated. Men fancied that
it was theological separation, and some men have come to say, as
a thing solemnly indisputable, that theology is always divisive.
But it is plain, on the other hand, that neither the piety charac
teristic of Protestantism nor its doctrinal expression were the things
at stake save in very recent instances. The dividing issues were
matters of practical social adaptation rather than matters of cen
tral faith. Mere diversity of action and expression and forms of
concerted Ufe can consist with unity of coUective movement. To
insist on complete uniformity is to reduce Ufe to mechanism. Even
the Cathohc unity of the Middle Ages contained within itself na
tional differences, diverse local usages, varieties of religious orders
unlike in organization and distinguishable in methods. These
were variations which did not mean a disintegration of the organic
unity. The soul was one, — it was CathoUc reUgion. The diversifi
cation was healthful and demanded by life itself rather than by re
flective theory or by a dissident spirit. It was necessitated by natural
and inevitable differences of race, culture, aesthetic capacity, practi
cal instincts. It gave a richer and more complex adaptability of
the one reUgion to a life which in other than religious relations be
came complex. The variations did not mean schism or severance
of spiritual unity. Now, save for the lack of obedience to one central
administrative authority, most of the divisions of Protestantism are
exactly Uke this diversification within the older mother church.
They fostered the same conception of the religious relationship of
man and God. They were not severances in the spiritual principle
of Protestantism. They were variations of the bodily expression
rather than of the animating soul. The facts refute those critics of
Protestantism who point to these divisions as due to doctrinal anarchy,
the dissolving of the one faith into capricious individual beliefs. In

294
Elizabeth's time the main parties were already forming,— Episco
pal, Presbyterian, Brownist,— but aU were Calvinists in theology.
AU agreed as to the relations existing between God and man, as to the
theory of human redemption, as to the meaning of faith. It is true
that in the seventeenth century the Episcopal party became, for
the most part, Arminian; but this theological difference was not the
fruit of searching reflection. It was a somewhat artificial theologi
cal difference, a bit of strategy of ecclesiastical leaders of a party
poUtical rather than doctrinal. It was a strategic relaxation of Cal
vinism before a party zealous for Genevan standards of poUty. What
do the Arminians hold? asked a puzzled layman. "They hold,"
said Dr. Morley, of Oxford, "aU the best bishoprics and deaneries of
England." Presbyterian and Congregationalist parted from one
another, though they had complete unanimity in their Calvinist
theology and their methods of effecting reUgious experience. At a
later time, when Arminian views were dominant, came the great
Methodist divergence from the State Church. This was in no de
gree a theological separation. When the Methodist body itseh
divided into numerous branches, there was not a shadow of theologi
cal dissension. These great differentiations were due to divergent
choices in the matter of the organization and discipUne of the reUg
ious community. These choices were matters of serious conviction
that appealed to Scripture as authority; but, when we ask why the
plastic and neutral language of Scripture was so sharply interpreted
and with such stress of party spirit, we find that the convictions did
not spring from men's religious experiences. They corresponded to
political and social tendencies in those generations of EngUsh life.
The existing political divisions, the divergent ideals of social organi
zation, manifested themselves in the religious sphere, insisting that the
communal life of the Church should correspond to what were viewed
as the necessary laws of any communal hfe. Religion has too long
borne the reproach of these old passions and animosities. Let us
consign them where they belong, — an odium politkum, originating
in other instincts than those of piety. We wiU not justify the stress
and strain, and yet we may accept these varying institutional forms
as proper to the conditions of human nature. Just as unity in the
fundamentals of religion did not prevent their appearance, so a
substantial doctrinal agreement cannot prevent their persistence.

295
They correspond to persistent differences in the sphere of practical
social co-operation, differences which are not necessarUy evil. Rhode
Island and Pennsylvania wiU probably differ permanently in their
methods of political action, while they are harmoniously one in the
Americanism of the Union of States. So Christian unity may be
expressed through a diversity of governments and administrations.
Let us not forget, moreover, certain positive compensations. In
the formal unity which preceded the denominations, activity and re-
sponsibUity was concentrated in a few hands. The mass of men
were passive and inert. Divisions in the formal unity brought more
persons and persons of aU social classes into directive activity and
responsibUity in the conduct of reUgious societies. This tendency
has its theoretical culmination in Congregationalism, where the
minister's activity, whatever it be, is viewed as delegated to him by
the congregation. The result of this tendency has been the liberation
of hitherto dominant energy. The process resembles the beneficent
transition from autocracy or oUgarchy to democratic society, the tran
sition from a multitude passive to a multitude active. Some so-
called sects have arisen solely through the pressure of the unfran
chised plebs to obtain a share in religious citizenship and mission
ary action. This is strikingly the case in the history of Methodism,
where the purpose of division has been simply to secure freedom of
action for classes and individuals in the employment of aims and
methods common to aU Methodism. Every secession, too, ends in
concession by the older group. The net result is a wider distribu
tion of activity and the employment of multiplied energy. The
history of Methodism is a complete disproof of the common saying
that Protestantism is weakened by its divisions.
The apologist for denominations wiU discover other facts that
engage his sympathy. He wiU note cases where the formative im
pulse, so far from being that of a dissident individualistic spirit, was
simply and solely a social impulse which could not otherwise assert
itself. In our large cities we see the establishment of separate
Catholic parishes for immigrant Poles, Portuguese, French, or Ger
mans. No one presumes to caU this a schismatic tendency. Just
so in American Protestantism. Racial and economic diversities
enforced new formations simply to enable new classes to obtain a
social union in religion which could not be immediately enjoyed in

296
churches of the older order. We may instance the United Brethren
and Albright's Evangelical Association. They are counted as de
nominations. In reality they are only Methodism in a population
restricted to the use of German. If Asbury's foUowers had pro
vided German preachers, these separate bodies would hardly have
come into existence and their separate existence need not long con
tinue. Economic and social conditions have operated in a similar
way. Nowhere is there such need of association as in the less privi
leged members of society. Among them new bodies have arisen in
order to secure a richer and more intense moral feUowship without
the disturbing differences of economic and social station. Needs
have thus found relief which would otherwise have been suppressed,
and the wholesome consequence for America is a diminution of that
social tension which in some European communities tends to aUenate
whole social classes from the Church. We wiU deplore not the
emergence of such new groups, but only the cause of them; and we
may believe that these efforts of democratic life to find new channels
wiU make the older churches unwilling to acknowledge themselves
as unadapted to democracy.
My argument is that aU the leading varieties of Protestantism
had practical necessitations and did not spring from any disloyalty
to the religiosity which was distinctive of Protestantism. It is prob
ably apparent to most people, however, that division can and does
degenerate into needless and ruinous competition. When the moral
and religious needs of a community are not served but hindered by
division, then indeed denominations are the weakness of Protestant
religion. I wiU not dilate upon these evils. They are summed up in
the trenchant words of President Benjamin Andrews: "In cities
numerous powerful congregations huddle together where one of them
could do as much good as aU do now. Every mission field in a
wealthy neighborhood is fought for by a half-score of denominations,
while the dives and slums are neglected about in proportion to their
need. In each country town two, four, six, sometimes eight or ten
apologies for churches try to live where one strong one would
suffice, where, moreover, such a strong church could easily be buUt
up by combination of effort, and where, being erected, it would have
ten times the saving power which all the weaklings at present
exert."

297
This quotation may suffice, for it suggests the economic impossi-
bihty of continuing such a system. Economic considerations alone
wiU force on the attention of aU Christian people the foUy and the
ruin of such competitions. But economic considerations cannot
furnish the spirit and disposition which wiU successfuUy heal these
evUs. If there is to be a new policy of concerted, friendly, federated
action, a new temper and a new conviction must be generated for it.
The spiritual conditions for new methods seem to be surely and
swiftly arriving.
Denominations, I have affirmed, are ultimately due to tempera
mental differences in the organization and administration of societies.
Practical instincts initiated them: later they are differentiated more
subtly in detail. But why unfriendly, intolerant, insistent on ex
clusive dominion? Why led to invade the sphere of others? The
main justification for this was the iUusion of Scriptural necessita-
tion. This made divergent practical tendencies to become dogmas.
Revelation made the poUty and practice a mandate for the conscience
of behevers. That a church should be so and so conducted, and not
otherwise, was the wiU of God. This was the claim, and only this
argument could justify an intolerance and warfare ruinous to the
peace of the Church of God. To-day the justification is forever gone.
The old argument for denominational polity is permanently im
possible. Once there were fashions in exegesis. Now there are no
fashions but the permanent achievement of an historical scientific
comprehension of the Bible, and the achievement initiates sweeping
changes. The authority of Christ cannot be claimed for the outer
form of any instituted church. Denominations are obliged to re
nounce the dogmatic claim for themselves. They must advocate
their methods of organizing and administering the religious society
on grounds of reason and expediency. One may stiU prefer episco
pal superintendency or synodal control or congregational autonomy,
but reason and expediency wiU not aUow a preference to weaken the
reUgious life of a whole neighborhood.
Everywhere we see the extension of a critical spirit, the decay of
the dogma concerning polity, the cessation of the argument from
revelation, an indifference to the old contentions. We need not
ask that the gains of the old historical development be surrendered.
Humanity having repudiated a uniformity of organization, the con-

298
genial diversity may be retained. But the new spirit asks that they
be retained in some new condition of friendly and concerted action, as
diversities of relative value subordinate to that inclusive feUowship
of the whole religious community which now after long suppression
labors to assert itself. Friendly co-operation is aU the more pos
sible since the diverse polities, working themselves out as great his
toric experimentations, have come nearer to one another in their
actual practice. In the free American life the more centralized
poUties tend to a fuUer recognition of congregational home rule, and,.
on the other hand, autonomous congregations have actuaUy developed
agencies of coUective enterprise and some form of superintendency.
Many wiU admit aU that is thus said about the bodily forms of
church life and yet doubt the possibihty of a fuU and genuine co
operation. For, though theological cleavage did not produce de
nominations, they have, in fact, been differentiated in doctrine.
They were Calvinist, Arminian, Lutheran, and the churches repre
sented in this Conference owe their separate organization distinctly
to a theological division. This is indeed a fact, but it is a past fact.
That change of attitude toward the Bible which involves a reduction
in the rival claims of denominations is only one aspect of a vaster
and momentous change. Our churches here assembled have an
explicit and denned Uberalism, but there is a less expUcit and more
hesitating UberaUsm iii aU the other churches. In each and every
denomination there are multitudes of individuals holding the views
of modern Uberalism, and this wide-spread reconstruction rests on
necessities of thought so deep that the results must appear in every
quarter. The reconstruction foUows whenever the methods of
modern inteUigence are appUed to the subject of religion, whether
the thinker be Protestant or Romanist. For the first time in history
theology is becoming a science. For the first time in history it is
pursued with the methods of scientific inquiry and with the temper
of the scientific spirit. Here is a great unifying force which never
before has operated. Science is interdenominational, international,.
universally human, catholic. So far as the data of theology are
historical facts, they are now to be ascertained, stated, valued, accord
ing to standards of historical judgment everywhere accepted. It is
possible, it is necessary, for aU Protestants and aU Catholics to hold
the same views as to the origins of Christianity and the development

299
of its dogmas and institutions. If they wiU not, they must pay the
price: they must forfeit the respect of the modern world, for the
modern world is a world of science. AU men everywhere can inter
pret the inner hfe and purpose of the Christian movement by an
historical study which penetrates beneath the formulas of councils
and the decrees of prelates and the constructions of old divines. All
men everywhere with the same historical and psychological method
can define and determine the actual rehgious experiences of men, of
Augustine, of Bernard, of Francis, of Luther, of Fox, of Channing.
They can by one and the same accepted method unfold aU the thought
implicated in these undeniable and real experiences. They can
develop thus together out of the same facts of life, by the same method
of analysis, the propositions, the doctrine, implicit in the Christian
rehgious Ufe. There is growing up an organism of such knowledge
and comprehension which is the guidance and control of aU individ
ual beUefs. Those who labor in schools of theology know that the
old ecclesiastical hnes have been submerged by this arriving and ex
pected consensus of scientific theology. The ministers of all churches
wiU soon discover that their interpretations of religion have been
shaped in the same school. Our coUeges and universities begin to
engage the laity in this theological science, for it is an inquiry no longer
hampered by denominational interests. Men of every church
affiliation share amiably in the discussions of the Hibbert Journal or
the American Journal of Theology, not as aheady adhering to the
same conclusions, yet possessed by one spirit and pursuing one goal.
The consequences of this overwhelming change have not yet fuUy
exhibited themselves, but it is already evident that this new
attitude and bearing of the Christian consciousness is dispossessing
the spirit of the partisan zealot and is ushering in the spirit of Catholic
unity. To this new organism of religious inquiry we, above aU men,
pUght our troth; for its doctrines can never become dogma. The
freedom from inteUectual prescription which we have made a prin
ciple of our institutional Ufe wiU be the very principle of the theology
of the impending day of the church general. ShaU we not predict,
then, the victory of that conception of all our religious associations
which we mean when we speak of the Catholic Church ? To be a
reality, the CathoUc Church does need to become an objectified, ma
terialized uniformity. Being a spiritual power, it has its reality in

300
use and purpose, as a power sovereign over the aims and endeavors,
the affections and the hearts, of men. Each and every congregation,
whatever its procedure and form, wiU acknowledge itself as the local
expression of one divine society uniting aU men in the Ufe which is
redemption from aU selfish and sensual aims and an engagement to
that supreme and supersensual realm which we name the kingdom
of God. We may not know how speedUy or by what paths we shaU
meet in that promised land, but to descry its fair, aUuring prospect
from any peak of vision wakens now the heart-beat of that holy fel
lowship and comradeship in spiritual quest which is the deepest and
most enduring yearning in the spirit of man.

3oi

FAITH AS AFFECTED BY FREEDOM.
BY GEORGE A. GORDON, D.D., PASTOR OLD SOUTH CONGREGATIONAL
CHURCH, BOSTON.
Among the reUgious people of this country faith in its profoundest
meaning stands for the Ufe of the soul in God as God is presented
to men in Jesus Christ. The universe is conceived as made up, in
its final account, of soul. There is the infinite soul, there are the
souls of men, there is the great historic soul of Jesus, serving as a
mirror both of the divine and the human. The essence of Christian
faith is righteous Uving, or the ideal of it, the pursuit and hope
of it, in relation to all human souls, in relation to the eternal soul,
and by his grace. Our American Christianity is so far apostolic
Christianity: it is the law of the spirit of hfe in Christ Jesus. Our
American Christianity is so far Augustinian and Lutheran: it begins
with a great experience, the contents of the soul precede inteUectual
mquiry, a world of vision and love is the precious primary posses
sion. This Ufe in the God and Father of Jesus Christ, our father's
God, the God who made the universe and aU things therein, is our
one fundamental and essential interest. With the German mystic
we say we Uve in God, Uke the bird in the air, like the fish in the
deep. Our interest in faith as a body of ideas springs from our interest
in faith as the life of the soul in God. Our great theologians have
been men of profound reUgious experience, and because of the depth
and urgency of their spiritual life they have sought a philosophy of
reUgion. The deepest thing in Edwards — that which is great enough
to remain part of the sacred tradition of mankind — is his rapture in
God and his stern self-discipUne in the interest of this rapt existence.
The sources of the nobler part of his teaching are in his Christian
heart. In regard to the whole circle of his ideas, interest to-day is
won for them by the greatness of Edwards's soul. His successors,

3°2
direct and indirect, Edwards the younger, BeUamy, Hopkins,
Emmons, Taylor, BushneU, Park, Channing, and Theodore Parker,
aU began with religion as Ufe, and in the service of this life each
built up the faith as a body of ideas. When the gifted chUd looks
out with eyes of wonder upon the earth and the sky, he takes in at
once in his rapt vision the whole mystery of the outward world, and,
when the scientist and the philosopher arrive, they arrive in the in
terest of that primary vision. When the soul awakes to the beauty
of the Lord our God, it includes in its life eternal realities, and when
the theologian comes, he does but translate into ideas some of the
meanings of this original and ineffable experience of the heart.
Here in America, and emphaticaUy in New England, freedom
is regarded as the condition essential to reUgious Ufe and thought.
WhUe somewhat limited in scope, freedom has been inteUigently
viewed and dearly prized in this land of freedom from the earUest
days. The great thinkers of New England were innovators. No
master was acknowledged, although the great tradition of theology
was deeply respected. Within twenty miles of this city Calvinism
became, in the hands of Nathaniel Emmons, a profound and thor
oughly reasoned pantheism, yet no voice of authority caUed him to
account. Heretics, Uke BushneU and Channing, had complete
freedom. Great preachers, like Henry Ward Beecher and PhiUips
Brooks, gave their message under no sense of outward restraint.
In the older communities of America to-day inteUectual freedom is
a sure achievement. We no longer ask about a scholar in theology,
Is he orthodox in his views, is he a foUower of the tradition of the
church upon his subject? but, Is he competent, is he eminent, is he
sane, is he genuinely a person of the scientific spirit, and is he work
ing in his theological science in the interest of a divine life in hu
manity which he shares with aU the wise and brave ?
Here in America we are finding that freedom is simply a condi
tion of inquiry. It is simply a fair chance to test the validity of
ideas, to examine the worth of opinions, to search the foundations
of belief upon aU subjects. It does not necessarily mean change of
belief. The same beliefs may stand, and stand far more surely, in
the mind of the freeman than in the mind under limitation. To-day
in the Harvard Divinity School, where freedom is perhaps larger
and surer than in any other similar institution in the land, opinion

3°3
is frequently more favorable to conservative views than in seminaries
under decided restriction. Freedom is only a condition of judg
ment: it is one of two contrasted conditions. Men must think
either under authority or under freedom, and from the earliest
times here in New England there has been a growing tendency to
trust truth to the conscience of the freeman.
This we regard as a great discovery. Our conservatives love the
old ideas because of their relation to Ufe. When, therefore, they
see the liberal deaUng tenderly with these ideas on account of that
(relation, and surrendering them only as they are developed into
fitter servants of Ufe, when these older leaders see that freedom does
not necessarily mean denial or inteUectual revolution, but simply a
more promising condition of inteUectual work, when they witness
the interests that were fading under compulsion flourishing and
secure under freedom, their natural prejudices give way. The
-eternal interests of the soul remain the same. They are stiU revered,
they are stiU served, but now by the freeman, and no longer by the
bondman. Perhaps an academic example wiU show more clearly
how we have verified our discovery. About five and thirty years ago
what is known as the Elective System was introduced at Harvard
CoUege. That system means freedom for the student in the selec
tion of subjects. At first it was adopted under limitations, later it
became the poUcy of the coUege through the entire course of study.
It has since spread through aU departments of the University. What
has been the result? The inteUectual interests believed to be es
sential under the system of compulsion are recognized as essential
under freedom. Greek, Latin, Mathematics, Modern Languages,
History, Economics, and PhUosophy stand fast as permanent in
teUectual interests. Other interests in rich abundance have been
found to be essential to civilized man, and these interests have been
placed side by side with the old. But the original interests of aca
demic Ufe have not been displaced. Indeed, their essentialness for
man through certain groups of students and through certain voca
tions is better understood now that compulsion is removed. Further,
these subjects are better studied and better taught in the new atmos
phere of freedom. Further stiU, the student has become a new
factor in his own education, progress has become easier by discover
ing the genius of the student, by the earher gathering of students

3°4
of like capacities into groups, by an ampler representation of essential
human interests in the total body of the graduates of the coUege.
Progress has been easier in the coUege itself. It has been drawn,
as a learner and servant, nearer the heart of the nation. It has be
come the flexible instrument of the ever-widening range of great and
enduring human interests. Freedom has thus led to the expansion
and transformation of the American university. Something like
this is the result in the sphere of faith under the condition of freedom.
The old fundamental interests of faith have not been displaced.
The stars that the prisoner sees through his narrow and dim prison
windows are the same stars that the freeman beholds gathered above
him in the evening sky. Arcturus is the same, Orion is the same,
the Pleiades are the same. What we must note is the disadvantage,
whether for pleasure or for observation, of the prisoner. God is
stiU in his world, God is still in the great souls of our race, he is
stiU in the soul of Jesus Christ, he is stiU in our humanity. God is
stiU in the life of a uniquely religious race, in the life of a su
premely religious individual, and this monumental life recorded in
a monumental way is stiU our Bible. The difference to be noted
here is the immense advantage of the freeman. His approach to
these shining and everlasting realities of faith is free, and he may
speak with them face to face as men of old spake with God.
AU these ancient interests of faith are in no way dishonored.
They are indefinitely enriched by the inclusion of other great relig
ions in the field of vision, by the enormous extension and trans
formation of the outlook of the modern scholar in religion. These
discoveries of great religions and religions not essentiaUy great, but
vital to multitudes of our race, have issued in a new sense of relig
ion as an essential part of man's nature. ReUgion has thus ac
quired independent standing in human nature, and Christianity has
thus acquired new significance for the scientific inteUect of the world.
We may say to-day what could not have been said in an earlier day,
at least with the same strength of conviction, that man is the in
terpreter of nature, that religion is the interpreter of man, that
Christianity is the interpreter of rehgion, that God the Eternal
Father is the interpreter of Christianity.
We are finding under freedom in a surer way the essentialness
of the substance of the old faith. The compulsion of tradition is

3°5
done away, the pressure of authority has been removed. We have
here met infinite gain. We have substituted for an outward au
thority an inward authority. We have replaced the compulsions
of tradition by the compulsion of reality. We have gone into a
great experimentation: we have found a body of ideas rising out
of life under God in Christ. These ideas, coming up out of the
burning centres of religious souls, are not open to question. They
come with the force of the inevitable: they reveal themselves as
essential elements in the rehgion of reasonable beings. The process
is after this manner: Rehgion is the hfe of the soul under God.
Our rehgion is the Ufe of the soul under the Christian God. It is
as real as any other part of our existence. Indeed, it is the supreme
reaUty in that existence, the supremely significant and precious
reahty. Therefore, whUe our beliefs may be more or less crude,
whUe they must be more or less inadequate, while they are eternaUy
open to progress, they are now, and they wiU be forever, beUefs
about reaUty, beUefs freely formed and gained under the benign
compulsions of truth. Of this high necessity we say with Words
worth: "Stern Lawgiver I yet thou dost wear
The Godhead's most benignant grace;
Nor know we anything so fair
As is the smile upon thy face."
We are finding that the new atmosphere of freedom is the only
fitting atmosphere for the cultivation of this infinite interest. What
the cloudless sky is to the astronomer, freedom is to the reUgious
thinker and the reUgious soul. In no other atmosphere can we
be sure that we see the objects of our search and love. What the
spring and summer days are to the life of nature, freedom is to the
Ufe of the spirit. Only thus does the seed become the flower, and
the flower the fruit. - The higher the human interest, the greater
must be the demand for integrity in the treatment of it. Religion
involves man's life with his kind and with God, for time and for
eternity. Man should therefore be free to Uve that life, free to
think the thoughts that it inspires, free in his whole treatment of it.
Authority does not necessarily mean insincerity; traditional com
pulsion does not certainly imply dishonesty, yet it is favorable to
both; and insincerity or dishonesty in the treatment of any important

306
interest is a grievous wrong, in the treatment of an interest of su
preme importance it is a calamity. We are here more and more
afraid of the influences that promote the holding of two sets of
views, one set for private use and another set for public use. We are
afraid of the external tendencies that press conformity upon men,
because the truth may be against this conformity. We have an
infinite interest, and we want only honest men to care for it, and we
cannot be sure that men under compulsion are honest. We can
guard the interests of industry, of government, of science, in no
other way. In aU these great interests, freedom is the only adequate
assurance of honesty. In religion the same principle holds. Here
the insincere soul is a plague, and we try to discover this viUain
of the religious life by the fuU blaze of freedom.
It need hardly be said that we are finding freedom to be the con
dition of progress. Freedom of research in reUgion has brought us
into a new world of fact. There is progress clear, ample, significant,
and assured. Freedom in the formation of ideas in accordance with
ascertained fact is another branch of progress. Freedom has led to
deeper insight into the sources of religion in man, and here is still
another great gain. The greatest gain for the body of ideas to
which we attach the word "faith" has been in the unrestricted read
ing of the character of God through the mind and spirit of Jesus
Christ. Only within a generation has this freedom been fully and
generaUy enjoyed. For more than eighteen hundred years the di
vine teaching of Jesus had been conditioned by writers of aU degrees
of worth in the Old Testament, and by aU the apostolic utterances
in the New Testament. Thus the soul of Jesus did not in that
entire period get a fair chance at the human mind. Then men had
to reckon with the great system of Augustine, consecrated by a vast
service and by the practice of the Church for a thousand years, re
newed by Luther and Calvin and Edwards, and made the classic
theological version of the gospel. This denial to the mind of Jesus
of his rights has been an immeasurable misfortune. The arrest of
progress has been little less than a calamity. The sacrifice to the
fear of external authority of the suppressed revolt of generations of
noble men and women against the reigning scheme, and ah the
precious insights and dreams that were cherished in secret or aban
doned, as impious by prophetic souls, overawed and robbed of the

3°7
confidence of reason, is one of the supreme forms of the immolation
of humanity. The loss sustained by the Christian world through
the reign of authority is incalculable. We revolt from constraint
here as from the chief enemy of the human soul. We rejoice that
at last we are able to think of human life, human history, and the
universe in the freedom wherewith Christ makes free.
Among Americans freedom is fixing attention upon character.
There Ues the problem of the free world. The treasure of the race
is to be committed neither to authority nor to freedom, but to char
acter. We are discovering that our one supreme evil in aU depart
ments of existence is irresponsibility. We fear the wanton inteUect,
the thinker who is a wild individualist, who is without the sense of
the precious achievements of the past, who is fired by ignoble ambition,
who conceals under high-sounding phrases scorn for the sovereign
interests of man, who thinks and acts with no appreciation of his
high accountability to Ufe. We wish our scholar to conduct his re
search under the authority of an enlightened conscience. We re
quire of our statesman that he shaU Uve in the consciousness of the
preciousness of our poUtical institutions, and their cost in blood and
tears to the American people; we ask of our phUosophers high con
sideration for the values and the motives that are the consolation
and the strength of human beings when human beings are at their
best; we demand of our thinkers in the science of religion that they
recognize religion as an independent and a momentous human fact;
that they recognize the sublimity of the Christian version of that
fact, and that, whUe they think in perfect freedom, they think in the
presence of reaUties infinitely greater than they, upon which depend
the fortunes of souls, the fortunes of mankind. We wish to remind
them that the intellectual Cainite, the thinker who denies that he is
his brother's keeper, is not a genuine freeman, that the Ishmaelite
in learning, whose chief distinction is that his hand is against the
hand of other scholars, is not the best fruit of freedom. Better a
conscientious, conservative bringing up of the rear-guard than a
conscienceless hberal, regardless of previous battles and victories
of the grand army, the larger part of whose courage is not discretion,
but recklessness, not homage to infinite interests, but the passion for
personal distinction. Neither is the type of man caUed for to-day.
Americans look for the leader who shaU be equal to the breadth and

3°8
nobiUty of American freedom, whose interest in truth shall be a
moral interest, whose integrity shaU give asstirance to the multitude
who hve and feel, but who, under the stress of their vocations, can
not know, who shaU hold forth the hope to future generations of a
mightier Christianity, and who shall, by inteUect and yet more by
character, renew the divine program of Jesus Christ, "I came not to
destroy, but to fulfil."

REV. JOHN HUNTER, D.D.
Glasgow, Scotland

REV. C. J. STREET, M.A, LL.B.
Sheffield, England

REV. V. D. DAVIS, BA.
London, England

REV. W. G. TARRANT, B.A.
London, England

3°9

OUR FREE CHURCHES IN RELATION TO
THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT.
BY REV. WILLIAM W. FENN, DEAN HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL,
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
In Jesus' parable of the Talents, or the Pounds, we hear of a
servant who brought to his lord that which had been intrusted to
him, carefuUy wrapped in a napkin, and said, Lo, here thou hast
that which is thine. It is not a far-fetched analogy, at least in view
of the treatment usuaUy accorded the parables, to see in this unfaith
ful steward the prototype of those who regard the thought of Jesus,
and of the Scriptures in general, as a sacred deposit to be scrupu
lously guarded and kept intact, neither increased nor diminished,
nor even changed from its original form. But, notwithstanding
his apparent expectation of approval, the unprofitable steward,
who had not dared to commit his lord's money to the fortunes of the
market-place, was condemned even as those must be who are un
willing to trust their Lord's thought in the forum of human thinking.
Jesus compared his word to seed, and the function of seed is to
enter into fruitful relations with an environment at once transform
ing and transformed. In the raUway station of a thriving Massa
chusetts town hangs a closed cabinet containing sealed jars fiUed
with kernels of wheat, corn, and rye, placed there years ago to
iUustrate and advertise the fertility of Nebraska soil. These par
ticular kernels have been kept safe, but so they have failed of their
appropriate function and missed their proper destiny. Except a
corn of wheat faU into the ground and die, it abideth alone, but,
if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. The seed is the word of God,
and its mission is to be transformed and to transform, to change and
to grow. Just because the words of Jesus are spirit and Ufe, they
are not to be regarded as a dead deposit, to be preserved unaltered
in substance and form; and, were we to endeavor so to keep the
sacred trust, we should do despite to the spirit of truth and deserve
the rebuke visited upon the unfaithful servant in the parable.
It wiU be granted at once that this presupposes a quite different

310
conception of theology, and indeed of revelation, from that which
has prevailed in the Christian Church. Ordinarily, revelation has
been deemed a communication of ideas which, contained in Holy
Scripture, require only to be articulated into a coherent and sys
tematic whole. Thoroughly compatible with this view, if not
actuaUy necessitated by it, is that of a divinely constituted church
and a regular priesthood, charged with the interpretation and ad
ministration of the revelation and consequently with the construction
of a theological system. Plainly, from such a point of view, free
churches are an impertinence, and progress in theology, save as it
consists merely in a rearrangement of authoritative data, is an ab
surdity. Accepting, however, without present argument, the position
of the free churches, and defining theology as the interpretation of
religious experience in such a way as to unify both our experience
and our thought taken in their totality, we see at once that changes in
theology become necessary on account of changes both in thought
structure and in religious experience. When habits of thought
vary, when inteUectual progress introduces a new point of view
from which experience is reinterpreted and knowledge is reorganized,
there wiU arise a demand for theological reconstruction. It can
be resisted only by the sacrifice of religion; for, if clinging fondly,
as the heart naturaUy does, to endeared forms, and pleading that
so beautiful a sentiment is its own excuse for being and needs neither
interpretation nor correlation, we separate religion from our thought
on the one side and from our habitual experience on the other, the
ineradicable human craving for unity wiU either break down the
arbitrary barriers or leave the segregated sentiment to perish of
inanition. Experience demands interpretation, and the mind re
quires unity. An uninterpreted and uncorrelated religious sentiment
means a jejune piety, whose end in the second generation, if not the
first, is to be disgraced and despised; for the heart wiU not long
cherish what the mind disowns.
WhUe, therefore, changes in thought, due to the advance of knowl
edge and the increase of wisdom, caU for theological changes, a
similar demand arises, also, from the side of rehgious experience.
It is not to be supposed that theology always has to wait for a chal
lenge from without. On the contrary, it grows normaUy by its own
inherent life in response to the deepening of religious experience.

3"
AU experience is not the same experience. The wider and deeper the
nature, the more ardent and persistent the devotion to spiritual
values, the richer becomes the experience and, consequently, the
larger and truer the thought which interprets it. From the side of
religion, therefore, comes an imperative summons to theological
progress. Progressive theology is a necessity for progressive piety;
and man is so constituted that, in view of the changing conditions
of life and, most of all, because of God's unceasing quest for deeper
communion with his children, a progressive piety, which means a
continuous response to the ever more intimate drawings of God, is
essential to a Uving piety. "Nearer, my God, to thee," is the march
ing song of the chUdren of God, and God is truth as well as love.
With respect to the caU for reUgious progress coming from a
changed inteUectual environment, it scarcely needs to be said that
of late it has been peculiarly clear and urgent. The increase of
knowledge in aU departments which has been going on within the
past half-century, and stiU continues, is literaUy unprecedented
in extent and rapidity; and the change which has been effected
consists not so much in the greater accumulation of knowledge as
in the inculcation of new habits of mind. Manifestly, such changes
as these, including especiaUy the work done in the realms of Biblical
criticism and the history of religions, has created a new situation
for theology. Nor must we faU to add that there has been a marked
growth in reUgious life shown in the keener sense of social responsi-
bUity and human brotherhood. Thus both from without and from
within comes the inspiring summons to theological progress. It
has been responded to more promptly and gladly in our free churches
than elsewhere, for their very freedom makes them peculiarly respon
sive to changing conditions and more plastic to the inner impulse
of abundant life; but for the same reason, because they lack the
firm and stable character of more compactly organized churches,
they have been more subject to transient influences and liable to
temporary aberrations, and therefore their curve of theological
movement presents a bewUdering problem in the higher mathe
matics. Time forbids detailed consideration of this fascinating
history, and permits only a more definite statement of the way in
which the general conditions of theological progress have found
fulfilment in our free churches.

312
It has become a commonplace to say that progress depends upon
the free rise of variations and the proving of these variations within
a critical environment. Now there can be no doubt that these
conditions have existed, to a remarkable degree, in the pohty of our
free churches, or, to be specific, let me say in our Congregationalism.
For the two essential principles in Congregationalism are the com
plete independence of the local church from State or ecclesiastical
control and the feUowship of the churches in deliberative conferences
and advisory councUs. By the first of these it is differentiated from
every form of episcopacy, and by the second from unqualified
independency. That the freedom of the churches is favorable to
progress, because it permits the rise of variations and sustains them
when they have arisen, is too evident for proof. It is of course true
that the freedom has not been absolute. As in the organic world
variations are within pretty definite Umits, and a potato does not
vary in the direction of an oak, so there are conditions established
in the nature of thought itself as weU as by traditional interests
and habits of inquiry which restrict intellectual variations. But
the same may be said with respect to thought changes in general,
and this normal restriction, having been thus recognized, may
henceforth be ignored. More important, however, is the fact that,
where there is no acknowledged and central ecclesiastical authority,
there is frequently a consensus of denominational opinion which is
quite as effective as any pressure formaUy exerted; and even where
the past does not control present thinking, through the presence and
power of an enforced creed, there is often a persuasive, if not a
coercive, reverence for the past which is a potent influence. And
reaUy this is as it should be; for no one can sincerely believe in the
future progress of truth who does not also believe that the develop
ment of the past has been in the right direction, and that the limits
which have thus been set upon the possibilities of our thought are
profitable rather than harmful to the growth in truth. ActuaUy,
therefore, our freedom has been not so complete as might theo
retically appear, yet it may unhesitatingly be said that in our churches,
because of the absence of external control, and because of their
own fulness of religious life-giving plasticity, there has been an
altogether unusual opportunity for the rise of theological variations.
For their testing, also, there is good provision in the Congrega-

313
tional poUty. It should go without saying that the ultimate criterion
must be the adaptation of any theological doctrine to the milieu of
human life in its entirety; but, practicaUy, a theology which meets the
needs of men who are living in ordinary human conditions by fidelity
to their rehgious experience, on the one hand, and harmony with
their general interpretation of experience, on the other, has warrant
of worth and permanence. In our free churches, if a minister
open a new vein of thought, present fresh theological ideas, there
is no power outside his own church which can suppress him. And
if he have won the confidence of his congregation, which sees that
in him these novelties of theological thought are accompanied by no
diminution of religious devotion, the church stands by its minister,
and he continues to think and speak in freedom until his ideas pass
into the hves of his people, and are tested by their experience. It
is plain that the more diversified the testing experience, the more
valuable wiU be its criticism. The experience of a church means
more than the experience of an individual. But the sifting process
becomes yet more comprehensive. It is not merely the church,
properly so caUed, but the community to which the word comes,
and here, too, it is applied to actual experience. Moreover, through
the feUowship of the churches the new ideas find expression in
conferences and councils, through ministerial exchanges, denomina
tional papers, and in uncounted ways. Manifestly, all this means a
searching criticism by a very wide and diversified experience. The
point is, therefore, that the two constitutive principles of Congrega
tionalism meet theoreticaUy in a quite remarkable way the conditions
of theological progress.
If now we turn from theory to history, we shall find that, on the
whole, theoretical considerations are confirmed by the facts, and
that according to the reliance upon the constructive principles of
the free churches has been the rate and kind of theological progress.
For the sake of definiteness let us confine ourselves to the history
of the Congregational order in its two branches of Trinitarian and
Unitarian. In the first place, it is noteworthy that, whenever there
has arisen restiveness under theological changes, there has been an
attempt to resort to some form of ecclesiastical control, if only to
a Presbyterianized Congregationalism, usuaUy urged in the form
of consociationism or of increased power conferred upon ministerial

3H
associations. That was the case at the beginning of both the eigh
teenth and the nineteenth century: the Mathers in 1705, and Jedediah
Morse, a century later, recognized the opportunity afforded by pure
Congregationalism for theological change, and sought to interfere
with it by changing the polity of the churches from freedom to
control. The fact that those who have been adverse to theological
change have also been adverse to the Congregational polity is in
structive testimony to the relation between the two.
Secondly, where this particular tendency has been discouraged,
there has sometimes been an attempt to qualify freedom, not by
contemporary ecclesiasticism, but by traditional creedalism. The
history along this line is exceedingly instructive. At the beginning,
most of the churches of New England were constituted by ethical
and religious covenant, and not by theological creed. Candidates
for membership, however, were obUged to present a "relation"
of spiritual experience, usuaUy containing also a statement of beUef,
and this was criticaUy examined both by the elders and by the whole
church before the candidate was received into membership. The
necessity of protecting their reputation abroad and their character
at home soon led the churches to formulate creeds, which were,
however, at first regarded as testimonies rather than tests, the "rela
tion" being the decisive criterion. Little by httle the "relations"
were dispensed with, the question as to the qualification of members
being left to the minister or to a standing committee, although mem
bership was ultimately dependent upon the vote of the church.
Along with this in certain churches went a tendency to make more
of the formal statements of belief, and, when the schism between the
Unitarians and the Trinitarians came at the beginning of the last
century, the latter emphasized their creeds, making of them avowedly
tests instead of testimonies. Thus the freedom of the churches was
impaired by traditionalism, if not by ecclesiasticism, and variations
of thought were discouraged and outlawed. In the Unitarian
churches, however, this was not the case. It is corroborative of
principles theoreticaUy set forth to observe that in the Unitarian
churches, which would have no semblance of ecclesiastical control
and refused to make membership dependent upon creedal acceptance,
theological progress has been most marked, and, furthermore, that
in the Trinitarian churches which have gone forward farther than

3^5
their feUows there has been the most strenuous assertion of local
freedom and the greatest wiUingness to relax or alter the established
creed of the church.
While, of the two requirements, the first, freedom, has been, on
the whole, weU maintained, particularly among the Unitarian
churches, the second, feUowship, has been comparatively lacking.
Nor is this surprising; for, where there is the relation which feUow
ship demands, there is the ever-present danger that freedom may
be jeopardized. Consequently, zeal for freedom, in its dread of
coercion, is prone to hold aloof even from the feUowship of friendliness.
Therefore, whUe there has been testing within the local church, it
must be sorrowfuUy confessed that thought variations have not
been sufficiently exposed to the judgment of a large and diversified
community. UnhappUy, there came here a separation of the old Congregational
order into two divisions, and the feeling between them, imbittered
also, more's the pity, by property decisions, kept them for many
years in vigorous opposition. To brand an opinion as Unitarian
or Orthodox was at once to discredit it in the opposite camp, and
prevent its receiving even so much as a fair hearing. That this has
had most grievous consequences cannot be denied. It is plain now
to thoughtful men on both sides that each had something which the
other lacked, and that the delimitation of the testing field was of
utmost harm. If the churches could have remained in feUowship, —
and, if each had been true to the fundamental principles of Congre-
gationaUsm as a poUty, this might easUy have been the case, —
theological progress would have been more steady and even, with less
of vagary on the one side and of reluctance on the other. The
wider and more diversified feUowship of the united churches would
have decided between conflicting opinions by the sure selective
process of religious experience.
In addition, in the case of the Unitarian churches, the field was
stiU further narrowed by popular prejudice against them. It has
sometimes been made a reproach against us that we have had re
ligiously so little popular influence. To a certain extent the com
plaint is just, and there are many reasons for the deplorable fact.
Not to dweU upon the most obvious, — namely, that our influence
has been through literature and philanthropy rather than through

316
strictly religious channels, partly because of a shrinking from what
was caUed proselyting and partly because of the greater importance
assigned to the present life with its agencies and values, — not to
dwell upon this, I say, it is true that the Unitarian churches received
at the outset an academic stamp which has militated against their
popular effectiveness. But, besides this, it must be said in aU
kindness that it iU becomes those who have habituaUy held us up
to reproach as unchristian and irreligious to upbraid us because we
have accomplished so Uttle. It is not for those who for years have
industriously circulated reports prejudicial to a man's good name
to urge at last, in vindication of the slanders, that during aU these
years he has failed to win popular approval. But, to whatever cause
it may be attributed, the fact is that we have not been a church of
the people practicaUy as we have been theoreticaUy, and that our
developing theology has suffered because, whUe in the main it has
kept in harmony with contemporary, scientific, and phUosophical
thought, it has lacked the wholesome criticism which common
human experience alone can give. But this again means that, in
so far as theology has thus suffered, it has been because the principle
of feUowship has been sacrificed.
My time has almost expired, and I can give no further iUustrations
of the principle. The argument has been that theological progress
demands both freedom and feUowship, the free rise of variations and
the wide criticism of them in the largest possible field of experience,
and also that the polity of our free churches theoretically meets
these conditions most satisfactorily. In actual practice we have
kept freedom, but at the expense of feUowship. And, although
any change which should imperil our freedom for the sake of a
visible and material prosperity would be deprecated by aU who trust
the free Ufe of God in the souls of men, those who believe in and
hope for theological progress welcome the signs of a wider feUowship,
which appear in the increasing friendUness among denominations,
and, most of aU, in the presence of the great Council which is to
assemble to-morrow. But our hope sweeps wider yet, even to a
time when the spirit shaU determine the body, and those in whom
reigns the spirit that was in Jesus Christ shaU be one feUowship,
moving unitedly in mutual confidence and love toward the perfect
truth.

3^7

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
BY HON. MARCUS P. KNOWLTON, CHIEF JUSTICE OF MASSACHUSETTS.
ReUgious feeling — I might almost say the religious instinct in
human nature — is weU-nigh universal. From the earliest times it has
been a vital force in civU government. Sometimes a religious en
thusiast, wearing a crown, has attempted to control the religious
opinions of his subjects for their eternal good. Sometimes an un
scrupulous ruler has played upon the religious sentiments of his
people for his own aggrandizement. Sometimes, as in this country,
a state, by giving reUgious freedom to the individual, has laid a firm
foundation for the upbuUding of national integrity.
As government in its widest scope deals with aU matters of general
concern to the body poUtic, it cannot ignore reUgious interests. A
state may simply aUow churches to hold property as corporate bodies
and to conduct worship as they choose. It may go further, and in
terfere to regulate the use of this property or to put restrictions upon
it. It may establish a church, or give property to a church, or enter
into an alhance with it. It may even constitute itself the church, or,
as the supreme ruler, become the final judge of conditions in the
church. The government of the Jews was a theocracy which, from first to
last, showed the closest possible union of Church and State. Their
expected Messiah was to be among nations a great temporal ruler,
the King of kings; and in the higher spiritual realm he was to be
worshipped as the Lord of lords.
The union of Church and State among Christians dates from the
conversion of the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. At
that time the ecclesiastical power and the temporal power began to
work together through the same agents, and at the beginning of the
tenth century they seemed to form a perfect union. The ecclesias
tical power as a controUing force in civil government reached its

3i8
culmination before the end of the eleventh century. Afterward, for
four centuries, the Church seemed outwardly to be strengthening its
position in this respect; but it was, in fact, through the silent work
ing of spiritual forces, shaping forms of human freedom. Protest
antism gave new life to the Christian Church, and sent out a caU for
religious independence. The Elizabethan era was a time of great
expansion in different fields, inteUectual, social, and religious. The
growth of Puritanism and the establishment of the repubUc under
CromweU separated the State from the Established Church in Eng
land. But the new conditions were only temporary, and the Res
toration gave back to the king the ecclesiastical control which had
been held by his predecessors.
The emigrants to New England were representatives of the new
thought, and they were wiUing to suffer much for the sake of rehg
ious freedom. As founders of churches in the wUderness, they estab
lished no ecclesiastical connection with the churches of the mother
land: stiU less, in that relation, did they recognize dependence upon
the civil government. They created a system of their own, under
the authority of the royal charters, whereby they maintained govern
ments founded on principles of civil liberty, and at the same time
established churches for worship according to their conception of
religious duty. In the different colonies the rules and requirements
for participation in the making of laws and in the enjoyment of re
ligious privUeges were not the same, although in their leading feat
ures they had much in common. Under the original charter of
Massachusetts Bay the political power was early vested in those in
habitants who were called freemen. An early order of the Council
was in these words: "Henceforth no man shaU be admitted to the
freemen of this commonwealth but such as are members of some of
the churches within this jurisdiction." In 1663 an order was adopted
that persons who refused to attend upon public worship should be
incapable of voting. There was also a requirement that aU persons
should contribute for the support of public worship, and be taxed in
default of contribution.
Our forefathers were distinctively a reUgious people, and in general
they agreed in their fundamental religious opinions. The strength
of their convictions and the intensity of their feelings made them
intolerant of conflicting views. They Uved in an age of intolerance.

3^9
The institutions of England were organized to maintain and perpet
uate a state church. Roman CathoUcs and Quakers residing in
England, and other disturbers of the estabUshed order, were made
the subjects of persecution. The colonists brought with them the
spirit of the mother country. Laws were passed banishing Roman
Catholics and Quakers from the colony of Massachusetts Bay.
Baptists were treated a Uttle less severely; but proscription of them
drove Roger WiUiams and his associates to Rhode Island, where
they made that colony a place of refuge for independent thinkers.
The strength of Puritanism in the colony of Massachusetts Bay
made it the stronghold of conformity to the doctrinal standards of
New England. In the other New England colonies conditions were
simUar, although in none of them were the qualifications of voters
determined by a reUgious test.
In Massachusetts the original requirement of taxation of aU the
people for the maintenance of the established churches was modified
as to Quakers in 1 731, as to Baptists in 1734, and as to members
of the Church of England in 1742, by the enactment of laws which
exempted from UabiUty those who were conscientiously opposed to
paying taxes for the support of the regularly established churches
and who were accustomed to worship with a specified one of these
other denominations. These statutes were first enacted for short
terms of years, and were renewed from time to time until 1833, when
general taxation for the support of churches in Massachusetts was
abolished. I have referred to these features of the early history of New Eng
land because the great influence of this part of the country upon the
reUgious thought and the governmental policy of the Central and
Western States has been everywhere recognized. To a large degree
similar causes were operative from the beginning to produce similar
although sUghtly different conditions in New York, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania. The framers of the Constitution of the United States concluded
its Sixth Article with these words: "No religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the
United States." The first article of the amendments to the Con
stitution of the United States begins as foUows: "Congress shaU make
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the

320
free exercise thereof." It is therefore impossible for the nation, under
our organic law, to create or recognize an established church or to
interfere with the religious freedom of any citizen.
This constitutional provision is by no means an implication that
religion is not a reality or that it is unimportant. It is simply the
strongest possible declaration that this is a country of absolute free
dom in religious thought and religious worship so long as there is no
violation of moral and social regulations. In the constitution of
Massachusetts and in that of some of the other States there is direct
recognition of the importance of religion as the foundation on which
good government rests. In Article II. of the Declaration of Rights
in this constitution the thought is expressed in these words: "It is
the right as weU as the duty of aU men in society publicly, and at
stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and
Preserver of the universe. And no subject shaU be hurt, molested,
or restrained in his person, Uberty, or estate for worshipping God in
the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own con
science, or for his religious profession of sentiment, provided he doth
not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their reUgious
worship." We see, therefore, that our constitutions, State and
national, recognize religion, but adopt no particular form of it.
When legislative assemblies or sessions of courts are opened with
prayer, a Christian minister usuaUy officiates, because this is a
Christian nation in the sense that most of the people have relations
more or less close with some branch of the Christian Church. If it
were conceivable that a majority of the people may hereafter believe
that some other religion expresses more truly the relations of man to
his Creator than the Christian religion, there would be nothing in
our constitution to prevent the abolition or modification of any re
Ugious ceremony observed by a department of the government in
connection with the performance of its public duties. If the Senate
of the United States should invite a distinguished Jewish rabbi or
Hindu sage to open one of its daily sessions with prayer in place of
its revered chaplain, the Rev. Dr. Edward Everett Hale, it would not
thereby violate any principle of our government.
The perfect independence of all our churches and the indepen
dence of our civil government in its relations to the churches are a
development of our system which was hardly thought of in the early

321
days of the colonies. It foUows from an application of principles of
Uberty which were planted deep in the hearts of our ancestors when
they sought the inhospitable shores of New England. Freedom to
worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences was
the most fundamental and inspiring of the motives that gave strength
and vigor and courage and perseverance to the Pilgrims and Puritans
who laid the foundations of our State. Free speech, a free press,
freedom to make laws and to choose rulers, — all these were included
in their hope for the future, to be enjoyed to the fuU when civiliza
tion should be developed to their ideal. But these were only se
quences to that freedom in reUgion which was their support and
consolation. The intolerance of the Uttle communities during the early years in
New England was without much consciousness of its purport. The
proprietors had estabUshed their habitations as homes of religious
Uberty; and, in their confidence in the truth of their doctrines and in
their revolt from the seeming worldliness of the Church of England,
they forgot that others might conscientiously differ from them as they
differed from the members of the Established Church. But they
had planted the seed of true reform. Liberty of conscience was at
the heart's core of their movement, even if they knew it not. With
the advancing years it gave color to their system, and became its
most striking feature. Now its dominion in the homes and among
the people of the United States is absolute. In a free representative
government it is necessarily inherent. The continuance of its ex
istence in the future as a vitalizing principle in our repubhc cannot
reasonably be questioned. It has come with the advancement of the
people in education and civUization, and it is a natural accompanist
of this advancement. That its effect has been beneficial, and wiU be
beneficial hereafter, foUows logicaUy from its relation to aU that
makes for human progress.
A study of the practical workings of the American system, in com
parison with that in England, wiU confirm our conclusions. The
relations of Church and State in England have been much considered
by the best thinkers for more than a generation. Incidentally to
other subjects they have been considered for more than three cen
turies. While disestablishment and disendowment have been op
posed by conservatives, they have found many supporters in the

322
Established Church as weU as outside of it. Devout men have be
wailed the paralyzing effect of State control upon spiritual Ufe.
Frederic Harrison likens the spiritual method in the Church to a
mother teaching her chUdren to love her, whUe the secular method
reminds him of a driU sergeant teaching recruits to march. The
stagnation of a church in corporate union with the State is undeniable.
While the State looks to the world for its standards, a true church
looks to the teachings of Jesus. In the work of the State we see the
methods of poUticians, whUe reUgious fervor begets the methods of
spiritual teachers. The former methods paralyze a church, while
the latter vitalize and invigorate it.
Many Churchmen in England utterly repudiate the iUegitimate
influence gained for the Church in the political world by enormous
¦endowments, State monopoly, and artificial supremacy. They
grieve over the political abuses connected with the traffic in livings
and other ecclesiastical preferments. A distinguished Englishman
in a spirited address arraigned the system in part as foUows: "Is
not an official religion a thing vicious in principle? Is it not grow
ing each day more alien to modern policy? Is not an establishment,
a political order within a religious institution, the invention of an age
of unscrupulous politicians and political priests? Can we not read
its doom written in every page of our new reUgious expansion ? Can
we not hear its buttresses crack and shiver under the sweUing of spirit
within, the stir and battle of life without it? Does it not add a new
bitterness, a fresh entanglement, to many a political contest, making
aU education a field of contention, turning social problems into sec
tarian struggles, needlessly filling with embarrassment the tasks of
imperial government? Are not statesmen growing weary of this
useless burden of political difficulties ? Are not Churchmen growing
weary of the humiliating dependence? How long wiU they endure
to see religious Ufe thus vulgarized by a compact which forces devo
tion into the attitude of a parasite, and turns the voice of the preacher
into the grating tone of a State official ? "
The benumbing effect of political control upon the spiritual Ufe of
the Church is not the only ground of complaint among Churchmen in
England. Men quite different from him whose words I have just
quoted insist that the government is unfair to the Church in depriv
ing it of authority in ecclesiastical matters and subjecting it to the

323
decisions of the secular courts. They feel that the successors of the
dignitaries of the former ecclesiastical tribunals have no judicial
power. Of course, non-conformists of different sects have long been
contending for recognition and denouncing the injustice that has
deprived them of their rights.
The evils which some Churchmen have anticipated from a separa
tion of Church and State have not been felt in America. It has been
feared that without the establishment the poor neighborhoods would
have no proper provision for reUgious worship. Experience in
America has shown the groundlessness of this fear. Nowhere else
in the world has the missionary spirit been so effective as in America.
Most zealously has provision been made for bringing religious teach
ing to smaU and poor towns and to remote parts of our country.
It has been suggested that, without governmental regulation, rivalry
among sects and jealousy of one another would bring denominations
mto mutual hostiUty. This evil has not been prevalent in this country,
but the tendencies have been more and more toward unity of effort
in Christian work.
Nor, on the other hand, has there been any lack of independence
and self-reUance when denominational action has been called for.
The growth of particular sects from the inspiration of their own
conception of religious truth has sometimes been phenomenal.
Under freedom every kind of religion helpful to the community may
grow and thrive. After the Revolution the Protestant Episcopal
Church in this country was very feeble. Its membership was small,
it was surrounded by other organizations antagonistic to its doc
trines and forms of worship, and it bore the odium of its former
connection with the mother country. But from its inherent vitality
it has grown to great prominence in America. The astonishing
growth of Roman Catholicism has not come from immigration alone,
but in great part from the retention of the descendants of immigrants
within the Church. Other prosperous denominations might be
mentioned, and of them aU it should be said that their health and
strength depend not upon adventitious aids, but upon their own
vitality. In this country and elsewhere the movement for religious freedom
has gone hand in hand with the progress of civil liberty. In England
the rights of dissenters have been enlarged from time to time, until

324
now there is little to prevent disestabUshment but the practical diffi
culties involved in disendowment. Roman CathoUcs and Jews may
sit in ParUament. The University of Oxford has been opened to
dissenters by the passage of the University Test Act, and this has
been supplemented by the act for the removal of ecclesiastical re
strictions in the university. The ministry has lately been making a
great effort to reheve the schools of aU connection with the Estabhshed
Church. This effort met defeat in the House of Lords, but it wiU
quickly be renewed.
In Germany, since 1850, Roman CathoUcs have enjoyed almost
entire independence. The union, many years later, of the Lutheran
and Reformed communities into the "United Evangelical Church of
Prussia" was intended to create a favored organization; but it left
this Church in too close an alliance with the State. With the pope
of Rome a self-restrained prisoner in the Vatican, the ecclesiastical
thraldom of Italy no longer includes the civU power. France has
lately been struggling, even to the great peril of the pubUc peace, to
estabUsh the independence of both parties in the relations between
the Church and the State.
Viewing this strain and stress in other lands, our country sits
serene in the consciousness that here there is perfect freedom in re
ligious Ufe. Of the many blessings of a free government we deem
this the choicest. Our fathers obtained it through toU and privation,
in an unyielding determination to achieve so much of independence
at whatever cost. Their children wih cherish it as a precious leg
acy, whose possession suggests the development of an ideal national
life. Note. — In this connection may be read the article " Church and State in America," in
the Proceedings of the First Congress, in London, igoi.

325

THE LIBERAL OUTLOOK.
BY REV. PAUL REVERE FROTHINGHAM, OF BOSTON.
The occasion which has summoned us together and the circum
stances under which we meet encourage us to look with care, if
somewhat briefly and in haste, at the larger implications of our
message and the deeper obligations of our faith. The Liberal
Outlook, — what is it at the present time ? What promise is there
of our cause to flourish ? What duties have we to discharge, what
functions to fulfil, what work as yet undone, which waits us to per
form it and perfect ?
I face the subject with the greater gladness, for there are certain
things of definite and, I think, of pressing moment, which I wish
to call attention to and urge. The time has come, it seems to me,
for hberal thinkers to strike a note of deeper and more spiritual
value, and to do a work of more constructive and rehgious import
than has ever wakened our enthusiasm in the past. Our defects
thus far, if I may speak of them as such, have been, as often happens
in this world, the defects of our very quaUties. Our weakness has
resulted from our strength. Our faith has suffered at the hands of
reason; and we have faded too much of late to take account of
those elements in reUgion which are deeper than aU the definitions
of the mind and aU the searchings of the inteUect.
It would, I suppose, be pretty heartily agreed that a thing we
definitely stand for is the need and value of clear and rational thought
upon reUgious matters. We have always emphasized, and often
weU exempUfied, the power and glory of plain, decisive, honest think
ing, — not holding on to beUefs because they are beautiful or help
ful or haUowed by a long tradition, but asking only, Are they true ?
Thus we often speak of ourselves not as liberal believers, nor lib
eral worshippers, nor hberal churchmen, nor as liberal religionists,
even, but as Uberal thinkers. The very name, indeed, of this Inter-

326
national Council, which has come together, is instructive and sig
nificant. It is the "Council of Unitarian and Other Liberal Re
Ugious Thinkers and Workers."
In other words, we make the Truth, as the inteUect perceives it,
our one supreme desire. We agree to stand or fall by what appear,
or are proved to be, the facts. We do not care for any set expression
of a truth so much as we do for the truth itself. Like Matthew
Arnold, we can say,
"For vigorous teachers seized my youth
And purged its faith, and trimmed its fire,
Showed me the high, white star of truth;
There bade me gaze, and there aspire."
And aU of this, let me hasten to say at once, is weU. It is stiU
needed at the present time. There is none too much of it among
religious bodies and beUevers. The Church as a whole, — there are
great and noble exceptions of course, and they must never be for
gotten, — but the Church as a whole, when account is taken of aU its
various branches, does not seem to be so much interested in what
is true as it does in what may stiU be clung to as if it were true.
It is not in the position of one who is eagerly searching for the truth;
but it is in the position of having certain facts thrust upon its atten
tion, and of being told that it must not any longer ignore them. The
"children of the world" in this respect, if they are not wiser than
the children of the light, are much more scientific. They are modern
and not mediaeval.
There is need, therefore, I repeat, and ample room, for insist
ence upon clear and vigorous thought in matters of religion. The
battle has not yet been won for a pure religion which is fervent as
weU as rational. A thing, however, that as liberals in religion we
too often have forgotten is distinctly this, — that a vast amount of
religious impulse and spiritual consciousness exists which never
can be brought within the range of what the human mind can find
out to perfection. The deepest things in the world are those which
are nearest to us, and those which least can be denned are the most
essential and instinctive. Moreover, it is just when thought grows
weary, and when her sturdy pinions, once so active and efficient,
begin to beat in vain the rare and subUmated ether of the spirit,—

327
it is then that the other faculties of Ufe push boldly on, then that
feeUng and imagination seek the dazzling source of light itself, and
dare to trust where vision is denied. Religion, in other words, is
deeper than any of the explanations and the definitions of religion, and
faith outsoars the farthest reaches of philosophy.
This does not mean, however, that faith is the necessary foe of
reason. Not at all ! It very often is its friend and helper. When
the two do not agree, it is frequently because the more spiritual
faculty has gone boldly on ahead, and occupies with confidence a
high and far position which reason only later wiU attain, n we
may not, therefore, distrust our powers of thought, we often are
obliged to confess their painful limitations. "Thus," as a writer
has weU said, "there must lie in aU reasoning men's minds a streak
of agnosticism. The triumph of faith can never, until faith melts
into certainty, be of the same quality as the triumph of reason, and
it is upon the proportion of doubt to faith in any man's mind that
his reUgious attitude depends." For "Religion, in its purest form,
is not a solution of the world's mystery, but a working theory of
morals," and a creed is "only a desperate human attempt to state
a mystery which cannot be stated, in a world where all is dark."
The inadequacy of thought, however, to be our sole reliance in
matters of reUgion, is less the point on which I wish to lay my em
phasis than its over-great sufficiency to waken differences and divide
men into sects and schools. Rehgion, as I just have said, is a deeper,
grander, more inclusive thing than any or than aU the explanations
of reUgion and the theories about its nature. Moreover, it is when
we attempt to explain it fuUy, and to dogmatize about it, that dif
ferences rise and difficulties gather. You can never expect people
to unite upon a definition of something which is practicaUy inde
finable. Thus it happens that the religious thinkers of the world
too often have succeeded in confusing the religious workers and
beUevers. Theologies have rested like a duU and heavy weight
upon the breast of reUgious hope and trust. They have checked the
natural breathings of the spirit, if they have not even stifled and
suppressed them. Excessive emphasis upon the thought-element
in reUgion, to the exclusion of the dictates of the spirit and the instincts
of the feeUngs, not only acts to multiply religious sects and to mag
nify religious differences, but to minimize religious life and even to

328
repress religious feelings. It is the tendency of the reason to make
rehgion "a theory for the understanding rather than a life for the
soul." You see, therefore, the point at which I have been aiming and
where at length we have arrived. The liberal outlook should be
an outlook of the spirit, and the thing that we are caUed upon to
emphasize is a new interpretation of those great realities of faith
which are deeper, higher, broader, more inclusive and enduring
than aU the "letters" which would kiU and the dogmas that divide.
What we need at the present time, and what we may confidently
look to see developed, is the spiritual mind, the spiritual way of
looking at religion and interpreting the Christian faith. There has
been too much theology and not enough religion in the past, too
much talk about the differences of dogma and too Uttle stress upon
the unities of worship. What the world is waiting for is less em
phasis upon the things which cannot be believed and more insist
ence upon the things which never can be doubted.
Moreover, this spiritual view of things, as distinct from what is
purely inteUectual or essentially dogmatic, is the true inheritance
and the rightful mission of the liberal faith. It was this that was
the glory of the fathers of our movement, and the thing which causes
them to be so weU remembered. "The very essence of the liberal
movement" under Channing and others, if I may quote the words
of so clear an interpreter as the late John Chadwick, was "to em
phasize the ethical and spiritual, and to treat theological dogmas
as negligible quantities." A generation later came the word of
Starr King upon "Spiritual Christianity" ; and no deeper, truer,
or more helpful word has since been spoken on this most important
theme. It was the glory of King to declare and make forever clear
that there are truths of the personal soul in relation to the God of
aU which are vastly more important to religion than all the articles
of so-caUed faith and the arguments of valiant reason.
But I have no wish to-day to argue in this presence for this deeper
and more spiritual point of view in matters of rehgion. I would
rather plead with earnestness for what the spiritual point of view wiU
lead to and result in. For genuine unity can only come through
genuine spirituaUty. FeUowship of the spirit is the only feUowship
that ever can be made effective, because supremely natural. It is

329
the function of the inteUect to divide and make distinctions: it is
the mission of the spirit to unite and make us all as one. In our
thoughts of God, for instance, in our understanding of the life and
teachings of the Master, we here, though liberal thinkers, are
more or less divided. In our consciousness of God, however, and
our reverence for the character of Christ we are as one. When we
begin to define things, we faU inevitably apart; but, when we face
the eternal mysteries which can never be defined, then the differences
fade away, and we feel the touch that binds us aU together.
We can hardly do much better than to go back to the great Eras
mus, who was wise beyond his age and generation, and to act upon
his clear advice in this respect. "Reduce the dogmas necessary to
be believed to the smaUest possible number," were his words of
counsel. "You can do it without danger to the realities of relig
ion. On other points either discourage inquiry or leave every one
to believe as he pleases — then we shaU have no more quarrels, and
rehgion wUl again take hold of life." And the judgment of a recent
prophet is the same. "Theology," writes Shailer Mathews, "in
dispensable as it is, always has been, and is always likely to be,
a disintegrating force in Protestantism. To simplify theology is to
unify society. With aU the stern reahties of unco-ordinated social life
pressing in upon Christian people, it is suicidal to waste time dis
cussing the calculus of ReUgion. With the sanctity of the home
threatened by reckless divorces and even more reckless marriages,
with a generation poUuted with a mania for gambling, with saloons
and brothels at its door, why should the Church pause to manicure
its theology? Facing the world in the darkness of heathenism, the
submerged tenth rotting in our cities, an industrialism that is more
murderous than war, why should the Church stop to make a belief
in the historicity of the great fish of Jonah a test of fitness for co
operation in aggressive evangelization? If it would make toward
fraternity, the appeal of the Church must be to life; and, so far as
social significance goes, the Church that does not make this appeal
is dead whUe it lives."
One of the disgraces of Christianity is the divided condition of
Christianity. In a day when railroads are being merged and busi
ness interests of various kinds united, and when nations even are
drawing together in a closely federated world, the Churches of the

33°
world stiU stand too much apart. Cleavages are sharp and differ
ences emphasized. The condition oftentimes has been deplored,.
and remedies are being sought. And we, my friends, just because-
of our position, just because we are Uberal thinkers, have a duty
to perform and a function to fulfil in helping to promote a larger
and more generous unity of Christendom. We, who care so little
for the dogmas of theology, by laying ever greater emphasis upon
the deep realities of religion, wiU inevitably help to bring about that
unity of purpose and of power which are so much needed in the
religious world to-day. To destroy the superficial, to disavow the
unessential, that is not much; but to show the instinctiveness of
worship, the inevitable nature both of trust and aspiration, — this
seems to me of real and great account. For these, the deep reahties
of faith, are the things that evermore abide, and regarding which
there is a minimum of difference.
In one of the older towns of Germany, so I have been told, they^
undertook long years ago to build a large and ambitious church
which should take the place of a smaU and primitive chapel. But
the people, in their wish that reUgious services might not be dis
continued, did not tear the ancient structure down. They began.
to erect outside of it the giant waUs and soaring arches of the larger
church. The time came, however, when a period of war broke in
upon the process of construction. Long years of strife went by,
and the work thus interrupted never was begun again. There
the buildings stand, therefore, — the little church within where wor
ship still is held and prayers and praises never yet have ceased,.
while without the unfinished aisles and arches of the larger struct
ure crumble into slow decay. And what is that but a true and
graphic picture of the secret and abiding shrine at the heart of ah.
religion, behind the waUs of crumbling and defective creeds and in
sufficient definitions? It is the spiritual at the heart of aU things,,
the elements of hope, of trust, of aspiration, that endure unshaken*
and are evermore important.
It was more than eighty years ago that two English poets stood
together in the shadowed richness of the cathedral of Pisa. As the
organ was playing and the soft, full notes were floating through an
atmosphere made mystical and sweet by the incense that ascended
from the altar, Leigh Hunt suggested to Shelley " that a truly divine

33i
reUgion might yet be estabUshed if charity were really under the
principle of it." And Shelley gave a deep assent.
To that poetic and prophetic wish, which never was so near ful
filment as to-day, we may add the music of a gentle prayer which
was breathed at a later day by a brother poet of our own New Eng
land. Whittier clearly saw the unifying power of a real religion
of the spirit. May we of this convention contribute something
which shah make his prayer the practice of the Christian world by
a closer union of all Liberal forces!
"Forgive, O Lord, our severing ways,
The separate altars that we raise,
The varying tongues that speak Thy praise!
"Suffice it now. In time to be
Shall one great temple .rise to Thee,
Thy Church one broad humanity.
"White flowers of love its walls shall climb,
Sweet bells of peace shall ring its chime,
Its day shall be all holy time.
"The hymns, long sought, shall then be heard,
The music of the world's accord,
Confessing Christ, the inward wordl
"That song shall swell from shore to shore,
One faith, one love, one hope restore,
The seamless garb that Jesus wore."

332

DE PROFUNDIS CLAMAVT.
PREACHED AT ARLINGTON STREET CHURCH, TUESDAY EVENING,
SEPTEMBER 24, BY THE REV. JOHN HUNTER, D.D.,
GLASGOW, SCOTLAND.
" Out of the depths have I cried unto Thee, O Lord. Lord, hear my voice,
O Israel, hope in the Lord; for with the Lord there is mercy and plenteous
redemption." — Psalm cxxx. 1, 2, 7.

The Depths of Life.
The ancient maxim, "Self-knowledge is the beginning of aU
knowledge, " has a nobler significance than that which it often bears.
It is true, in the sense of Saint Augustine's memorable words, "If
thou sinkest deep enough into the human, thou wilt find the Divine."
Not only around us, but within us, there is all the mystery and
wonder of the universe. Mind and heart and soul are deeper than
we know. They draw their life from infinite sources.
Thomas Carlyle, whose "gospel" has been the inspiration of
much of the best thinking and best striving of two generations,
made a commonplace of the fact that every great man is a miracle.
But one need not be "great" in order to be a miracle. There is a
divine marvel in every common man. Our heroes and saints are
not exceptional, but representative men. They reveal and interpret
us to ourselves, disclose the depths of our being, the appetencies of
our nature, and the possibilities of our life: their greatness is a
promise and a prophecy, — the justification, not the condemnation,
of our aspirations and hopes.
Our human nature and human life have their depths, and not
in anything are they less understood than in the depths which belong
to them. Their superficial aspects are forever hiding from us their

333
deeper reahties. What caUs itself knowledge of men — acquaint
ance with their ordinary thoughts, passions, motives, and ways,
with their various humors, caprices, foUies, and weaknesses — is
not knowledge of man, of the inner and real man which the
outer man as often conceals as reveals. We speak at times of "a
shaUow man." But is there any such man anywhere? There are
only too many men everywhere who are living on the surface of their
nature, keenly aUve to their earth-born wants and to the capacities
of human existence for work and pleasure, and whose days are
largely the record of mean ambitions and strivings. But to judge
by appearances is nearly always misleading. The acutest judges
of character are often at fault, and none go more frequently and
lamentably astray in their reckoning than those who boast most
confidently of their knowledge of men. In the so-caUed shallow
man we may perceive, if we look intently and sympatheticaUy enough,
what is not shallow, and find, especiaUy in those revealing hours
when the tragic forces of existence sweep into his life, some sugges
tion of the latent power which needs the fiery storm to throw it up
to the surface. We are often only passing judgment upon ourselves,
upon our want of thought, imagination, and insight, when we pro
claim our feUows to be lacking in those elements to which the great
and deep things of Ufe make their appeal. In the circle in which
we live and move there would be many rich discoveries for any one
with fine imaginative power, skiUed to see into
"The depths of human souls, —
Souls that appear to have no depth at all
To careless eyes."
There is a weU-known poem by Matthew Arnold entitled "The
Buried Life," — a poem fuU of haunting music and rare intro
spective power. It is a picture of many a soul, and it is not difficult
to fitt in from experience the outline which it supplies. We aU have
the power of Uving so completely upon the surface of our souls as
to be ignorant of what is hidden in their depths. It is, indeed, a large
part of the pathos and tragedy of life that we are so disobedient to
the oracle which bids us know ourselves. We either do not care for
seh-knowledge, or imagine we have it in such abundance that we
can swear by it at times, — "as weU as I know myself! " But there

334
are moments when we have glimpses of what we are and may be,
of hitherto unknown capacities and powers, and from beneath our
conscious life there rise the murmuring voices of a deeper, a buried
Ufe. "Yet still from time to time, vague and forlorn,
From the soul's subterranean depth upborne
As from an infinitely distant land,
Come airs, and floating echoes, and convey
A melancholy into our day:

A bolt is shot back somewhere in our breast,
And a lost pulse of feeling stirs again,
The eye sinks inward, and the heart lies plain."
It is, nevertheless, true that many people here and everywhere are
living superficial and shaUow lives. They have either not come to
themselves, they are stiU crude, undeveloped beings, to the great human
powers and affections their vital progress has not yet advanced; or
they have fallen away from their true life after it had been once and
weU awake, and it is now deeply buried beneath passion and pride,
concealed under the thick crust of a selfish and worldly nature.
But in them all slumber the powers which make of the sons of men
the sons of God, and the education of their being is the unforgetting
care of Him from whom they come and to whom they go. In vain
do they seek to escape from His discipline, and in vain do they seek
peace otherwhere than in His wUl. In the natural movement of
their days and quietly as the night dawns upon a sleeping world,
or swiftly and sharply in one of those
"strong, rushing hours
That do the work of tempests in their might,"
they wiU be awakened out of their vulgar ways of Uving, be made
aware of the depths of their souls, and pass into a new world of
experience and knowledge.
Saint Augustine complained of the people of his day, "No man
cares to descend into himself." It is a complaint which some of
our wisest teachers are repeating in our day. Few there be who
care to go down to the depths, to have their self-complacency dis
turbed, and be made to feel deeply and think deeply. Most men

335
tiave no inwardness. They live altogether in the outward. The
brooding, meditative gift is not in them. In past times, men suffered
from excess of introspective thought, but the disease which is brought
on by too much self-reflection is not in our day a wide-spread epi
demic. Too much looking within is not a temptation of the modern
man. There is no country less known to him than his own soul.
"After years of Ufe together," he might often confess, "my soul and
I are strangers yet." He is afraid of deeper experiences, and re
luctant to be on terms of close intimacy with himself. He is quite
at home in the visible and temporal order of things, but he is a pil
grim and a stranger in what the Scottish seer called "the Eternities."
From the message of the spiritual life he turns away as if it touched
no secret spring in his heart. It is the voices without, not the voices
within, to which he cares to listen. Even in religion, though inter
ested, and perhaps keenly interested, in the problems of its external
Ufe, in its ecclesiastical and theological controversies, in its sectarian
developments, and in its social and philanthropical activities, he
is unmoved by its inward and spiritual power.
It is often a sorrowful surprise to the earnest reUgious teacher
to discover how slightly interested many professedly religious people
are in rehgion and what a trifling portion of their time they give to
its serious study. Thorough, perhaps, in everything else, they are
content to be superficial in aU their knowledge of the verities upon
which rest the world that now is and that which is to come. Hence
their readiness to run after crazes and fantasies, and the little it
costs them when brought into contact with aggressive unbelief to
give up altogether their rehgious faith. They are carried away
for the most part by scraps of knowledge which have come to them
from newspapers, magazines, and popular novels. They have "out
grown" what they had never reaUy grown into, and abandoned what
they never truly possessed. There is a saying of Renan's which
ought to be well pondered, — "In reality, few persons have a right
to be unbelievers." There can be little doubt that much of the fading
interest in spiritual and eternal things which has marked the days
that are passing over us, much of our religious indifference, and much,
also, of our scepticism and unbelief, are due to the want of inward
ness, to the slight knowledge men in general have of the depths of
their Ufe, and to atrophy of the spiritual senses through neglect.

336
There can be little doubt, also, that this neglect of the inner Ufe is
the explanation of the falling back of many in recent years upon tra
ditional ecclesiasticism,— the reverting to a lower type of religion
which we once supposed had been left behind. Men want a certain
amount of assured religious belief, but they want it without any high
and prolonged spiritual effort on their part. But as long as they
remain strangers to their own souls and are content to let others feel,
think, and beUeve for them, they must be more or less ignorant of
the reality of religion. We are so made that we cannot believe with
a real believing anything which does not answer in some measure
to our consciousness and experience. The ultimate appeal of reUgion
is to the soul. Outside of the soul the surest and most convincing
evidence of the realities of faith can never be found. The divinity
within us must be awake to discern the divinity that descends out
of heaven and is revealed in the world and life. Without the personal
assurance which flows out of experience, and which is the result of
the actual satisfaction of our spiritual needs and yearnings, we are
not able to appreciate the great testimony to God and to the things of
God borne by the religious experience of mankind, — the coUective
experience which is named "authority," — a natural and genuine
authority by which our spiritual life is enriched and we are freed
from the limitation and narrowness of the mere individual stand
point. Also, we can never, outside of the soul, find the true and
permanent ground and bond of religious sympathy and feUowship.
On the surface we are divided, often to aU appearance hopelessly
divided, but in the depths we are one. Debate and argument, views
and opinions, drive and keep us apart, but in the depths we find
not only ourselves, but our brethren, — brethren breathing out the
same aspirations and prayers, having the same passion for God, the
same need of God, and the same joy in God. It is true of reUgion,
even in its intellectual aspect and expression, that those who are able
to go beneath the surface and have the power of insight discover
unities underlying apparently serious differences, but this is stiU
more true of religion as an experience. Spiritual experience — the
experience of the life of God in the soul — is the highest liberalizing
influence, and the most effective and satisfying. It gives one the
power to understand and interpret many religious dialects, and to
discern here and now, beneath diversities of temperament and

337
training, cult and creed, the communion of saints, the Universal
Church of God, the Church of the Spirit.
It seems to me what we most need to bestir ourselves about in
these passing days is not so much the broadening as the deepening
of rehgion, its deepening in our own souls and in the souls of our
fellows. In its thoughts of God and his ways with man, religion
has expanded wonderfuUy everywhere since the middle of the last
century, but religion must have depth as well as breadth. The
breadth that does not proceed from depth is hardly worth having:
it is certainly not worth crossing the Atlantic to recognize and honor.
The intensive movement is more vital to progressive reUgion than
any expansive or forward movement. The course of true religion
is, indeed, most outward and onward when it is most inward. Great
rehgious reformations ever date from the quickening and deepening
of faith in the souls of men. Their inspiration and energy are drawn
from deeper depths than the lower faculties of the mind. It is per
haps the most serious defect of the liberal movement in religion that
it is so much more an inteUectual than a spiritual movement. It
is the constant approach to the things of God primarily through the
inteUect which sterihzes much of liberal religion everywhere, makes
of the churches lecture halls rather than temples of the Spirit, and
their pulpit a rabbinized platform for the exposition of philosoph
ical ideas and doctrines rather than a place for the delivery of a
message from God to man. We must go deeper. Out of and to
the depths of Ufe we must speak. Mere affinity of opinion and belief
is far too outward and contracted for the sympathy of men who
speak so much of universal religion and hope and pray and work for
the Universal Church. Our great facts, the things which in our
hearts we aU most care for, are in the depths, not on the surface. We
are reUgious, not because the credentials of this or that form of relig
ion bears the strain of critical inquiry and satisfies our critical reason,
but because we have great moral and spiritual needs and experiences
to which we believe our religion is a full and perfect counterpart,
corresponding in a deep and manifold way with what we know of
ourselves and of life.
To the soul, then, we must return. Out of its depths have come
religions, Bibles, prayers, liturgies, psalms, hymns, and spiritual
songs, and it is stiU full of the elements of revelation. It is an un-

338
exhausted and inexhaustible world. The outward universe, the
star-sown abysses of space, have none of those mysterious and un
searchable depths which we find in our spiritual being. When we
gaze on all "The splendor of the morning sky,
And all the stars in company,
And think, How beautiful it is!
Our soul says, There is more than this."
And there is more than this. God is, indeed, immanent in the world
of nature and in the order of life, but He is stiU more intimately
present in the soul of man. Our spiritual being relates us immedi
ately to the Infinite and Eternal Spirit, and it is this divine depth of
root and resource which is the explanation of aU our aspirations
and the justification of the most daring hopes we can cherish of
iUimitable development. n.
The Cry for God out of the Depths.
i. The cry for God is the natural utterance of the awakened soul
of man in every land and age, — the cry of man whenever and wher
ever he freely speaks out of the depths of his nature, an aspiration
which aU history confesses. It may not always be an inteUigent or
conscious cry, but a seeker after God man has always been and
must ever be, because from God he comes, begotten, not made, and
with a nature so constituted that only in God can he find his fuU and
final satisfaction and rest. The surface of his life may often appear
to say one thing, and its depths quite another thing, but it is the cry
from the depths which reveals what he truly is and what he most
needs. It is his inmost wants and desires, not his hard, cold sense
and keen understanding, which read most rightly the secret of his
life. It is not to the surface of his life his real spiritual needs belong,
but only those poor selfish cravings which are often mistaken for
them by iU-instructed minds. Outwardly, he may seem to long and
cry for other things more than for the presence of God, and to find
his peace and joy in them, but when his soul is moved and searched,
and the fountains of its great deep are broken up, in aU those crises
which throw Ught on the inner condition and movement of his

339
being, the cry for God is seen to be fundamental, and his longing to
connect his life in some way with the life of the invisible and eternal
world an irrepressible longing, which tends ever to rise into a strong
and intense passion.
In the eighteenth century some clever men found an easy settle
ment of the reUgious problem by dismissing religion as the invention
of priests, forgetting that it was the religious instincts and wants
which made the priest and his institutions at all possible. Man is
as distinctively a religious as he is a social being, — religious for the
same reason as he is domestic, poUtical, intellectual, and artistic.
It is his nature unfolding to divine realities and relations, seeking
its corresponding objects and satisfactions. The beginnings of his
reUgion, Uke the beginnings of all other things in his history, may
be dim and vague and feeble, but it ought to be judged, as we judge
the other things, by its essential quahty and most perfect expression,
and not by its early and rude forms, not by the physical beginnings
of spiritual instincts and the sense-conceptions and sense-language
of primitive reUgious feeUngs. It is not independent of his mental
and moral development, of his general condition and culture. It
grows as he grows. It is not something grafted upon his nat
ure from without, but comes out of his nature, — a component part
of himself, which he must train and develop. Revelation is neces
sary to its purifying and perfecting, but revelation does not and
cannot create the reUgious capacity or instinct. For a revelation
received and understood there must be that in man to which it appeals,
— something in the depths of his personal being akin to what is in
the infinite and unsearchable depths of God. Matthew Arnold used
to say that reUgion, if it is to continue, must be based, not on tra
ditions and documents, but on its natural truth; and of course that is
so if by its natural truth we mean its correspondence with the funda
mental facts of life and with the generalized experience of man
kind. We need have no hesitation in affirming boldly its natural
truth when we caU to mind that there is nothing in the history of
our race older and more universal, more central and commanding,
than religion. Its many and various forms, the great historical
religions and the older reUgions out of which they grew, aU have
their roots struck deep in human nature. Whenever and wherever
man begins to reach the truly human level, he begins to worship,

34°
and, the more human he becomes, the more do the sentiments of
awe and reverence, dependence and submission, reinforced by the
larger trusts which longer and wider experience give him, become
natural to him. It is just because he is what he is that his spiritual
attitude is that of a believer and worshipper, and, had he no other
Bible than his own soul, he would never be without a living witness
for God. In its wonder and awe, in its fear and hope, in its sense
of goodness and truth and beauty, in its aspiration after perfection,
in its shame because of failure, in its joy in obedience and service and
sacrifice, and in aU its idealizing yearnings which never in these
mortal years get their right and complete command over the life,
he who watches and studies wisely and patiently wiU discover God,
and from the sympathetic observation of all such experiences have
the persuasion confirmed that religion is natural to man, and that,
the more of God man takes into his life, the more natural he be
comes. It would be easier to deny the tendency of matter to a com
mon centre, or the tendency of man to draw to his feUows, than to
deny the native tendency and movement of the human soul to God.
Its only language may be a cry; but how fuU of meaning and proph
ecy is that cry! — the cry of the soul for God as it comes to us down
aU the ages, from every people and from every literature which utters
the mind of a people, and from the noblest spirits of every race,
interpreting most clearly the voice of humanity as it speaks through
them. "All men," said Homer, "cry after the gods." "Through
aU heathendom," said Saint Paul, " men seek after the Lord, if haply
they may feel after Him and find Him." "The human soul," said
TertuUian, " is naturally Christian. The testimonies of the soul [to
God] are as true as they are simple, as simple as they are universal,
as universal as they are natural, as natural as they are divine."
"If we wiU but listen attentively," said Max Mulier, "we can hear
in all religions a groaning of the spirit, a struggle to utter the un
utterable, a longing after the infinite, a love of God."
There is not, I am persuaded, even a touch of exaggeration in the
statement that the greatest discovery of the nineteenth century was
the discovery of the ancient religions, — of what men before Christ
and before Moses, in a dim and far past and in countries like Egypt
and India, thought about God and life. It has made us hear clearly,
rising from every land and from every age, from men divided by

ty

PROF. G. SUBBA RAU
Calicut, India

REV. SAICHIRO KANDA
Tokyo, Japan

REV. CHARLES STRONG, D.D.
Melbourne, Australia

B. M. SEHANAVIS, BA.
Calcutta, India

34i
leagues of space and centuries of time, ignorant and enlightened,
mean and noble, the cry out of the depths of the soul for God, even
the Uving God.
Everywhere in our own age as weU as in past ages may be heard
the cry for God. It is the advanced spiritual desire of humanity.
To-day, as yesterday, out of the depths of his soul, man cries to God,
however much his noisy passions, foUies, and cares, and the tumult
of the world may make inaudible the voice of his deeper mind and
deeper heart. It was once said by a celebrated English lawyer of
our time that the man who could not get on without religion, who
could not occupy his mind with love, friendship, business, politics,
science, art, Uterature, and travel, must be a poor kind of creature.
It is, on the contrary, the man who can be whoUy satisfied with
outward and earthly things apart from God who is the poor kind of
creature, Uving upon the surface of his nature, with the energies of
his spirit stiU dormant or so suppressed and overborne that they
are in danger of dying out. To be truly a man is to have infinite
capacity for God, to have desires, affections, and needs which the
things of civihzation and culture cannot satisfy, which can only be
satisfied in communion with the Divine. Man, be he what he may,
is made to be a seeker after God; and, because he cannot escape
from himself, he cannot escape from God. The cry for God is heard
as soon as he comes to himself, and it becomes clearer and more
persistent, more passionate and pathetic, the further he goes into
himseU. In his more careless moods he may play with doubts, amuse
himself with negative views and cheap rationalism, and treat religion
as if it were merely something to be examined, puUed to pieces, and
criticised; but out of the depths of his unbelief the unconscious faith
of the soul never faUs to make itself heard. In spite of crowds of
easy livers here and everywhere and the extraordinary supply of the
means of excitement, which, giving vivid interest and attractiveness
to the outward hfe, tend to stupefy and deaden the religious sense,
men cannot Uve utterly contented without God. The way they are
caught now and again by aU kinds of fanaticism proves that the
promise and potency of reUgious faith are still there. It is also an
impressive fact that behind all the surface play of the forces in
modern life that tend to obscure or even to chaUenge and deny the
fundamental religious beliefs, the religious nature of man may be

342
seen asserting itseh, and often in strange ways. The phUosopher's
bold statement that man becomes more and more religious is not with
out warrant. The religious affections may be changing, here and
there, their objects and modes of expression; but they are not losing
their energy. The phenomena which are often regarded as signs
and proofs of rehgious decay are more justly interpreted as religion
passing through a process of transformation. There are move
ments of thought and feeling, far below the upper tides, and disturb
ing agitations which we see and chronicle, that bear silent but strong
witness to the upward-looking instincts and impulses of humanity.
There is, as has often been pointed out, hardly a form of the deeper
thinking and deeper living of our time which does not reveal the
inherent and indestructible reUgiousness of man. The ideal sub
stitutes for God upon which our more serious and cultivated unbe
lievers have been spending their devotion these many days prove how
deep in the soul and unescapable are the reUgious instincts and needs.
The cry for truth, for right, for justice, for love, is a cry for God.
The moments in which men long and strive most purely and intensely
for the triumph of truth and justice and love are moments of uncon
scious prayer, the prayer which includes in its sweep all our unselfish
desires and yearnings and strivings. " All my springs are in Thee,"
said the Hebrew Psalmist. God is at the root of aU our ethical
aspirations and purely human enthusiasms, and to Him they lead.
Without Him they remain partial and fragmentary, only in Him do
they find their centre and unity, their strength and stay.
2. And thus are we led to observe that the cry for God is the aspi
ration of the whole nature of man when he is true to it. It is not an
isolated thing, the expression of one faculty, a single experience: it
is in the structure and strain of our being, in its living unity of powers
and tendencies and manifold needs. In aU the faculties and affec
tions of our complex nature we are created for God, and through
them aU we are meant to rise upward to Him.
God is a demand of the intellect as weU as a longing and need of
the heart. Reason seeks God as much as any other of our nobler
human powers, and in the fuUy and symmetricaUy developed man
it is ever seen to be a faculty of reverence. Out of the depths of aU
true and earnest thought on the mystery of the world and life the
quickened mind aspires to God, rises instinctively to the one supreme

343
and universal Mind which the order of things bespeaks, and in which
alone it can find a satisfaction proper to its characteristic nature.
Thought as it deepens confirms and justifies our own reUgious aspi
rations and trusts. We remember SheUey's line, —
" O thou Immortal Deity
Whose throne is in the depth of human thought," —
and the philosopher's saying that, while a little knowledge inclineth
men to atheism, depth of knowledge brings them back to God.
Because in mind as weU as in heart and conscience man is kindred
to God, the fuU development of the mind must lead at last to God,
and God, we may be sure, has not made the world in such a way
that the honest and thorough study of it will lead men away from
Himself. The complete witness of the human reason to God is yet
to come, but God is its inevitable goal. The end of all deep thinking
must be to put men more and more into the mood and attitude of
worship. Much of the inteUectual movement of our times may indi
cate instability and superficiality, but in its more serious forms it is
the modern spirit dissatisfied with old and familiar explanations
of the material and spiritual universe, yet seeking the innermost
truth and reahty of things, crying in its own way with the ancient
Hebrew for God, and confessing with the Christian saint that it is
restless until it finds rest in Him who is the truth itself.
And what has been said of deep thinking may be said of every
form of deep feehng. It must render us religious, deep calling unto
deep. The sense of beauty which makes poets and painters, and is
more or less in aU men, belongs to the image of God in man and is
meant to put us in touch with the spiritual and eternal in all created
things, and to raise us into communion with Him to whom Saint
Anselm prayed as the Absolute Beauty. Admiration, the power of
perceiving, appreciating, and enjoying things lovely and great and
wonderful, rises into adoration. Seas and skies and mountains, the
dawn of day, a night of stars, kindle in the susceptible soul the senti
ments of worship. The feeling which noble music produces is of
the nature of aspiration: it is a longing towards some divine good,
consciously or unconsciously a longing toward Him who is the source
and centre of aU good and aU harmony. It has been said of the high
est kind of music that the hearing of it enables one to realize his

344
immortality. It touches and awakens some inner sense which our
common experience only partially satisfies; it fiUs the mind with
those great and high feelings and with those far-reaching thoughts
that pass beyond all earthly bounds and wander through eternity.
And the same is true of aU the deeper parts and passions of our
being. Our human affections at their best have their flower and
fruit in spiritual and heavenly aspirations. Our human love of
goodness stirs in us the divine love, and is included in it, and opens
our nature to God as the sun opens the earth in spring. Our desire
of excellence — exceUence of character and exceUence of work —
bears witness to God and is a cry after His perfection. Our moral
aims and strivings are fulfiUed in religion. Our religion is the ful
filment of the deepest instincts, affections, needs, and experiences
of our nature. As the fire seeks the sun and the river the ocean, so
does our life in aU its deeper and larger aspects move towards Him
who is its beginning and its end. We must have God to understand
and explain our nature and life. He is the answer to aU that is good
and best in ourselves, to our powers of inteUect, imagination, affec
tion, conscience, to our faculties of worship, aspiration, and hope.
"When I awake," said the Hebrew saint, "I shall be satisfied with
God." "The life of man," said one of the Fathers of the Christian
Church, "is the vision of God." Out of the depths our souls, as
they awake, cry for God; and only with God can they be finaUy
satisfied, only in communion with Him, spirit with spirit, can be
found the fulness of life and joy.
3. The cry for God is an importunate cry in aU the critical mo
ments and experiences of life. What is true of the depths of our
nature is true of the depths of our life as it is lived in the world. In
its deep places where we come face to face with its serious realities
we are taught what we truly are and are made aware of our divine
relations and needs. Under the pressure of critical emergencies
the most fundamental things in our life come to the surface. In
our great and sore straits, if at no other time, the soul reveals its
divine kinship and lifts its cry to God.
It is true that our deep experiences are not aU sorrowful. Joy
may be as profound as grief, and out of the depths of joy every
sound-hearted man breathes forth his gratitude not merely for good
found or achieved, but received. In all its supreme moments life

345
turns inevitably to God. In aU our deep experiences God has a
part, and almost in spite of ourselves we recognize it.
But be glad and grateful as we may and ought to be for all that
brightens and sweetens Ufe, yet as things are now, it is sorrow more
than happiness that drives us to God. We have a nature endowed
with infinite capacities for pain, and there is no escape but an ignoble
one from some form of the pain which makes the cross the true
symbol of a large part of every man's life. "Perhaps to suffer,"
wrote the Swiss theologian, Vinet, in one of his letters, "is nothing
else than to Uve deeply. Love and sorrow are the conditions of a
profound life." A truer word was never spoken. The tragedy in
which we hve is meant to educate us. There would indeed be no
understanding of Ufe at all, did we not know from experience that
in life's depths we receive our best teaching and training. Out of
the depths have come the finest poetry, the finest music, the finest
speech of the world. " The Bible owes its place in literature," said
Emerson, " not to miracles, but to the fact that it comes from a pro-
founder depth of Ufe than any other book." Out of the depths have
come the most inspired and inspiring of the psalms of faith, both
ancient and modern. Out of the depths men have brought blessings
which are rarely found in green pastures and by still waters. We
never know how much God is the one great need of the soul till we
go down to the depths.
There are depths of physical weakness and suffering out of which
men cry to Him whose wiU concerning them they often forget in
health and ease, and only remember when sickness comes in and
shuts out the world.
There are worldly anxieties and losses which rudely break up
aU the shaUow optimism that has no deeper root than the self-com
placency produced by prosperity, and which take men down below
the surface of life into its deep places where they learn to pray, or
to pray as never before.
There is the sorrow of bereavement, common, yet never common
place, the pain that comes from broken feUowships; and in their
spiritual solitude and desolation men are driven to seek higher help
and comfort than any which the world can give.
There are experiences of faUibility in understanding what we ought
to do; critical hours in life when serious responsibilities press, and

346
grave questions which mere acuteness cannot settle; and men, in
their extremity, feel the need of a wisdom which they do not find in
themselves, and of a guidance which their feUows cannot give, and
they cry unto God, "Lead me and teach me."
There are depths of disappointment and failure in our best work,
— sympathies imperfectly met, misplaced trusts, broken purposes,
and defeated hopes; and it is especially the ministry of such noble
failure to draw forth the powers latent in every human being, and
to make God felt as the one supreme necessity of life.
There is the struggle with moral limitation and weakness, — the
sensitive temperament, the iU-balance of a finely endowed mind,
the want of wiU-power, the overgrowth of impulses good in them
selves, — inheritances which make life so tragic to many, — the struggle
with forces within and forces without which seem adverse to a noble
development, and which make the most aspiring and faithful souls
feel that they cannot do the things they would.
The Psalm from which our text is taken is famUiar to many de
vout people as one of the seven penitential Psalms. It was dear on
this account to Chrysostom, Augustine, Savonarola, Luther, Hooker,
Owen, Baxter, Wesley, and to many more of the elect spirits of our
race. And it surely cannot be that any man capable of deep feel
ing can be whoUy ignorant of the saddest tragedy of human life
which is seen in the conflict between desire and duty, in the effort to
reconcile the ideal and the actual, and to be at peace with God.
Who dees not know of this struggle, interpret it how he may? Who
has not cried out in the agony of it, " O wretched man that I am, who
shall deliver me?" When one passes in review before the tribunal
of his heart the irrevocable years, what wonder if
" Oft his cogitations sink as low
As, through the abysses of a joyless heart,
The heaviest plummet of despair can go."
Though it is only one experience of the spiritual Ufe, and must
not be allowed to overshadow all the rest, yet the sense of dissatis
faction, deepening into the sense of guilt, lies near the heart of aU
personal religion worthy of the name. It marks the awakening
of the higher life; it is, as Carlyle once said, the beginning of aU
progress. The worst conscience is not the one that is most

347
sensitive to evil and most troubled by wrong things done and good
things left undone, but the conscience that is so duU as to have no
experience of guilty pangs and terrors, and that can make its pos
sessor able to fit his greatest transgressions into a self-satisfied view
and scheme of life, and to reconcile himself to memories of passion
and shame. In men moraUy healthy and weU developed the sense
of sin, of evil done with fuU consent of the will, is a reality, not a
shaUow emotion, but a profound grief, the thought not of their weaker
moments, but of their sanest hours. It is simply self-knowledge.
It is a universal law of the higher life that, the better a man becomes,
the more sensitive he is to sin, and not only to his own sin, but to
the sins of his feUows, the sins of the nation, of society, of the church,
of the community in which he lives. It is the best men who feel most
keenly the burden of human iniquity and confess the abounding
moral evil of the world as if it were their own evil; it is they who are
most conscious of the wrong-doing of their fellows and suffer most
on account of it, and not the actual wrong-doers themselves. It
was so with the Hebrew poet. The pathos of the great lovers
and helpers of mankind is in his Psalm. It is the utterance of an
intensely personal emotion, but it is more than personal. He speaks
in the name of Israel, merging his own feeling in the shame and
repentance of his people. "I wish," said that great prophet and
saint of God, Frederick Denison Maurice, "to confess the sins of
my land and time as my own." It is almost impossible to imagine
a truly godly life without this underlying sensitiveness and sadness,
without this suffering heart of holy love and sympathy, which is the
thing likest God in this world.
In ancient India, perhaps more than fifteen hundred years before
our Psalm was written, men sung a hymn which obviously came out
of the same experience as this passionate Hebrew poem of penitence
and prayer. It was translated into English out of the dead Sanskrit
tongue by Professor Max Mulier. These are the English words: —
Let me not yet, O my God, enter into the house of clay:
Have mercy, Almighty, have mercy.
If I go trembling like a cloud driven by the wind:
Have mercy, Almighty, have mercy.
Through want of strength, thou strong and bright God, have I gone wrong:
Have mercy, Almighty, have mercy.

348
Wherever we men, O God, commit an offence before the heavenly host:
Wherever we break the law through thoughtlessness:
Have mercy, Almighty, have mercy.

III.
The Divine Answer to the Cry out of the Depths.
Is there any divine response to the caU of humanity for God to
these many and varied cries out of the depths of our human being
and life ? There must be in the nature of things, we are persuaded,
such a response, something outside of man answering to his inner
life and fulfiUing its needs, actual movement and manifestation on
the part of God corresponding to our natural cravings after Him.
Out of the depths man cries: down to the depths God must come,
meeting with a corresponding answer every real and deep want of
the souls He has made to seek after Him, if haply they may feel after
Him and find Him. Whatever may be the relations between human
aspiration and divine condescension, whatever be the conditions of
the coming down of the heavenly help to human need, it is simply
impossible for any religious soul to think that there is no approach
of God to man. Unless life be a tremendous unreality and iUusion,
and we come into the world only to be fooled and cheated; unless
the universe departs from its order in deaUng with the spiritual neces
sities of mankind and the cry for God meets with exceptional treat
ment, quite unlike that given to the other functions and attitudes
of our nature, — it is simply inconceivable that the fundamental
cravings of the soul can exist without their satisfaction and the
prayer from the depths remain unanswered. Many of our reUgious
teachers may say too much on this matter and speak presumptu
ously of what God has done and can do, but their overstatements to
those who are hving in the consciousness and communion of God are
better and nearer the truth than denials and negations. It is, indeed,
not difficult to believe in divine condescension in an answering,
revealing, redeeming God, when one truly believes in God, — believes,
that is, in infinite and eternal goodness. It appears inevitable that
man should look with longing and hope for help from on high,
for he cannot understand his life, its whence, and why, and whither,

349
apart from God. It cannot be, he is sure, having no choice of exist
ence, that he should be here in this world endowed with a myste
rious nature, caUed to Uve a life fuU of most serious significance,
without the presence and help of God. He has a right, he feels,
to trust Him from whom he comes, and to believe that no light from
heaven can lead astray, least of aU those great religious aspirations
and wants which have hved through all human ages, overreaching
aU stretches of history, and are stiU the highest necessities of the
soul. No strong crying and tears wiU make God answer our self
ish or fictitious wants; but that He is responsive to what is best in
man, that He is answering day after day, age after age, the spiritual
aspirations and needs of humanity, is a necessary belief to every
one, Christian or non-Christian, who believes in the reality and
closeness of the bond between God and man, in the affinity of man
for that life in God which is the true end of his being.
"O Israel, hope in the Lord; for with the Lord there is mercy
and plenteous redemption." "He is mindful of His own; He remem-
bersHiscbildren." The movement cannot be aU on the side of man.
Job had caught a glimpse of an eternal truth of life when he rested
his hope of vindication and deUverance upon the desire which his
Maker had toward the work of His hands. That the desire of God
has brooded over humanity from the beginning, and stiU broods
over the life of the children of men, is a thought which holds a central
place in the literature of rehgion; and, however difficult it may be
to reconcfle this lovely, human way of thinking of God with our
abstract conceptions of Deity, it brings us closer, we feel sure, to
the divine reahty of things than ways which we may fancy to be
grander and more phUosophical. We are fond of contrasting
the Uttleness of man and the awful brevity of his days upon this earth
with the immeasurable creation which science reveals; but, if God
be love, then our passionate human life must be more to Him than a
whole universe of passionless worlds. What answer can masses of
clay and stone, however huge and old, give to the desire of His heart?
Can we frame any worthy thought of God which excludes the idea
of His need of the love and trust and obedience of His children ? If
the word "Father" speUs but one syUable of the divine name, then
we may speak not only of man's need of God, but reverently of God's
need of man, of divine love that seeks the answering love of its sons

35°
and daughters, of Deity ever going forth out of the abysmal depths
of His perfection to give Himself to His creation and His children
because it is His nature and property so to do.
It is told of Pascal that often he seemed to hear God saying to
him, " Thou couldst not seek Me, hadst thou not already found Me."
Yes, we seek God because He has first sought us and found us. The
cry out of the depths is more, therefore, than a mere human breathing:
it is itself a divine inspiration. Our pure unselfish longings for
truth and goodness, our prayers for union with God, are, as Saint
Paul taught long ago, the spirit making intercession for us, — that
highest human voice which is ever one with the divine voice, which
is the divine voice rising from the depths of our humanity and speak
ing through our spiritual needs. In the movements of the human
spirit we see the workings of the divine spirit. It is the divine love
of goodness that cries out in us when conscience bears witness for
good. It is the divine hatred of evil that cries out in us when con
science awakes in protest against evil. It is because we are made in
the moral image of God and are united to Him, not by baptism or
conversion, but by birth, that our whole nature thrills with what
moves the divine nature. In its last analysis there can be no noble
aspiration in man which is not an impulse from Him in whom we
Uve and move and have our being. In the realm of our inner life
God does not begin His work where we leave off. It is not man down
here and God up there with a vast stretch of distance between. In
all the experiences of our life and growth He is present, mingling
His life with ours, silently and potently. Not here and there, not
now and then, but always and everywhere He is near, acting upon
the human spirit from within as weU as from without, immediately
as well as mediately, speaking down to and up from the depths
of the heart and conscience, — deep answering to deep.
We interpret, and rightly interpret, the various religions of
mankind as man seeking God; but they may also be regarded, and
rightly regarded, as God seeking man. " Unaided reason," men have
been in the way of exclaiming, as they contemplated the various
religious systems of the world outside the Hebrew and the Christian
religions. But we may well ask, with Cardinal Newman, whether
the reason of man is ever unaided. There are not two kinds of
religion, natural and revealed. From the point of view of human

35i
capacity and seeking and effort all religion is natural: from the
point of view of divine manifestation all religion is revealed. The
Logos doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, whatever else it teaches,
teaches the divine activity in our world from the beginning. It
would be an error to suppose that God neglected the larger part of
mankind because of His more intimate dealings with one section of
the human race. It must be true, if God be one and His name one,
that men of like passions and needs as ourselves, who came from God
and belong to God, and are nourished physicaUy by His air and
sunshine and fruits of the earth, must also have provision made
in the divine order of things for the sustenance of their spiritual
Ufe, and that it is not left entirely to the tender mercies of their
feUows whether they shall have God or be without God in the world.
It must be true that God cares equallyfor the souls of all His children,
and that He finds access to them, helps them, teaches them, com
forts them, saves them, by methods and means that are not seen and
temporal, and by ways in which no man can tell whence He cometh
and whither He goeth, and that He is only limited in the giving of
Himseh to them by their capacity to respond and receive. People
of old used to think that the divine action was confined to here and
there, now and then; but the conviction is growing and spreading
that the only defensible conception of the moral action of God on
humanity is that of a continuous and impartial influence, limited to
no age or race. To our enlightened feeling it is becoming more and
more presumptuous to say that His spirit can only work along one
Une of human thought, or can only bring men to Himself through one
set of defined successions of emotion or experience. Personal inti
macy with God is not an experience special to Jews or Christians.
The knowledge of the revelation of God in Hebrew and Christian
history is an unspeakable blessing, but those whom, in the order of
Providence, it never reaches, are not hereby excluded from the
communion of the spirit. A truer and larger faith in God as the
everlasting Father and Teacher and Saviour of mankind has made
it no longer possible for inteUigent and believing men to regard aU
religions outside the Jewish and Christian pale as superstition and
falsehood, or to keep up the old pitying and condescending attitude
towards them. Their immaturities and corruptions we no longer
allow to cheat us of the right to say, God is good to aU: whither shaU

352
we go from His spirit? He has never left Himself without a witness,
never left multitudes of His creatures without His help, without Ught
and guidance, without comfort and salvation.
"The Unseen Power, whose eye
Forever doth accompany mankind,
Hath looked on no religion scornfully
That man did ever find.
"Which has not taught weak wills how much they can?
Which has not fallen on the dry heart like rain?
Which has not cried to sunk-self, weary man,
Thou must be born again! "
The deep needs of the soul which make man look longingly for
help from above and beyond himself, even from God, may be inter
preted as a cry for knowledge of Him with whom he has to do, a
cry for reconciliation or union with him, a cry for Ught and guidance,
a cry for strength and consolation and peace. The divine response
to this vast and varied cry of humanity has been made, we beUeve,
in some degree, to the whole race of mankind.
"TeU me, I pray thee, thy name," is a cry out of the depths which
man has raised to God in every land and age. It is as natural as it
is vital. To know the character of the Unseen Power that orders
our birth and death and aU our life, and what His relation and atti
tude are to those whom He made to seek after Him, is a craving which
every human being exercising normal powers must at times feel and
express. And in some way and in some measure God has been
answering this cry, has been revealing Himself to man through aU the
ages of man's life here upon this earth. Revelation has been slow
and gradual, not because of any divine reluctance or caprice, but
because it waits upon human development, upon the quickening and
unfolding of man's highest powers. In troubled and bewildered
hours man has been heard complaining, "Verily Thou art a God
that hidest Thyself"; and yet the light has ever come as fast as he
could bear it and receive it. There is no want of revelation. There
is, indeed, nothing but revelation. From the beginning God has
been revealing Himself to men by the order and beauty and bounty
of the world, through the natural affections, by the teaching and
learning of life and the education of history. Knowledge of nature

353
and man is knowledge of God. In finding order, harmony, bounty,
beauty, truth, wisdom, justice, goodness, and love, God is found.
It is all revelation from nature to man and from man to highest man.
God has ever been actively present in the world, and especiaUy in
man and in the upward movements of his intellectual and moral
hfe. We dare not pretend to limit the ways by which He makes
known His personahty and His presence, and moves, illuminates,
and guides His children. He draws nigh to them, not only in and
through His creation and the course of history, not only through
the teaching and example of His great prophets, holy servants,
and beloved sons, but immediately, mind with mind, spirit with
spirit. In aU ages men have had experience of an immediate pres
ence, of a God who has access to their inmost being and acts in
their secret life, who reveals Himself by impressions upon their spirits,
and whose voice, when they are hushed to listen, is heard, not in
their ears, but in their souls.
Yes, God is ever coming down into our life, coming more and
more. His advent is unceasing: new light from the eternal source
of Ught is ever flowing into human souls. What is needed is not
more activity of manifestation on the part of God, but more suscep
tibility to the divine manifestation on our part, souls which have been
taken pains with for the sake of the unseen and spiritual and been
made sensitive to God.
The cry of our humanity for reconciliation and union with God
is also a cry which God is ever answering. The great obstacle to
rehgion in our world is not ignorance, but sin. More than enlight
enment, we need salvation. Can aU our civilization minister to a
troubled conscience? Can aU our culture heal a guilty pang? Can
the knowledge of any scientific, philosophical, or theological truth
subdue an evU passion ? But in the depths of our weakness and sin
God is our salvation. The deliverance of man is dear to God. It is
the essential nature of love to seek and to save. Because God is
love, He is ever coming down to the depths of our life, depths of sor
row and sin, the deepest depths of degradation, in order to help and
to bring to Himself, by aU the power of His love, His wayward and dis
obedient chUdren. Whether it be a faUen or a rising world we live
in, we know in our hearts that we need reconcUiation with the God
of the world : blessed be His eternal love ! He has never been outside

354
His world, but has been always in it, bearing the sins and carrying
the sorrows of our race. Its history is the history of redemption,
the history of the unceasing efforts of Him with whom we have to do,
to influence without compeUing the vagrant and stubborn wills of
men. Through aU the human ages, ever since sin began to darken
the face of the world, the seeking and saving love of God has been
a reality. AU the great attitudes and acts of God are eternal. " That
which was from the beginning declare we unto you." "His goings
forth have been of old and from everlasting." It was not a new and
strange work which the beloved Son of God did in our world. His
work is not an isolated divine effort, an interpolation in human his
tory, but the reflection and revelation in a part of space and time of
the universal and eternal labor and passion and sacrifice of God.
Without Jesus the world was for thousands of years, but not without
a God delighting to forgive and mighty to save. The work of Christ
is based on the deeper and larger fact of the love and mercy and
care of the Eternal toward aU mankind. We are learning its
deepest lesson when we see in it a picture of what God is always
doing, — always helping His children, always saving them in His infi
nite goodness and mercy. And, as it was then, it is now and ever
shah be, world without end.
And not only through Christ and men inspired with the spirit
of his life and the charity of his cross does God reconcile the world
to Himself, but the whole economy of things is so ordered as to bring
men at every point into contact with God. Unto nature and unto
aU the forces which enter into human hfe have been committed the
ministry of reconcUiation. This is their final meaning and end as
far as man is concerned. By aU the natural processes and experiences
of hfe, by the discipline of toil and hardship, joy and sorrow, by
the retribution which warns us back to the ways of righteousness
and peace and the moral purpose that is in aU events, God our Father
from the beginning has been reducing and destroying the moral
separation between Himself and His children, and been seeking to
bring them to the obedience and feUowship of sons.
But here again the work of God on man is more within than
without. Immanent in men, He co-operates with the aspiration
and effort of every man towards reconcUiation with goodness, and
.therefore with the universal movement of the race. He is the ulti-

355
mate cause of aU progress and the unseen source and inspiration
of aU our human strivings to draw near to Him. We seek Him
because He first seeks us. And the meeting-place is often in the
lowest depths, where we are struggling with weakness and sin or are
sinking under them. At the point where sin leaves us in the dark
ness of shame and despair God in His mercy finds us and is nigh
to help and save.
The most central truth of our religion is just the helpfulness, the
universal and eternal helpfulness, of God. This is the heart of the
religion of the Hebrew poets and prophets. "O Israel, thou hast
destroyed thyself, but in Me is thy help." "In God is my salvation
and my glory, the rock of my strength and my refuge is in God."
This, also, when we put aside aU those strange accretions which
have gathered about it in its passage through the thoughts of men,
is the message of Jesus Christ, to whom God was the eternal shepherd
of souls, who seeks until he finds. It is the message which the Church
has been repeating age after age, clearly or faintly, in differing and
often confusing phrase : God is with us, with us in the deepest depths,
with us in our greatest humUiations, with us in our bitterest shames,
with us in our terriblest sorrow, with us to forgive and save, to
strengthen and comfort.
It is the glory of Jesus Christ that to-day as yesterday he
inspires men who come directly under his influence with this
enthusiasm of faith in the redeeming mercy and love of the
Eternal. To those of us who have been born in Christendom
the hope of the old Hebrew saint in plenteous mercy and redemption,
in infinite resources of saving love and power in the divine nature,
is ours more than ever. The gospel of him who sounded the depths
of human sorrow and sin, who descended to hell in another and truer
sense than is meant in the creed, who went down into the depths
of the world's evU and felt its power, his gospel is a gospel of hope.
What is emphatically his secret is the new and greater trust and hope
in God which he implanted in the minds and hearts of men. His
most central thought concerning human suffering is that it is joy in
the making. His most central thought concerning abounding sin
is more abounding grace, — infinite possibuities of moral recovery
and repair. Men and women! haunted and persecuted by sleepless
memories of passion and faUure and shame, you have no right to

356
despair of yourselves, for that is to doubt God. His love is deeper
than aU the depths of moral evil into which you can sink. The
hope of salvation to the uttermost has ever come to men through
the experience of real and intimate feUowship with God. In aU
lands and ages the men who have stood nearest God have believed
most grandly in His infinite charity and grace. Through him who
said that he was one with the Father has been preached unto the
world the forgiveness of sins. Because God is love, holy and inex
orable love, He must be forever and ever a God who forgiveth sin, —
the infinite giver of a power that makes men better, filling them with
new tempers, new affections, new loyalties, through which the weak
become strong and the bad good, the infinite giver of a power which
takes away sin in the only sense sin can ever be taken away, by mak
ing the sinner hate his sin, turn against it and away from it, and love
and foUow the good.
In recent days we have heard much, perhaps too much, of " Old
Theology" and "New Theology." What is described as the Old
Theology made much of the sense of sin and the need of forgiveness.
It regarded human nature chiefly under the aspect of sinfulness and
guilt. It forgot that human nature is not a simple and single thing,
and that a gospel to commend itself to aU men must be wide as human
need. Its marveUous strength in the days when it was heartily
accepted and believed grew out of its limitations, but these also
were the cause of its weakness and its decay. It provoked a reaction
from which we are at present suffering. Our liberal theology is too
often just as partial and one-sided, faUing to meet the needs with
which the old orthodox presentation of religion chiefly dealt. A
well-meaning religious teacher was speaking on the beauty of good
ness to a gathering of poor people in the slums of a great city. " Your
rope isn't long enough for the likes of us, " shouted one of his hearers.
Now it is not wisdom to think that we have touched bottom because
our plummet has ceased going down. It may only mean that the
soul and life are too deep for our soundings. What is described as
" New Theology" must have muchof the Old Theology in it to enrich
and complete it if it is to satisfy in any real and abiding way the
spiritual needs of men. Sin and forgiveness, reconciliation and union
with God, must not hold in it a secondary place. Its preachers must
have the historic sense, and come not to destroy, but to fulfil. The

357
thought of the immanent God which has become so real and vivid
in our time that it seems to many like a new revelation does not,
wisely understood, lessen our faith in the ever-revealing and ever-
redeeming God. But it is required of religious teachers who would
meet the deepest cravings of humanity not only to believe in the
Divine Immanence, but to have some personal experience of God's
present help and salvation. Saint Augustine teUs us that his chief
reason for writing his imperishable confessions was to praise God
before men for raising him from such depths of sin, " lest any other
might he down and sleep in despair and say, 'I cannot awake.'"
It is stiU preachers who can teU men from their own experience of
the love and mercy and grace of God whom our world most needs.
Of aU men, the preacher must not be weak in faith; he must be no
doubter, no cynic, no pessimist. He must be a great believer in the
great things, also an unconquerable optimist, a man of abounding
hopefulness; for he hves to inspire and diffuse hope, to make men
feel and beUeve that they Uve in a world not under God's wrath and
curse, but under His love and blessing, and that neither life nor
death, northings present nor things to come,wiU be able to separate
them from the Eternal Charity and Care.
When the saintly Quaker, John Woolman, lay on his death-bed,
the feeling, he said, "of the extent of the sin and misery of my feUow-
creatures separated me from the Divine Harmony, and was more
than I could bear. But, in the depths of my distress, I remembered
that Thou, O Lord, art omnipotent, and that I had called Thee
Father; and again I was made quiet in Thy wiU and looked for
deUverance from Thee! " To God we must ever look when there
is darkness without and within. We must not let the sorrow and
sin of the world rob us of our faith and hope. There can be no
such thing as unchanging and persistent evil in the world, for
God is never outside of His world. He is ever indweUing and at
work in His moral as in His physical creation, and present in all
shapes and depths of evU as the infinite spirit of goodness working
for goodness, the everlasting Father and Saviour of men. "O
Israel, hope in the Lord; for with the Lord there is mercy and
plenteous redemption."

35«

DEPARTMENT MEETINGS.

DEPARTMENT OF THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY
OF RELIGION.
Held in Pilgrim HaU, Congregational House, on Tuesday after
noon, September 24. Rev. George A. Gordon, D.D., of Boston,
presiding. The Chairman in a few felicitous words introduced Rev. Gott
fried Schoenholzer, pastor of the New Minster in Zurich, Switzer
land, whose paper was on Martin Luther's historical utterance at
the Diet of Worms. Mr. Schoenholzer's address was delivered in
German, but the translation of it, which foUows, had been distributed
in pamphlet form among the audience, making it easy to comprehend
him.

359

"HERE I STAND. I CANNOT DO OTHERWISE.
MAY GOD HELP ME!"
A True Maxim for Liberal Protestants.
BY REV. GOTTFRIED SCHOENHOLZER, OF ZURICH, SWITZERLAND.
Did Martin Luther actuaUy end his classic reply at the Diet of
Worms on the 18th of April, 1521, with these very words? This
no one can prove, any more than the exact wording of the historic
utterance of GalUeo on the 23d of June, 1633, — " E pur si muove!"
But both expressions represent the situations and utter the thought
of these great thinkers in their greatest moments in an unsurpassable
manner. You may have seen on a May morning a dewdrop lying upon a
dehcate blossom of the spring. It performed the service of a convex
lens, and showed clear and enlarged the finest filaments of the petals
beneath. So, in the early morning of the enthusiasms of a people
for its heroes, myths and legends settle down on the objects of
their admiration, and we are permitted to gaze into depths of soul
which the actual words of these great spirits, spoken under stress
of circumstances, would hardly have revealed to us so clearly. For
this is the deeper sentiment of these devoutly stubborn sons of
God in the greatest hours of their hfe: "Here I stand. I cannot do
otherwise. May God help me!"
The first concern of a reforming spirit is to take a firm stand. So
the great sculptors have represented them. How firmly they are
planted on the fixed base of their convictions, — Luther at Worms
and in the Church of the Protestation in Speyer, Vadian in the
market place of St. GaU, and our own Zwingli in Zurich, with Bible
and sword, gazing afar over his native Alps! The sculptor, in each
case, has known how to express the thought that these heroes possessed
something fundamental on which to base their protest and their
defence. They are all a reproduction of Archimedes with his

36°
famed utterance, "Give me a standing-place and I wiU move the
world!" To merely say no is an easy matter. Children can do that. If
adults exercise this inborn love of negation in a narrrow, one-sided
way in religious, poUtical, or economic affairs, then they act in a
childish manner. The mere love of criticism and negation is
puerile. Young persons and the old war-horses of reform often
find particular pleasure in protesting, in denial. Unless their Nay
is founded on a deeper Yea, before which the defender of the ancient
and loved order of things must bow in acknowledgment, it is nat
ural that he wiU attribute their negations to frivolity or obstinacy.
Often, to be sure, he does not see this Yea, and does not wish to see
it, even if it has long been shining in the souls of those who lead
in the attack. The princes and representatives of cities, who at
the Imperial Diet at Speyer in 1529 raised their protest against
the assumption that the most intimately personal and sacred thing
which a man possesses (namely, his rehgion) should be decided
by a majority vote, — these were called Protestants, in the reproach
ful sense of obstinate deniers. Yet they possessed, hke the ancient
prophets, like Jesus and the Reformers, a mighty Yea as the basis
for their Nay. They, too, could say: "Here I stand. I cannot do
otherwise!" What was then, in aU ages, the firm foundation which
made the true and serious-minded Protestants so irresistible? I
sum it all up in one sentence. It was the inwardly experienced,
directly known, and eternal life of God in their souls, in contrast with
aU temporal forms of mediation, such as the priesthood, a hierarchi
cal church, churchly works, ceremonies, sacraments, the interces
sion of the saints, and the like. All these finite and temporal insti
tutions, caricatures often of the religious life, have the tendency
to flow together and form a substitute for inward and spiritual re
ligion. Therefore, aU protest against Rome culminates in the oppo
sition to its polypiferous nature, so destructive to all national life.
In the degree in which a child of God has forced his way to the
conception of the unmediated character of personal salvation, such
as, for instance, we find expressed in the Beatitudes of Jesus, it
must protest against all this impedimenta of baggage, which burdens
his ethical life and limits his communion with God. Because it
proceeds from what is innermost and best in man, every reUgious

361
protest — that of the Waldenses, the Reformers, of Jesus of Naza
reth — has an elemental and indestructible power. But this only
when its Nay is the reverberation of a stiU grander Yea.
Only the rehgious man is really justified and permanently suc
cessful in making a religious protest. From this point of view much
light is shed upon protests which have failed. By the seventeenth
century much of the Protestant protest had degenerated into dog
matic disputes, and had so lost its power. Also many persons are
Protestants to-day, not from inward conviction, but because of
hatred of the pohtical power of Rome. Their protest is nothing
but an empty beating of the air. Their seeming victories over
Rome wUl soon be annihUated again. Though the Christianity of
the Roman Church is, in our opinion, very much distorted, and of
the earth, earthy, yet in its distortion it is stih a greater power than
the irreligion of many zealous anti-clericals who are not able to
oppose Rome from the firm foothold of an internal religious con
viction. Against this Church, which stiU contains much true re
ligious Ufe, one cannot triumph by means of force, contempt, and
scorn, but solely through a higher and better piety.
But our protest, thus based on an inward and firm conviction, is
not only appUcable to the Church of Rome; it must also be uttered
against the stagnation in the work of the Reformation in our own
Church. One must admit that Protestant Churchmanship has also been
held back, and its progress retarded by the power of habit and of
written and oral tradition.
Here we stand. This we believe, this is our position; that is to
say, "our spiritual Ufe is intended for harmony, and not for dis
sonance. If it is to be weU with us, our inner world of thought and
feeUng must not occupy itself with conceptions which are opposed
to the laws of our reason. Our inventory of beliefs must not be
cut off, like a separate domain, from the knowledge and activity
of our rational powers. It will not do for us to write in one sub
division of our minds, " Christ, entirely and completely human, "
and in the other, " conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin
Mary, sinless, omniscient, and almighty." God meant the spiritual
and the rational in man to go together. The example of Luther
shows how much trouble is caused by trying to tear them asunder.

362
Luther read in Corinthians, as we stiU read to-day: "For as in Adam
aU die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," and in Romans:
"For, as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so
by the obedience of one shaU many be made righteous." This
Luther, in his Bible Commentary, calls an absurd doctrine, one op
posed to reason. That one man should be a substitute for all men,
and that we aU should die or live through the imputed merit of
another, this seemed to him to be senseless. But here it is in the
Scripture; the Scripture is God's word. "Therefore I wiU beUeve
it," Luther said to himself, thus compeUing himself to accept it,
since to doubt would be a sin against God and a rejection of his
explicit revelation. "Therefore, if temptations should again come
to me, if doubts of salvation should arise, I wiU believe the word
of God literaUy and whoUy. He has said it: that decides all. If
he deceives me, I am blessedly deceived. To stand by the literal
text, to close one's eyes to aU else, is the one thing needful. What
Christ in his Sacrament, and Paul in his epistle, which is God's
word, have told us, must be true, even if no human being can under
stand it." Luther went so far that he characterizes objections of
the human reason in these matters as the DevU's work. He heaps
upon this supreme gift of God truly blasphemous abuse. He him
self is brought by this unholy inner contradiction to the verge of
despair. "I was," he tells us, "thrown about in the storms and
floods of despair and blasphemy against God." At the Diet of
Worms, on that great day in his career, he demanded of his op
ponents "just, sound reasons." He appealed to the Scriptures,
but as interpreted by reason and conscience. At other times it
was the Scripture alone to which he assigns the right of deciding the
issue. Such is the fatal inconsequence of the Reformation, which
called into being an inner schism among its foUowers. But here
stand we, the sons of the Reformation. Its inner and fundamental
unity must be preserved. The reason and the sentiments must not
stand opposed to each other. What God hath joined together let
no man put asunder. If in our attitude towards the doctrine of
the Trinity we are Unitarians, we must be such stiU more with
respect to our spiritual powers and potencies. And here we stand;
that is, on the conviction that one law, one all-including order con
trols the course of things. On the acceptance of this truth rests

363
aU our knowledge of the world, aU our scientific understanding of
nature and mind, all education, all our knowledge of man's
place in the universe. The reason in man comprehends the reason
which is in the course of things. The mathematic in us is cognizant
of that in the universal order. This world-order must be an un
broken and eternal one, or it is not order and law. It would throw
the whole economy of the world into confusion if on a single occasion
iron was lighter than water, as is related in Kings vi. 6, or if
once only the sun stood stiU (Joshua x. 13), or if in a single instance
fluid water stood fast before a word, or if a man reaUy dead had,
through a spoken word, or in any other way, come to life again.
For one who is reared in reverence for the Biblical world of miracles
and wonders it is nothing less than a catastrophe to awaken to the
modern conception of the world, a painful "I cannot otherwise,"
but yet a firm "I cannot otherwise." Truth above all!
But what becomes, in all this radicalism, of the conclusion of
Luther's saying, "God help me!" Oh, if we could attain to a joy
ous uplift towards God, to a rock-based belief in God and trust in
him, it would indeed be a splendid declaration, — "Here I stand."
And on such a firm foundation there would be erected a still more
splendid "I cannot do otherwise." WeU, then, let us enter with
courage upon the road to this faith in God. I am. I comprehend
myseU totaUy and briefly in this word J. I am conscious of myself.
This consciousness is to me an immutable, incontestable fact of my
nature. AU other being depends for me on my own being. This
also is for me absolutely established. I think, I am a thinker. I
think myself, and I think the world. Thought is, and without it
nothing exists for me. That which I do not think is nothing for
me. Is it then so preposterous to conceive of an inteUigence which
includes aU being, a thought which comprehends aU existence, which
I wiU caU God? Of what import against this is the objection, "I
have sought with telescope and with microscope through aU the
heavens and the earth, and have nowhere encountered God " ? Is
our most real possession, our spirit, our soul, an object to be sur
veyed through such instruments? Can you prove its existence by
mathematics or the processes of natural science? Not so! We can
prove absolutely nothing about even our own spirit. We can only
experience it. What wonder, then, that we cannot prove the aU-

364
including Spirit. But one cannot bring the shadow of a proof
against this existence of God as a world-embracing spirit. If, then,
both cannot be proved by the usual methods (that is, by experi
ment and dialectic), what is to decide the matter for a rational man?
I think analogy wiU solve it, — the analogy of the human spirit and
its relation with the body of which it is the informing soul. The
one is not like to the other, but omnipresent in the other, the soul
in the body. Even so God is not like unto the world, but is in the
world as its cause, law, and goal. Secondly, a test of the matter
proclaims this. I mean in this way. With the postulate God the
whole world becomes clearer, more inteUigible. If he interpene
trates and inspires it as unitary and perfect order, then I can under
stand that through the ages — if you wiU, through the processes of
descent and development according to Darwin's teaching — spirit
ever manifests itseK. Out of spirit is produced Ufe and the spirit
of man. Without this divine spirit the appearance of Ufe out of
protoplasmic material is for me an insoluble riddle, a piece of
magic. How out of mere mechanism, left to itseh, life could origi
nate, let him understand who can. Only when a chain is affirmed
which winds itself over and around the atoms, and links them to
gether, does there dawn upon us an inteUigible world of Ufe and
spiritual phenomena. This is an assumption which by its reason
ableness and scientific character may well maintain itseh by the
side of a pretentious materialism. The reUgious sentiment — "Of
him and through him, and to him are aU things" (Romans xi. 36);
"In him we live and move and have our being" (Acts xvii. 28) —
is also in the highest degree a scientific affirmation which cannot be
denied. We are stiU more bold, however, we cannot otherwise, we must
go on and speak of a just and holy God, — yes, of a God of love, of a
loving and beloved heavenly Father, to whom we may pray. We
may be told that this is much to include in one affirmation. True,
butwewiU justify our faith, and explain our "Here stand I. I can
not do otherwise."
The higher our standpoint, the more embittered is the attack
made upon us by the champions of the so-called mechanical or
materialistic theory of the world-government. Is not the world
manifestly f uU of injustice ? I recaU aU the social wrongs, the out-

365
rages committed by great nations against weaker ones, the indi
vidual crimes against the Ufe, property, and honor of individuals
Is there not everywhere a discrepancy, in our day no less than in
Job's, between our ideals of justice and the conduct of men, between
their moral desert and their fate? Certainly, he who did not freely
admit this would not be of the truth. But whence comes, amidst
aU these dark happenings, the indestructible Ught of the sense of
justice in man, and his faith that justice must triumph at any cost?
Whence the wondrous power with which the people Israel, with its
faith in a God of justice and righteousness, maintained itseh among
much stronger peoples. Whence the elemental power with which
Jesus' ideal of justice towards children, women, the serving and
suffering classes, has forced its way in the history of mankind down
to the abolition of slavery in America, and beyond this to the impet
uous demands of the social movements of our day? Whence the
disapproval by pubhc opinion of the war of England against the
Boers, and the cruel wrongs visited by Russia upon Finland?
Whence, too, the wide-spread satisfaction in the human mind when
it hears of a single deed of justice? It is because God, who hves
in the conscience of the just, is justice itseh, and has implanted
in our conscience an unimpeachable faculty or sensorium for divin
ing what is right and wrong. God's spirit gives witness in our spirit
that we are his chUdren. In the days when the unrighteous and
insane violence of the dying Roman Empire cried to heaven, God
cahed the greatest teacher of civil rights into action, from whose
classic encyclopaedia of law, the Corpus Juris, the students of social
justice stiU draw their inspirations. Even from the mouth of the
heathen he caUed: "Be not afraid. I, God, am the just and righteous
One amid aU the injustice and waywardness of the world."
And God, furthermore, approves himself to be the Holy One.
But how, then, we are asked, can he permit evil to exist ? How shall
we reconcile with his holiness the presence of sin in the world?
The whole of the manifestation of the ethical life of man (and in this
consists the distinction between the nature of man and that of other
existing creatures) has for its fundamental condition the free choice
between good and evU. Without this possibility there can be no
morality. For this reason there must be offences in the world.
But, Christ teUs us, " woe to him through whom they come !" In this

366
forced choice between good and evil comes to man that command,
"Thou shalt," which is none other than the voice of God in his
conscience. The wages of sin is death, the annihilation of man;
but blessed, in the truest sense, are the pure in heart. Does not
the Holy One announce himself in this condition of man's mind ?
Oh, do not err. God is not mocked. "He who sows to the flesh
shaU of the flesh reap corruption, but he that sows to the spirit
shaU of the spirit inherit eternal life." Even the materialists desire
to hve morally, and train their children according to ideals. But,
more than this, I have an inner proof of experience that God is
just and holy; namely, when in the struggle against passion and
flesh I rise to the freedom of the spirit, I feel myself near to God
(blessed are the pure in heart), and, if I make God's holy wiU my
own, then I not only best fulfil my life purpose, but then aU the
human environment about me feel the better and more deeply
conscious of the purpose of their life. On the other hand, any
departure on my part from the path of duty and right becomes a
serious injustice toward all other men.
The greatest heroes of humanity, before whom all spontaneously
bow in reverence, are those who love, the high-priests of human
sympathy who take into their hearts the joys and sorrows of their
feUow-men. Oh, what a chosen band are these, — Saint Francis of
Assisi, Saint Elizabeth, Saint Vincent de Paul, Hermann Franke,
Pestalozzi, Wichern, Werner, Damien, Bodelschwing, Florence Night
ingale, WiUiam Lloyd Garrison, E. Fry, Dorothea Dix, Lassault, Dr.
Thomas Barnardo, Miss Hobhouse, and others! and in advance of
aU in light and life stands Jesus of Nazareth, over whom is the
Father in heaven, from whom he, the Son of Man, derives his love
and tenderness. " Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, pray for them which revile and perse
cute you." Should you ask from whence these men were inspired
to this incomprehensible folly of loving these unlovable ones, they
would say to you, " From God, who is love itself: it is this which
animates us without ceasing. " Though creatures, plants, animals,
and men destroy one another without remorse, these angels bring
us inteUigence from a higher world. God, the only reaUty, is love.
If I put it to the test, if in this faith I conduct myself towards the
world, then the greatest and divinest is possible to me. The proof

367
is ample. With the God of love for my helper, I can do all. Here
I stand, on the firm basis of this conviction. To this God, who is
spirit, righteousness, holiness, and love, his children in all times
Uft up their hearts in prayer, in sorrow, and in joy, and their prayer
becomes to them a source of strength and peace. In the face of aU
denial of the Godhead, from the sure foundation of the innermost
spiritual experiences of aU ages and lands, they exclaim with
Luther: "Here stand I. I cannot do otherwise. May God help
me!" The Chairman next introduced Rev. Christopher J. Street, M.A.,
of England, who spoke as foUows: —

368

THE RELATION OF CHRISTIANITY TO RELIGION.
BY REV. CHRISTOPHER J. STREET, M.A., LL.B., OF SHEFFIELD,
ENGLAND.
Time was, and that not so long ago, when a title such as I have
announced, would have been hailed with derision by most Christian
people. I can weU remember when it was the fashion to classify "reUgions,"
as they were caUed, into "true" and "false," Christianity being re
garded as the only true religion and aU the rest as false. The con
temptuous pity then expressed for the "heathen" was offensive and
ungenerous, utterly unworthy of the spirit shown by the Master and
the best of his apostles in dealing with the religious susceptibUities of
people who thought not quite as they did. The rebuke to the im
petuous Son of Thunder who wished to call down fire from heaven
to consume the unfriendly Samaritans, and tried to stop the good
work of casting out evU spirits because it was being done by one who
"foUoweth not with us," needed frequent repetition in those days,
and it is not whoUy unnecessary now: "Forbid him not; for he that is
not against you is for you." "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no
man." The narrowness of Peter, before his soul was awakened,
found many imitators, but not the catholic spirit of the enhghtened
Peter, who had gained grace to say: "God hath showed me that I
should not caU any man common or unclean. Of a truth I perceive
that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth
himand worketh righteousness is accepted with him." And the broad-
minded oration of the Apostle of the Gentiles on Mars' HiU might
never have been spoken, so far as the effect on the average Christian
conscience was concerned. " God that made the world and aU things
therein, He, being Lord of heaven and earth, dweUeth not in temples
made with hands, neither is He served by men's hands as though He
needed anything, seeing He himself giveth to aU Ufe and breath and aU
things; and He made of one every nation of men to dweU on aU the

369
face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons and the
bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply
they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from
every one of us: for in Him we Uve and move and have our being;
as certain of your own poets have said, For we are also His
offspring." But the days of that old and objectionable narrowness and spiritual
conceit (which is the worst of all conceits) are past — gone, I trust, for
ever from inteUigent Christianity; and there is better promise to-day
of a return to the pure and unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ than
in any of the generations gone by. AU that is good and true in the
"New Theology" is old as Christianity itseh, and what is mistaken
and foohsh wiU pass away, as all kindred errors have done. But
meanwhUe, let us welcome every bold and earnest prophet, however
we may differ from some of his teaching, so long as he proclaims the
Immanent God and helps to make humanity conscious of its essential
divinity. A Christianity Uke that of Jesus so abounds in charity and sym
pathetic understanding of the greatness of truth and the varied wants
of human hearts that no admonition as to tolerance is necessary.
The more clearly we know, the less we shaU criticise and the deeper
wiU be our understanding. But a narrower Christianity sometimes
meets with a deserved, if gentle, rebuke from one whom it may regard
as a sceptic or agnostic, as when, e.g., Mr. John Morley writes: —
"Tolerance is far more than the abandonment of civU usurpations
over conscience. It is a lesson often needed quite as much in the
hearts of a minority as of a majority. Tolerance means reverence for
aU the possibiUties of Truth; it means acknowledgment that she
dwells in diverse mansions, and wears vestures of many colors, and
speaks in strange tongues; it means frank respect for freedom of
indweUing conscience against mechanic forms, official conventions,
social force; it means the charity that is greater than even faith and
hope." What is it that has made such a sweeping change in the bearing of
the thoughtful portion of the Christian Church toward the non-
Christian manifestations of the reUgious spirit ? Many causes have
undoubtedly contributed to this cheering and satisfactory result. There
has been much natural growth and development from within. The

37°
essential spirit of Christianity has asserted itseU as against aU denomi-
nationalisms and ecclesiasticisms, and made thinking men under
stand that aU humanity is one, and that the Father is always seeking
His children in order that He may save them. But the chief factor
making for this better state of things has been the wealth of new
knowledge about the faith of other peoples which has been poured
upon us — knowledge whose credentials are unimpeachable, coming as
it does from close study given by sympathetic and scholarly minds,
dealing with facts in a purely scientific spirit, and anxious only to
ascertain and announce the truth. For the first time it has been
possible, and is now being generaUy found by thoughtful students to
be desirable, to apply scientific methods and tests to the problems of
rehgious phenomena, as they are presented in countless phases and
forms aU the world over. Thus has grown up the science of Com
parative Religion, and it has become practicable, and most inter
esting and illuminating, to study the various manifestations of the
religious spirit together, enabling us to judge, as never before, of the
degrees of merit in the different systems of faith which humanity
has upreared, and to discern an underlying unity which the dust of
the strife of sectarians has hitherto obscured.
One thing has been made perfectly clear by this new knowledge
and the scientific application of it; namely, that Christianity is one
thing, and Religion is something larger and more comprehensive. It
is no longer possible for the thoughtful man, however devout a Chris
tian he may be, to say or to think that the terms "Christianity" and
"Religion" are synonymous and coextensive. He cannot refuse to
see that much precious ReUgion exists outside of the Christian circle
of influence. He cannot any longer divide "reUgions" into "true"
and "false," for he sees that there is and must be truth in aU. He
cannot even speak, except carelessly, of "reUgions" at aU; for he has
learnt the great and UberaUzing truth that ReUgion is One, though its
manifestations and expressions are fuU of variety. He has come to
see that the Church of God is greater than aU the churches, stands
high above their, dogmatisms and haU-truths, comprehends them
aU in spite of their arbitrary dividing Unes, and even includes multi
tudes whom they have ignored or cast out.
The Church which is truly Catholic comprehends every earnest
worshipper, and excludes no manifestation of reverence, whatever

37i
inteUectual shape it may assume. The spirit of the living God can
never be restrained within ecclesiastical demarcations. Wherever the
human spirit reaches out in aspiration and devoutness, a ready re
sponse of the Divine Nature is found.
I find it easier to define Christianity to my own satisfaction than to
define ReUgion, which is perhaps natural. It is the larger truths that
are hardest to summarize in a phrase. The nearer they approach
infinity, the less possible is it for them to be defined. Christianity is
a particular mamfestation of the rehgious spirit which is common to
aU mankind. It may be simply and fairly defined, I think, as "the
reUgion of Jesus."
But, when it comes to defining Rehgion, the real difficulty begins.
How many books have I opened in hope for guidance in this matter,
only to turn away unsatisfied and disappointed! How many great
teachers, to whom one looks with affection or reverence, have failed
completely in this respect! Religion is "those perceptions of the In
finite which are able to influence the moral character of man," says
Max MuUer. According to Frances Power Cobbe it is "the sense of
absolute dependence, united with the sense of absolute moral alleg
iance; the Being on whom we depend being recognized as possessing
the Right to claim, as weU as the Power to enforce, our absolute obedi
ence." "By ReUgion," says my own beloved teacher, James Marti
neau, "I understand the beUef and worship of Supreme Mind and
Will, directing the Universe and holding moral relations with life."
"The rehgious element first manifests itseU in our consciousness by a
feeUng of need, of want; in one word, by a sense of dependence," says
Theodore Parker, who at the outset of his ministry wrote, "I deter
mined to preach nothing as ReUgion which I had not experienced in
wardly and made my own, knowing it by heart." "ReUgion," says
Professor FUnt, "is man's communion with what he believes to be
a god of gods; his sense of relationship to and dependence on a higher
and mysterious agency, with aU the thoughts, emotions, and actions
which proceed therefrom." Count d'AlvieUa defines it as "the con
ception man forms of his relations with the superhuman and mysteri
ous powers on which he believes himseh to depend." "ReUgion,"
says Bishop Creighton, "means the knowledge of our destiny and of
the means of fulfilling it." Professor Bradley, in his Gifford Lectures
last February, said, "It is an attitude or activity of the whole soul

372
or personality, containing a mode of belief about God and about the
self and the world in our relation to Him, a mode of feeUng concern
ing Him,' a direction of the wiU towards Him, or a union of the wUl
with His wiU, — no one of these alone or merely side by side with the
others." "ReUgion," says Dr. Minot Savage, "is the search for the
secret of life."
None of these definitions satisfy me. My own statement of the
case usuaUy is that Religion is the reaching out of man's spirit to God,
the connecting Unk between earth and heaven. But I realize the
inadequacy of the definition. The one which reaUy commends itself
to me as the most poetical and beautiful is that given at the very end
of H. Fielding HaU's remarkable book, "The Hearts of Men": "Re
ligion is the music of the Infinite echoed from the hearts of men."
The fact of man's religious tendency is a necessary corollary of his
divine origin: the method and extent of its development depend
chiefly on nationality and age. The American, like the Englishman,
is born to be a Christian, the Turk or Arab to be a Mohammedan, the
Burmese to be a Buddhist. Parsee and Jew, Brahman and Shin-
toist, are such because their conditions have made them what they are.
But each expresses religion in his own way; and, whatever his form of
faith, his fervor and zeal, his sincerity and devoutness are equaUy
manifest. A man's religion is his most priceless possession. There
is nothing he wiU not sacrifice for it when it has got a real hold of him.
There is a strong enthusiasm felt somewhere for every form of reUgion;
and the strange thing is that the enthusiasm of one phase of it usuaUy
scorns the enthusiasm of every other.
AU religion comes to meet a deep human need: it springs from the
fountains of the heart and wells up in strong waves of feeUng. When
reUgious susceptibilities are touched, all is Emotion, — a sufficient
warning that Reason alone, invaluable gift of God as it is, is not
enough to meet human needs. Rehgion may be divorced from
reason, and, alas! it often is; but unspeakably beautiful is the perfect
combination and harmony of Reason and Emotion, blending in perfect
expression of the deepest wants of the soul. Faiths are buUt up from
feeling, but they need to be guided and controUed by inteUigence
before they can stand the test of true worth. There is no such stimu*
his to hfe as religion. It intensifies a man's power over himseU and
..ver others. It transforms and dignifies the whole nature.

^B
¦lA'Aii
PROF. MARTIN RADE, D.D.
Marburg, Germany
PROF. OTTO PFLEIDERER, D.D.
Berlin, Germany
REV. MAX. FISCHER, D.D.
Berlin, Germany
PROF. RUDOLF EUCKEN, D.Phil.
Jena, Germany
373
It is clear gain when our minds are sufficiently broadened to enable
us to reahze that no reUgion is false, however inadequate it may seem
to us; that no idolatry in itseh is wicked, but simply an incomplete
and childish attempt to express the worshipping spirit; that no doctrine
of theology is untrue, merely an imperfect guess at the truth. Our
own favorite doctrines are nothing more; and never a man was born
who knew, or could know, the whole trutn of God. Some of our
worship is perchance idolatry, too. Certainly, it would seem so to men
who approach God in other ways. The reUgion which we love with
aU our hearts appears to earnest and thoughtful men, born and reared
under other influences, to be pernicious and fataUy false; yet we know
that it is not so, any more than their own faith is without beauty and
truth to support it. "Every religion," says Max MiiUer, "even the
most imperfect and degraded, has something that ought to be sacred
to us, for there is in all reUgions a secret yearning after the true,
though unknown, God. Whether we see the Papuan squatting in
dumb meditation before his fetich, or whether we hsten to Firdusi
exclaiming, 'The height and the depth of the whole world have their
centre in Thee, O my God: I do not know Thee what Thou art, but
I know that Thou art what Thou alone canst be,' we ought to feel
that the place whereon we stand is holy ground."
It is simply a question of degree between one form of faith and
another, between one phase of reUgion and another, and each must
stand the fair test of comparison. Jesus must be measured with the
founders of other world systems ; our Bible must take its place beside
the other Bibles of the world; the best wiU plead its own cause. No
thunder-voice from Sinai is necessary to proclaim, "This is the Word
of God." H it is a divine word, it wiU speak for itseh and make its
influence felt. No mighty miracle is needed to proclaim the divine
appointment and commission of the prophet: his preaching wiU make
it plain. The Saviour of the world requires no herald angels: he wiU
save, — the best proof of his divine warrant.
Only in Ml and open comparison with other faiths wiU the beauty
of the best appear. Whosoever is convinced of the supreme dignity
of his own Lord and Master need fear no rivalry with any other:
rather wiU he court comparison. Indeed, between the founders and
leaders of faith there would and could be no rivalry: they were each
developing the best thought and Ufe of their own age and race. The

374
rivalry has arisen among the disciples, unable to rise to the height of
their Master's spiritual teaching, and diverting attention from the
things that reaUy matter to the things that are of Uttle moment. The
true value of a Religion or a Bible, or a Christ wiU only emerge when
they are honestly compared with aU other claimants for our regard
and veneration.
No, the conflicts and jealousies have not been among the masters,
but among the foUowers, who have too often been mere camp-fol
lowers. Men have wrangled about religion, and lost hold of the
religious spirit in doing so. They have eagerly cast each other out of
the synagogue, and denied to the heathen and the heretic the very
name of Religion; but their foohsh and bigoted denials have not
altered facts. There is, after all, but One Religion, and that is the
upward striving of the human soul towards the Divine, whether it
recognizes it to be such or not. There is much unconscious reUgion
in the world, happily. Perhaps the more unconscious it is, the better:
it wiU not be spoilt by seU-laudation. The mamfestations of that
Divine Leading which we term Religion are innumerable and bound
less in variety.
Surely, it gives us a higher view of God when we are generous (or
shaU we say just and sensible ?) enough to realize this larger truth. Is
it not glorious gain to feel that no age or race has been left without
contact and communion with the Most High? The vision has been
proportioned to the capacity for sight: the word has been appro
priate to the immediate need. James RusseU LoweU most aptly
expresses the great truth which the science of Comparative Religion
is making clear to the world when he says: —
"God sends His teachers unto every age,
To every clime, and every race of men,
With revelations fitted to their growth
And shape of mind, nor gives the realm of Truth
Into the selfish rule of one sole race:
Therefore each form of worship that hath swayed
The life of man, and given it to grasp
The master-key of knowledge, reverence,
Enfolds some germs of goodness and of right;
Else never had the eager soul, which loathes
The slothful down of pampered ignorance,
Found in it even a moment's fitful rest."

375
There is not less devoutness among the Brahmans or Mohamme
dans than we can find in our companies of Christian believers:
does God think less of their worship and reverence than of ours?
The ethical theism of the Jew is as firm and strong to-day as it was
in the splendid prophets who redeemed his race from mere cere
monialism and lip-service: is it less acceptable to the Infinite Good
ness than the tribute of virtue and service offered in the name of
Christ? NaturaUy, we love our own best: we believe our own faith
to be the highest possible, or we should not hold it; but we must
be appreciative and sympathetic to the spiritual strivings of others
who are no less sincere than we endeavor to be.
What matters it that some faiths seem still to be in their infancy or
early childhood ? It is a phase through which the highest and best-
developed have had to pass before they attained to the glory of full-
grown manhood. AU religion probably began in fear, displaying
itseh first in a desire to placate the higher powers, to get them on the
side of the worshipper rather than against him. What then? "The
fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and only the beginning.
It was a chUd's motive that swayed the primitive worshipper, no
doubt: it is often no more than a child's motive which prompts the
Christian worshipper to-day. But the child wiU become a man, and
put away childish things; and we shall not help his development by
sneering at him or chiding him, or turning him out of the worshipping
assembly or refusing to accept his tribute as religion at aU. Not such
was the attitude of Jesus, nor is it the right attitude for his modern
disciples, who have the less excuse for narrowness because to them
an ampler knowledge of God has been vouchsafed. God is revealing
himself to our generation as never before. The pity of it, if we wiU not
accept the vision, and understand the majestic truth that He is, and
has ever been, within the heart and life of aU His humanity!
And a higher and truer view of humanity itself comes to us when,
in view of the facts presented by the study of Comparative Religion,
we come to see that man, always and everywhere, is the child of God,
dear to the Father's heart and with a spark of heavenly fire within.
AU through the history of mankind there has been the Divine appeal;
and graduaUy, with growing appreciation of its mystic meaning, has
come the human response. The Divine Nature unceasingly caUs to
that which in rising man is akin to itseh: Human Nature, very slowly

376
and in stumbUng fashion, learns its opportunity and abihty, and
painfuUy reaches up to the Divine. And so the story of the world is
written, — "a blundering quest for God," if you wiU, but not in the
sense that Mr. R. J.CampbeUused the phrase, — a progressive develop
ment of human power and possibility, a nearer approach to the divine
intention and wiU. Religion is the LmpeUing power, the stimulus, the
kindling fire. And, as F. W. Newman wisely said, "True reUgion
wages no abstract war against any part of man, but gives to each part
its due subordination or supremacy, and breathes sweetness and
purity through aU."
Christianity itseh becomes a richer, larger, more generous thing
when this more cosmopolitan view of religion is taken. The latest
census of the British Empire indicates that King Edward has in Asia
more than 300 miUions of subjects, in America 7 J mUlions, in Africa
about 43 miUions, in Australasia over 5 miUions, and in Europe over
42 miUions. Classifying these broadly as regards reUgious faith,
there are only 58 miUions of Christians in the King's dominions, as
against 208 miUions of Hindus, 94 millions of Mohammedans, 12
millions of Buddhists, and 23 miUions of Parsees, Jews, and others,
including some very primitive manifestations of the religious spirit.
That is to say, that only one in seven British subjects is Christian of
any kind.
These figures may be open to some chaUenge, but they are not
Ukely to be very seriously wrong, and they should give us pause for
reflection. After personal contact with the cultured and devout
Hindu or Moslem and too frequent and painful association with
shaUow dogmatists who take the Christian name, but seldom use their
brains to think or their hearts to be charitable, it ceases to be a wonder
that the contemplative Hindu is repelled by the ignorant claims and
practices of an offensive Christianity, or that the sober and honest
Turk is disgusted with the unworthy Christians of the Levant. Of
course, it is not the Christianity that is to blame for this unfortunate
repulsion, but the shameful perversion of Christianity which is made
into a constant object-lesson for them. So we are not to judge the
religion of the Koran or of the Vedas by the degenerate types often
presented to us. Each form of religion must be judged by its best
expression; and then it is wonderful, soul-piercing, how much alike
they are in the great essentials. There is more community of thought

377
and spirit between the best of Christianity and the best of Islam or
Buddhism than between the best and worst of Christianity. There
is more sympathy between the authors of "Contentio Veritatis" and
the leaders of the Brahmo-Somaj of India than between them and the
devotees of the debased superstition of the Greek Church. Ram-
mohun Roy and Ramakrishna, Keshub Chunder Sen and Protap
Chunder Mozoomdar, are nearer in faith and feeUng to any Liberal
Christian than is the head of a Jesuit CoUege or the Catholikos of
the Armenian Church or even the humble Plymouth Brother. We
must not be the deluded creatures of a name.
This comprehensiveness of view, this generosity of recognition of
rehgion as the human attempt to reach the Divine, wiU not interfere
with our private interpretation of the great principles for which
historic Christianity has stood, or diminish our loyalty to it in the
least. But the principles wiU be amplified beyond our earUer thought :
we shah see that our faith was greater than we knew. Do you ask,
Where is the place left for Revelation ? Ask rather where that place
is not. God has always been reveahng himself to those who were able
to see the marks of His presence. Has Inspiration gone, do you ask?
Have you not learnt that it began when man was yet in his infancy,
and wiU remain as a growing influence through the whole of his adult
life? What becomes of the Incarnation, think you? Does the
Divine Indwelling in Jesus, then, become any the less true orsignificant
if you also admit that God was in Buddha and Zoroaster, and in the
Bab, and that His spirit is present to a greater or less extent in us aU?
Does not the larger outlook make it seem more than ever true that we
are the temple of the Living God, that the Spirit of God dweUeth in
us, and that the temple of God is holy, which temple we are?
ReUgion is no private demesne, but a pubUc garden, wherein every
man may walk freely, gather rosebuds that wiU not wither, and taste
of fruits neither forbidden nor disappointing. Christianity, as it was in
Jesus, is the choicest portion of that wonderful garden where the sun
shines brightest and the flowers smeU sweetest. Yet every avenue
leads to some desirable goal, every meadow attracts some straying
foot, every bank has its restful invitation, every tree its meed of welcome
shade. Throughout the garden the loving care and touch of the great
Master Gardener are everywhere seen, and His welcome is felt by each
timid visitant wherever he may wander. And the heart of every

378
honored and understanding guest beats responsive to that of his
Master. In His name an ungrudging greeting is given to aU who,
from the dusty highways and busy thoroughfares of worldly life, find
entrance into the grateful garden of the Lord.
At the close of these addresses an interesting discussion took place.
Rev. G. Schoenholzer criticised incidentahy the " antiquated liturgies "
he had found in use, even in Unitarian churches, in this country.
Professor Dr. Francis G. Peabody, of Harvard University, main
tained that the renaissance of rational religion must be accompanied
and guided by a rational theology, the need of thinking men in a
thinking age. Professor Dr. George F. Moore made some friendly
criticisms on Rev. Mr. Street's paper, and upheld the claims of Chris
tianity as a Universal Religion. Rev. W. G. Tarrant, of London,
and Miss Mary Richmond, of New Zealand, also made brief remarks.
It is to be regretted that these informal addresses were not reported.
The papers which follow were read at other meetings of the Con
gress, but are inserted here, since by their topics and treatment they
belong to this department.*
Professor Dr. Rudolf Eucken, of the University of Jena, Germany,
unable to appear in person, sent the paper he had prepared for the
Congress, which was read by Rev. Charles W. Wendte.
*To complete the contribution made at this Congress to religious history and philosophy, the
notable papers of Professors Pfleiderer, Montet, and Revs. Gordon, Bowie, Cope, Webster, Andre1,
and others, printed elsewhere in this volume, should be included.

379

WHAT DOES A FREE CHRISTIANITY REQUIRE
IN ORDER TO BECOME VICTORIOUS?
BY PROFESSOR RUDOLF EUCKEN, DR. PHIL., UNIVERSITY OF JENA.
In the development and advocacy of a free Christianity much
inteUectual power is enUsted, many eminent persons have dedicated
their hfe-work to this cause, and indisputably, in the domain of
knowledge, this movement is in the lead to-day. In society consid
ered as a whole, however, and in the shaping of general conditions,
it is stiU strongly in the minority. Here it must still struggle hard
for the recognition of its right to exist. Between its enrolment of
inteUectual abiUty and its acceptance by mankind there is still a
great disproportion. What can be done to lessen this disparity?
What can we on our part contribute to make a free Christianity
victorious ?
The question may be approached from different points of view.
The philosopher may be permitted to set aside aU considerations of
a practical and poUtical nature, and to Umit himself whoUy to its
inward aspects, its inteUectual and spiritual content. We wiU ask
what may occur in the inner development of our movement to bring
us nearer the desired goal. We shaU, in so doing, have to exercise
some self-criticism, and have to acknowledge much in our under
takings as crude and immature. But such an honest self -scrutiny,
based as it is on a firm faith in our own good right to be, should be
more useful to our cause than a self-satisfied optimism, than to claim
as completed that which is still in the midst of work and flow.
Whatever treatment we may purpose giving certain problems in
the course of our inquiry, all alike are subject to one general con
sideration. We who strive for a freer form of religion and of
Christianity too often content ourselves with mere criticism and
negation. We do not work out sufficiently the positive element
in our convictions, and because of this we incur the danger of

38o
not giving the matter the fuU depth of which it is capable, and
hence of not imparting to men the irresistible power and glow
which a rehgious movement of grand style demands. It is, indeed,
impossible for us to refrain from energetic criticism and denial. We
have, first, to make a pathway for ourselves. We feel ourselves in
many respects unsatisfied with the form in which rehgious truth
has been presented. In such a case aU endeavors to veil from
sight existing conditions are an evil. Our Yea cannot be clear
and effectual if it does not bear within it a distinct Nay. But
this Nay, indispensable as it is, must not hold us captive. Neither
now or ever should we remain a mere movement in opposition. For
in aU times it was the positive affirmation which was decisive and
constructive. The more we make it apparent that our convictions
are able to lead on with positiveness, and to confirm and deepen
the life of man, the sooner we may hope for an effective influence
on mankind, and the more perfect wiU be our victory.
From this point of view let it be shown by certain instances that
while the desire for a free Christianity in some of the demands it
is compeUed to make is accompanied by no sUght dangers, it yet
bears within itself the abihty to overcome these dangers and to turn
them to the good.
i. The first point of coUision with the old school of thought con
cerns the place and worth of the individual. We demand more
freedom, more self-determination, a more characteristic testimony
on the part of the individual. We ask this not only because without
it nothing new can develop and persist. We require it, above aU,
because it belongs to the fuU inwardness and full sincerity of Ufe,
such as a religion of the spirit must demand. But at the same time
we do not conceal from ourselves the compUcation which can arise
from such a strengthening of the individual. The individual may
sever himself, as far as possible, from aU his connections, and think
himself aU the greater the more he places himself in opposition to
them. He can make prominent this differentiation, and thus exer
cise a repeUent influence. Very easily the rank growths of reflection
and the subjective reason may choke the capacity for positive pro
duction. In such a case the emphasis laid upon individuahsm wUl
tend to mere negation and dissolution. There is danger that Ufe
wiU be broken into splinters, and disintegrate into innumerable

38i
separate and distinct circles. Easily, then, those may turn against
each other who ought mutuaUy to support each other. Who would
dispute that the movement for a freer development of reUgion has
often had as a consequence such manifestations ? But we emphati-
caUy deny that it stands helpless in the face of such dangers or that
it cannot, of its own power, overcome them. For these dubious
and wrong-headed consequences did not arise from the fact that
the movement was originated by the individual, but rather from
this, that it did not think greatly enough of the individual; that it
stood fast before bis first appearance, his proximate existence, instead
of pursuing it into those depths where inner connections become
evident in the individual and hft him above mere nature. This
distinguishes man as a spiritual being, that here the separate Ufe
elements do not merely come in contact with each other externally,
but that they inwardly unite in a common world, and that the infini
tude of that world is able to be present at every single point. It
is just this which distinguishes the individualism of mere nature
from the spiritual personahty. The spirit-fiUed personaUty, thus
rooted in an inner world, by no means rejects aU bonds. It only
rejects the bonds that are laid upon it from without. It reinforces,
on the other hand, the bond which conjoins it with an invisible order.
Such a bond is best to be reconciled with freedom, for the latter is
not possible without our recognition and appropriation of the superior
powers (Normen). Luther grounded his inmost conviction on this
direct, unmediated relation with God, and at the same time placed
this interior faith in opposition to aU external authority. Was he
not bound in every deeper issue of his life by this presence of the
Divine within him, more strongly bound than was possible by any
dogmas and institutions imposed from without? Has not Protest
antism, through its intensifying of personal responsibility imbued life
far more with moral earnestness? So Kant sought to ground
moraUty purely and solely in man's own nature, but at the same
time man grew to him to be the bearer of an "inteUigible" world.
No one can say of him, the philosopher of the idea of duty, that he
in any sense weakened moraUty by this direction towards "auton
omy." Only he who denies an inner world, and its presence in
the soul of man, can dispute the position which a free Christianity
assigns to the individual as a spirit-fined personality.

382
2. We cannot summon the individual to a greater independence
and more vigorous development without demanding also for reUgion
and Ufe a more perfect transposition of their content into one's own
characteristic thinking, without requiring more spiritual iUumina-
tion, more individual examination and decision. The personahty
aroused to self-activity cannot, must not, credulously and compU-
antly accept that which tradition and authority present to it. It
must insist upon a justification and basis for that which is to rule
over it. Hence we demand for reUgion, in the second place, an
intensifying of inteUectual activity. In making this demand, we know
ourselves to be at one with the characteristic trait of modern times
which conceives of hfe more from the standpoint of thought, elevates
conceptions, ideas, principles, to an hitherto unknown importance,
comprehends life more in its totahty, and bases the visible world
on an invisible one.
But we do not fail to recognize the dangers of such an increase of
inteUectual movement, and that these may render problematical
aU gains from this source. There can be no effort after knowledge
without the arousing of doubt and uncertainty, without the danger
that knowledge shaU detach itself from the rest of life, set itseh in
opposition to it, and seek to produce by its own power alone what
it can only accompUsh in union with the others. During the past cen
tury we have often seen knowledge claim to be the whole of life.
Sometimes it would deem itself able to take no account of facts and
circumstances, and to create a reahty solely by its speculative power.
At other times it believed that by merely reconstructing and vividly
reaUzing historic facts it could give a content to hfe. Knowledge
has often, in reUgion as in aU else, evaporated the essence of life.
In place of quickening truths we received only pictures and shadows.
No department of life suffers more under such perversion than re
Ugion, which would open to us a new world and lift us above all
human littleness.
But, again, the responsibility for this error lies not in the matter it
self, but in man. It lies not in knowledge itself, but in a mistaken
employment of knowledge. It is precisely when knowledge thinks
greatly of its mission and would press forward beyond aU sub
jective reflection to genuine truth, that it must seek wider connec
tions, must place itself at the service of an inward compulsion and

3»3
need, and eventually arrive at the acceptance of basic realities
which indeed may be illuminated, but cannot be derived. This is
especiaUy true of the truths with which religion concerns itself.
For in it aU the manifoldness of phenomena is ultimately traced
back to the fundamental reaUty that a higher world attains to a
Uving present in the sphere of the human. The demonstration and
development of this fact here controls all inteUectual processes.
If, then, in opposition to the old teaching we free Christians make
a larger demand upon the thinking powers, it can only be because
this underlying reahty is to be brought nearer to us by intellectual
endeavor, is to be inwardly iUuminated and comprehended in its
entirety. By no means would we dissolve it into mere concepts and
doctrines. Thus understood, thinking wiU not evaporate the con
tent of reUgion. It wiU deepen it and clearly disclose its spiritual
nature. In so doing it wiU first bring it to fuU efficiency and reveal
its fruitfulness for the whole of hfe.
3. With the emancipation of the individual and the more vigorous
development of the thought-side of reUgion, Ufe, for us, is trans
formed more into our own personal activity, and hence must seem
to us more significant and worthy. From this point of view a dif
ferent attitude towards Ufe, a different valuation of human existence
and capacities wiU be developed than are contained in the traditional
types of ecclesiastical religion. The latter is strongly inclined to
deny man aU individual abiUty, and to picture him in as dark tints
as possible. It often deems itself the more pious, the more it degrades
man, the stronger it turns to the Ught aU that is low and base in
him. At the same time the total impression of human Ufe becomes
more and more gloomy and forbidding. It seems preponderatingly
to be the sport of unreason. The world is eventually conceived as
a vale of sorrow and tears from which alone the hope and expecta
tion of a world beyond can rescue us. Such a frame of mind may
be comprehensible and justifiable for particularly troubled and dark
epochs in history, such, for instance, as the downfaU and dissolution
of antiquity; but to bind mankind for aU subsequent times to it,
this we, who think more freely, refuse to do for various reasons
which conduce to the pecuhar interest of reUgion. We reject it
because some faith in our own personal abiUty and the worth of our
actions is indispensible for the full arousing of our powers. We

3»4
reject it, further, because we would not make of reUgion merely a
source of consolation for the sick and weak, but require of it also
an elevation and ennoblement of our positive and creative activity.
We reject it finally because, with such a conception of its nature
reUgion cannot attain to formative influence in the greater concerns
and entirety of life, or become a world-power. Easily enough
a relapse of mankind into this depressed and gloomy frame may
make Ufe unreal or only half real. In contradiction to it we demand
a manly, vigorous and joyous Christianity. Such alone will prove
equal to the attacks of its opponents, who at the present day assaU
it with peculiar energy.
But this demand for a more vigorous and joyous attitude in Ufe
is attended with many dangers. It may especiaUy lead to super
ficiality of Ufe and to the weakening of its reUgious character if
it be believed that this change of front towards the positive in religion
is possible without a transformation of man himself and without
the gain of a new world. The reaction against the depressed and
sorrowful mood to which reference has been made has often begotten
an easy-going optimism, which dwelt especiaUy on the bright side
of Ufe and put out of sight as much as possible its compUcations
and conflicts. We cannot elucidate here how many general consid
erations gainsay such an optimism. That it cannot be reconcUed
with reUgion, and especially not with the Christian reUgion, does
not admit of a doubt. For, if the world as it presents itself to us
is sufficient and satisfactory, or if its problems receive their full solu
tion through the natural course of things, what need is there of re
Ugion, what need of a new world and a reconstruction of Ufe?
Therefore, a free Christianity cannot decisively enough spurn any
identification with this superficial optimism. It must sharply dif
ferentiate from it its own striving for a more vigorous and joyous
shaping of life. Nothing has done more harm to the freer attitude
of the mind in religion than this, that it seemed to take the problems
and conflicts of human existence less seriously than did the old school
of thought.
In truth, this striving for more vigor and more joy may
be fuUy maintained with any approximation to a naturalistic
optimism. Religion ever ultimates in the affirmation of Ufe, espe
ciaUy Christianity, which came as a glad tidings from the king-

385
dom of God to mankind. But this is the difference — and it is a
difference of the greatest importance — that this affirmation is not
a necessary attribute of Ufe itself, but can only be mediated by a
thorough overturn, only through the institution of a new Ufe. This
new element, however, is not a work of mere man, but the manifesta
tion of a superior order. How, indeed, could the desire for such
a revolution arise if the existing conditions did not appear to be not
only deficient in this or that respect but also inadequate in their
totahty? Hence the Yea of which reUgion is the advocate contains
also an emphatic Nay. Yes, it first attains to fuU power through
the contrast afforded by the Nay. It wiU, therefore, ever keep in
mind this Nay, and in this way wiU remain sharply differentiated
from the unconditional affirmation of Ufe which characterizes opti
mism. But precisely because this new Yea does not rest on the
capacity of man alone but is upborne by aU the powers of a new
world, it can inspire man, in incomparably higher fashion than the
optimism referred to, with courage and joyousness of heart.
4. Wherever, in this way, Ufe in its religious aspects preserves
a positive character, reUgion wiU also be able to enter into a more
friendly relation with the age to which it belongs. It wiU not look
upon a conflict with its age as normal and unavoidable, as the older
school of thought has accustomed itself to believe during the last
few centuries. This ancient system was formulated in a time far
distant from us and entirely different in kind. The form it then
assumed can only be perpetuated by a flat contradiction of the
development of hfe in modern times. This makes it prone to see
in the latter more especiaUy the problematical and mistaken, and to
exercise upon its doings and faUures to do a cold and unfriendly
criticism. But he who cannot hve in and with his age, who is not
able to enter into its inner purpose and striving, cannot gain any
large influence upon it. He must not be surprised if he is treated
by his time as though he were a stranger and is thrust into the back
ground as much as possible. But how can such an isolation content
a reUgion which aspires to influence the whole of human life, to
elevate man's spiritual nature in its entirety and to strive for a
kingdom of God on earth ?
Again, however, great dangers confront us upon the way we recog
nize as necessary. If the demand is made that reUgion must

386
simply accommodate itself to its time and fashion itself according to
the demands of the age, then rehgion wiU lose aU independence
and be unable to preserve its most characteristic quaUties. It wiU
foUow its age in aU its transformations until it degenerates at last
into a mere matter of fashion. This consideration is strengthened
by the peculiar character of our new era. Whatever great attain
ments the present age has arrived at by intensifying man's con
sciousness of power and directing his endeavors to the compre
hension and control of the world, it cannot be said to possess a
distinctively religious character. Its attitude towards religion is
rather that of a stranger — yes, even an enemy. Hence it would
imply a surrender of rehgion to this hostile power if it were simply
to follow the dictates of its time.
But must a more friendly relation between rehgion and its time
be necessarily sought at the expense of reUgion? Is there not a
way of reconcihation on the basis of the independence of rehgion?
The dilemma may be solved if in rehgion we distinguish between
its spiritual substance and the form it assumes among men, and
simultaneously hold apart in the time in which we hve the daily
doing of men and its higher spiritual content. Essential to the
nature of reUgion is the possession of a truth which is above aU
considerations of time. ReUgion has a fixed and enduring character
only when it displays a hfe pecuUar to itseh, — a life which maintains
itself against aU the transformations of time and is capable of influ
encing all ages with superior power. But greatly as this superior
life with its fundamental verities overtops aU human abiUty, its
fuU possession and development man can only gain by his own
endeavor and struggles. That he is able to do this, that within
the bounds of time he is able to appropriate more and more the
eternal, this is what gives to the movement of history its real interest
and value. This fuU appropriation, however, can only occur in
closest union with the entire, world-historic activity of mankind.
This activity is more than an ebb and flow of human opinions and
moods. There are fulfiUed in it disclosures of spiritual life. The
picture of the world grows clearer, man becomes master of his envi
ronment, he puts more reason into social life and grows in soul
power. AU these things together yield, for every age, a state of
spiritual activity which is superior to the arbitrary wiU of man.

387
If reUgion, then, would operate powerfuUy and effectively upon
mankind, its doctrines and forms must correspond to this higher
spiritual state. So far as our new time is more particularly con
cerned, the mighty changes it has wrought in the inteUectual Ufe
of man are apparent, and he must despair of any manifestation of
reason in history who should attempt to explain aU these changes
as the bungling work, the mere delusion, or perchance the malignity
of man. But, if reUgion, thus interpreted, has its justification, then
it can only be of service to reUgion to fully recognize this and to
seek a closer relation with its age. Whatever religion may contain of
eternal truth wiU, by this connection, gain greater force and impres-
siveness. Incomparably better, in such a case, wiU reUgion be
enabled to bring the age to its own deeper life, to separate in it the
true and the false, the abiding and the transitory, and to coUect and
strengthen whatever of truth and permanence in its day strives up
ward. We shah thus serve reUgion if, while upholding its inde
pendence, we ally it more closely with its age.
5. AU the considerations hitherto enumerated co-operate with
each other to change the position of religion towards Ufe in its en
tirety. The older school of thought is wont to set off religion sharply
from every other form of attestation, and to attribute to religion
alone an independent worth, while treating all else as merely inci
dental, — yes, as indifferent. But this awakens serious misgivings
in us who hold more modern opinions. For one thing, the other
departments of life wiU resist such an underrating of their claims,
and in retaliation be easily induced to turn a harsh front towards
reUgion. On the other hand such a separation inevitably does
harm to the content of reUgion itself, and incUnes it to deteriorate
into a too subjective frame of mind. Finally, through such a
separation Ufe as a whole does not attain to an adequate unity
and power. AU these things together, therefore, dictate a closer
alUance of religion with the rest of Ufe.
But this alliance has its pecuUar difficulties. In attempting such
a connection reUgion encounters no small dangers. She does not
seem justified in simply placing herself side by side with the other
interests of Ufe. She must be more than these if she is not to sink
below them and suffer ultimately the loss of her self-dependence.
For these other interests possess in human action their characteristic,

388
clearly defined domain. The very necessities of existence compel
us to admit — as in the case of science, pohtics, etc. — their right and
importance. Religion, on the other hand, has no assured home in
this visible world and no external compulsion forces men to espouse
her cause. Hence it may easily happen to her as it did to SchiUer's
poet, who found the world aheady apportioned. The experience
of history also shows that wherever reUgion became a mere factor
of the general culture it was not able to preserve for itself an inde
pendent position, but soon deteriorated to a feeble and vague senti
ment. Extraordinary conditions must be postulated if reUgion is to be
more closely allied to the whole of Ufe without, in so doing, losing
its unique significance. But so, in truth, it is. Our human life
is not a work of peaceful construction, according to an assured plan,
on a foundation already laid, but is fuU of problems, — yes, conceived
as a whole it is the most difficult of all problems. Evolved from
nature man is to rise to a new and higher level, to the world of the
spirit. But not only is his own ability too weak for such a task,
his very inclination cleaves to that which is low, — yes, there is danger
of an entire perversion in which the higher shaU itself be drawn
into servitude to the lower. From such a moral complication man
can only be freed, and culture can only become a real spiritual cult
ure, if man is Ufted above his own ability and transplanted
into a new order of life free from such entanglements and restric
tions. It is reUgion which represents this complete overturn and
makes it fully effectual. In her alone this conflict, and also its
victorious issue, come to their complete expression and develop
ment. In this reUgion is charged with a unique mission, without
whose fulfilment the whole of Ufe is arrested. In her it first assumes
the form of a movement from the whole to the whole. In her the
two realms are first clearly distinguished. Through the opening
of the new world which reUgion makes possible to us the whole of
Ufe is estabUshed, enlarged, and made more inward, and these in
fluences are extended as well to aU its special departments. But, if
reUgion thus becomes the inmost soul, the elevating power of Ufe,
it wiU not manifest itself as something exceptional, but even in the
development of its own characteristic quaUty wiU retain its relation
to the whole. Religion makes clearly apparent that its structure

3»9
is not so simple as it appears to those who would make all the depart
ments of Ufe subsist side by side on one common level.
Let us now look back for a moment. Point upon point we saw
the demand for a free Christianity create new problems. Point
upon point we convinced ourselves that the handling of these prob
lems is fuU of danger, and that to fall behind the demands of the
situation may lead to a weakening of religion — yes, to an approach
to mere naturaUsm. At the same time, however, we also saw that
a free Christianity is by no means delivered over defencelessly to
such aberrations, but can, of its own strength, fully overcome them.
It only needs to press forward everywhere beyond the Nay to the
Yea, to hold fast to the latter and bring it to fuU acceptance. Every
movement towards freedom is, under existing human conditions,
exposed to the danger that many shall beUeve themselves one with
it who do not understand freedom in the positive sense as an uplift
ing of the life to spontaneity, self-dependence, and self-responsi
bility, but look upon it negatively as a mere removal of constraint.
This negative view wiU never be able to maintain itself against the
opposition, — yes, wiU ever be inwardly dependent on and subject
to the latter. But we saw how, in the domain of religion, freedom
is also capable of a direction to the positive; how, point by point,
it makes our tasks not less but greater, and summons our whole
being to an elevation of spirit. Let us, therefore, leave behind us
aU that is merely negative; let us definitely break with aU which,
springing from the tendencies of our time would depreciate the con
tent and power of religion. Thus we shall make it evident that
our desire for freedom in no way contradicts the depth and potency
of reUgion but that this depth and power can only attain through
freedom its fuU disclosure. For then, despite aU hindrances, we
shaU win the victory!

39°

REMONSTRANTISM AND THE REMONSTRANT
BROTHERHOOD.
BY PROFESSOR H. Y. GROENEWEGEN, D.D., OF LEIDEN.
(Read at the Plymouth Session of the Congress.)
It is the first time, I think, that the Remonstrant Society or
Brotherhood has been publicly discussed on American soil. I am
grateful to the Committee of the Congress for inviting me to do this.
Many of you wiU scarcely have heard the name before, and wiU
have been a little astonished that the attention of this international
meeting is to be drawn to a not very extended religious organization
in HoUand of exclusively local importance. And the theologians
among you, who, of course, know the name of the famous Leiden
professor, James Arminius, and have heard about his resolute pro
test against Calvinistic dogmatism, will perhaps have asked if the
old dogmatic question of predestination is not rather obsolete, and if
that violent struggle between Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants
which once convulsed Church and State in HoUand has not become
to-day of only historical interest.
I should not be bold enough to caU your attention to the body that
delegated me to this Congress and to the religious movement it has
represented during nearly three centuries if they had not a special
and extremely interesting place in the history of rehgious hfe in Hol
land, and if they were not a very characteristic embodiment of the
original spirit of religious freedom and dogmatic tolerance in Prot
estant Christianity. Let me give you first some historical outlines,
then, tell you something about the character of our work and aims.
The Remonstrants got their name from the Remonstrance, a docu
ment which contains aU in one a petition, a protest, an apology, and
a creed. Forty- three ministers offered it in 1610 to the government
of HoUand. Chiefly they oppose the principle of confessionaUsm.
For they acknowledge but one foundation and standard of true
Christian faith and life. This was the word of God, which they,

39i
Uke every one in their century, supposed to be found only in the
Bible as a whole. No human teaching or decree may be equalled
with it. Therefore, they refuse to submit to the foreign theology
which Calvinists were tyrannicaUy forcing on the Church. They
agree with Arminius, who could not find the rude dogma of predes
tination in the Bible. They also are convinced that the Calvinist
system gives what they caU an "embeUished fatum" instead of
Jesus' heavenly Father. And they hold that to be impious and
destructive both of reUgion and morality. In their famous five
articles they lay down their conceptions of the holiness of God, the
redemption of Christ, and the responsibility of men. But they do
not claim supremacy for their opinions, as the Calvinists do.
They only vindicate freedom and toleration in religious thought and
Ufe on the basis of the word of God. Ecclesiastical unity built
on their principles was their ideal. And they hope the government
wiU assure concord and peace by convoking a free national synod
to fix a purely reUgious one.
So the Remonstrants were vividly conscious of representing not
simply a dogmatic opinion or a theological system, but a special type
of true Christian consciousness and church organization. And they
were deeply convinced that it was nothing new they claimed. For
it was as weU a representation of the essential character of the mighty
reformation movement in HoUand, which the whole people was still
struggUng for in its bloody and terrible war, as the direct applica
tion of pure Christian ideas to ecclesiastical and political life.
Undoubtedly they were right. Many decades before Luther
uttered his powerful words, at least before any influence from either
the Saxon or the Swiss reformation could be observed in HoUand,
the mighty movement of rehgious revival and purification had sprung
out of two sources. The first was a purely religious one. The
second was the influence of some religious humanists.
Numerous preachers and popular authors had brought to the
people neither Roman Catholic formalism and miracle worship nor
a new scholastic dogmatism, but simply the Biblical and practical
piety of the gospel itself, as it was understood at that time. To
these first reformers or forerunners of the Reformation the dogma of
predestination was unknown, as was the ideal of a church built on
a narrow, limited confession. Very near to them stood among the

392
Dutch humanists many scholars and teachers who brought to the
very extended class of weU-educated and substantial citizens sound
principles of moral reUgious thought and life, with bright and large
ideals of freedom in confession and inquiry, of tolerance to different
theological opinions, and of a church in which every form of true
Christianity might dweU in liberty, concord, and peace. The books
of Erasmus, read and admired everywhere, gave an important im
petus to humanism of that kind. They not only spread a spirit of
sarcastic criticism, as often is said, but also of edifying Biblical re
ligious liberalism. The grand soul of WiUiam the Silent was fitted
with these aims, and the well-known genius of Hugo Grotius, the
warm friend of the Remonstrant party, not less so.
But how could such ideas be realized in that century and among
that people ? Peaceable piety could only be discerned like a lovely
melody amidst the brutal noises of war. Liberal statesmen could
only prudently try to guide the people on the difficult way to that
still unreached goal. And just at the time that the national religious
life was beginning to be organized under the care of the government
several eminent preachers of quite different principles came to the
Netherlands. Disciples of Calvin and Beza came from Geneva, and
brought with them, as a new element of religious life, not only their
dogmas, presumed to be founded on the word of God, but also the
exclusive spirit of their theological and ecclesiastical system, and,
stiU more, that confessionalistic fanaticism which always grows up
in days of religious struggle. The preaching of their strong and
determined beliefs deeply affected the sturdy people of Holland,
threatened with martyrdom everyday. For the buUding of a national
church a firmly formulated belief seemed to be of much more value
than free evangelical piety. Did not Geneva give an iUustrious ex
ample of political and ecclesiastical organization? So an ever-in
creasing number welcomed this zealous Calvinism as a light from
heaven in the darkness and distress.
But the more passionately the Calvinists began their activity,
the more stress the old national reformation party laid upon its
claims of doctrinal freedom and concord. The exaggerated dogma
of predestination roused warm and earnest protests, not only among
the professional theologians, like Arminius (Witenbogaert), Epis-
copius, and many others, but also among a wide circle of truly re-

393
ligious people of both high and low station. They refused to accept
what they caUed a foreign theology. They would not suffer Chris
tian thought and hfe to be compressed into a quasi-Biblical doctrine
•of merely one-sided piety. Why should the idea of God's omnip
otence and sovereignty be pressed to an extreme, and his holiness
and love be disregarded. Did Jesus teach God as a divine tyrant,
a Moloch who destined men to be sinners and damned them for eter
nity? Does the consciousness of human dependence and weakness
force us to overlook that of moral freedom and responsibility? Bet
ter than aU arrogant doctrines about the mystery of God's govern
ment of the world was the maintaining of sound piety. Therefore,
no theoretic controversies, or questions to which God himself only
•could give decisive solution, should be aUowed to break fraternal
feeUng and practical co-operation among the foUowers of Christ.
So it was not the tolerance of philosophical or political indifferentism,
placing itself above reUgious thought as a whole, but that of an ele
vated religion looking for the real word of God to mankind in all
the different words of mankind about God. "In necessariis unitas,
in dubiis Ubertas, in omnibus caritas." Principles and considerations
Uke these were in the seventeenth century in as complete accordance
with the national spirit as they are in ours.
But the spirit of Calvinism found many points of contact in the
people's character. The higher classes, mostly educated in the
schools of humanist teachers, were for the greater part sympathetic
with Uberal religious aims. The lower came every day more under
the influence of popular preachers, who often were fanatic in speech
and given to dispute in the streets and inns. The magistrates at
first were mostly HberaUy-minded, not only by personal conviction
and the powerful influence of statesmen Uke Oldenbarneveldt and
Grotius, and burgomasters Uke Hooft, but also from considerations
of practical poUcy. People needed nothing more than concord and
unity, pohticaUy as weU as ecclesiasticaUy. Catholicism had stiU
power enough in the Netherlands to conquer the young Protestant
ism, when divided. The Spanish army was on the watch to destroy
that nation of heretics if it were split into parties. Therefore, the
Uberal policy, represented by the most powerful statesman HoUand
ever had, John Oldenbarneveldt, and the Secretary of Rotterdam,
Hugo Grotius, — that man of many interests, — was forced to give

394
again and again its mighty support to the Remonstrants and their
aUies, and tried to compel churchmen and people to maintain free
dom, tolerance, and unity. Even this was fatal. For it made of a
purely religious movement a bitter political quarrel. The pious
thoughts of Arminius, the peaceable aims of his friends, became a
battle-cry. The noble protest and petition of the Remonstrance
was a like a spark in the powder. Explosions here and there, and
the fire broke out everywhere. The people of HoUand is not easily
driven into fanaticism, but, if it is, its fanaticism is passionate and
inflexible. The man of the street was systematicaUy excited against
the heretical preachers who seemed to endanger the bliss of heaven
and against the magistrates who would not suffer ministers to be in
sulted. Orthodox intolerance refused to take the sacraments from
the hand of a minister who did not confess that God created sinners
for eternal damnation. An exclusive Calvinism demanded the
separation and sundering of church parties. Preachers, even
moderate Calvinists, who declared that the controversy did not affect
heavenly bliss, and politicians who claimed unity in Church and State,
were suspected and hated. As the years went on, the uncertainty
increased, the tension grew severer every day, and the struggle be
came more and more a merely political one. Even foreign poUtics,
for instance that of James I., made its influence felt. In an evil
hour Prince Maurice of Orange took sides with the Calvinist party,
not because he was convinced of the truth of their opinions, for he
declared himself to be a warrior and to know nothing about the
doctrinal quarrel, but because Oldenbarneveldt was his poUtical
rival, and the liberal party seemed to be inimical to his power as
the chief commander of the army; perhaps also because he felt
sympathy for the masses who seemed to be suppressed by the mag
istracy. With a bold coup aVitat he annihilated his adversary.
Oldenbarneveldt, Grotius, and several other leaders were imprisoned,
Maurice did not even prevent a shamefuUy packed jury from sen
tencing the old statesman to death. And once more a dark tragedy
sprang from a mistake.
In these circumstances the party of confessionalism and discord
called and controlled the synod of Dordrecht in 1619, at which
Remonstrantism was condemned and the Remonstrants were cast
out of the Church. And the last act of the tragedy was a long list

395
of persecutions, banishments, etc. In that time the Remonstrant
Brotherhood was founded among the more courageous and tenacious
ministers, and soon extended to a free union of congregations. Dur
ing many years divine service could be held only secretly in old brew
eries and warehouses. GraduaUy, they were tolerated by connivance.
Modest churches were built here and there behind houses, so that
orthodox people would not take offence. Most of the old churches
are hidden to this day. Removed from official employments, Re
monstrants had but httle influence on pubUc Ufe. Self-interest
drove people to the Estabhshed Church. Calvinism for about two
centuries gave its imprint to our social, pohtical, and ecclesiastical
organization. Only one thing Calvinism could not do. It could not prevent the
old national spirit of simple BibUcal and practical piety, connected
with anti-confessionalism and anti-clericalism, from vigorously work
ing on, not only in the Remonstrant and Baptist congregations, but
also, notwithstanding the supremacy of orthodoxy, in the Univer
sities, in the Church itself, and in many hearts.
Henceforward it was the task of the Remonstrant Brotherhood
to teach and to preach the gospel, in fidehty to its old principles
of freedom and tolerance. And that is stiU its task to-day. It has
neither confession nor prescribed ceremonies. Its articles of govern
ment relate only to the administration of the congregations and the
rights and duties of the ministers. Any one can become a member
if he declares himself in sympathy with the character of the organiza
tion and with the purpose of its work, as defined in the first article
of the common disciphne: "The Remonstrant Brotherhood has
as its aim the promotion of the rehgious life founded on the gospel
of Jesus Christ, in fidehty to its principles of freedom and tolerance."
I venture to say that the body I am representing has fulfilled that
task not without honor, though it is as a church smaller than it ought
to be. It has given to our people during nearly three centuries sev
eral of the best and most famous preachers, whose names, of course,
never reach you, but are not forgotten by us. They made their
super-confessional Christianity as attractive as possible. At many
times and in many cities our smaU churches have been overfiUed.
Numerous members of the orthodox National Church have preferred
our free and peaceful piety to the exclusiveness and strife of the ruder

396
Calvinists and their conservative foUowers, who gave, as our people
say, neither fish nor meat. The influence of our Uterature of instruc
tion and devotion, extending far beyond our smaU body, was our
best revenge for being cast out of the Church. In the beginning of
the nineteenth century the traditional orthodoxy became so nebulous
that Remonstrants began to ask whether they needed stiU to be sepa
rated. Had it not been their old ideal to have brotherly unity among
Christians of different opinions? A project was even made in
1798 to unite aU the Protestant churches in a large community.
But the time for it had not yet come, and is to-day farther out of sight
than a century ago. Too often it is forgotten that in the evolution
of religion the characteristic features of historical bodies are more
powerful than abstract and often vague ideals. And, since reUgious
dogmatism has arisen again, the struggle for religious evolution has
also been renewed, and we have, on our parts, to do what we can for
the victory of a piety both free and tolerant.
An important proof that Remonstrantism has not existed in vain
has been given in its contribution of a succession of weU-known
scholars to science and religious thought. After the days of Ar
minius and Grotius many of these were appointed as professors at
the Remonstrant seminary. Episcopius founded the latter in 1633,
and joined it to the Amsterdam Athenaeum. Now it is in Leiden,
annexed to the university. Episcopius, formerly a professor at
Leiden, was the eloquent defender of Remonstrantism at Dor
drecht. Removed and banished, he wrote a Remonstrant confession,
the prologue of which is its most interesting part, as it is a clear
demonstration of the but temporary and relative validity of aU creeds,
and a resolute exposition of purely anti-confessional principles.
His successor, Curcellseus, issued one of the first critical editions of
the New Testament. Philippus a Limborgh wrote a famous dog
matical work to promote practical piety and peace, and was weU
known in the whole theological world of the seventeenth century.
The versatile John Clericus was perhaps the first scholar who based
exegesis on historical criticism, the editor of Erasmus's works, the
feUow-worker of Locke in philosophy, and pre-eminent in many other
sciences. His successor, Wettstein, founded the study of Bible
texts upon the comparison of many manuscripts. Wyttenbach is
stiU weU known to aU who study the classics. Van Hemert was the

397
first Kantian phUosopher in HoUand, and began the work of the
renewal of the reUgious faith in our country. My predecessor,
Tiele, of Leiden, founded the study of the history of religions, and
was one of the leaders of religious UberaUsm among us.
So the Remonstrant society stood open to the influence of a free
science in Christian Ufe. Almost without struggle the new ideas
about Bible and gospel, religion and Christianity, church and
divine worship, entered our old congregations. Some of them were
a Uttle more conservative, others more radical, according to the char
acter of the ministers. But there was no principle of opposition
against an orderly evolution. No wonder that in the last fifty years
many members and ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church, tired
and offended by the troublesome, often hopeless struggle against
an intolerant orthodox majority, preferred our organization to one
in which the new spirit was always more suspected, or even hated,
than welcomed. For the Uberal reUgious movement in HoUand, as
a whole, it is true, it is deplorable that the so-caUed modern party
has decayed in the National Reformed Church. But our congre
gations in many places could be its shelter. The number of their
members is from two to five times greater than it was half a century
ago, and many new congregations have arisen. The last of them
I was happy to help found in the old city of Dordrecht, where once
Remonstrantism seemed to be defeated forever. And, were we able
to offer more financial support, I am sure, in numerous places, we
could found new congregations and do stiU more for the consolidation
of Uberal reUgious Ufe.
But, though smaUer and weaker than we ought to be, in com
parison with the task history has laid upon us, we are ready and
wiUing to do aU we can. The past has proved that religious unity
in freedom is possible. The present shows Christianity needing
the principles we maintained as much as ever before. The future,
I hope, wiU increase in sound historical consciousness our active love
for pure reUgion and perfect liberty.

39«
Rev. F. C. Fleischer's paper, read before the Ministerial Union on
Monday, September 30, finds its proper place here: —

MENNONITISM IN ITS INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS.
BY REV. F. C FLEISCHER, B.D., MAKKUM, HOLLAND.
The great German teacher of philosophical pessimism, Arthur
Schopenhauer, has written an epigram in which he tells the story
of an ingot of yellow which was rubbed on a black stone without
leaving a yellow streak. People then exclaimed, "This is no pure
gold!" and the ingot was cast aside among the baser metals. But
afterwards it happened that they found the stone, though a black
one, not to have been a touchstone. The ingot was sought for
again, and acknowledged as an object of true value. The philoso
pher's conclusion is "that true gold cannot be assayed save by a true
touchstone. "
This pleasing parable may be appUed to the people caUed Ana
baptists, Mennonites, Moravians, etc., whose common fundamental
tenets have been most purely expressed by the Mennonites. "In
history they are judged almost wholly by their murderers," as
W. E. Griffis has rightly observed.* "Their glorious purpose has
been hidden under an epithet which is a myth of fancy." This
epithet was the opprobious term "fanatic Anabaptists," — a vile
slander, shrouding in a fog the pure ideals of a people loving peace
and truth.
But history has changed front. The assiduous labors of C. A.
Cornelius,f L. KeUer,-|- J. G. De Hoop Scheffer,! and others, have
restored them to integrity. The affair of Miinster, as has been
proven clearly, was but an episode, was but the Ucentious outbreak
*See the New World, Vol. IV., Number XVI. (December, 1895), p. 647 (" The Anabap
tists," by W. E. Griffis).
tDe fontibus historic Seditionis Monasteriensis Anabaptisticse (r8so); Geschichte des
miinsterischen Aufruhrs (i8ss-r86o); Die niederlandischen Wiedertaufer walircnd der Be-
lagerung Milnsters, ^34-1535 (1869).

399
of a fraction of them lapsed from their own principles, imitating
moreover, it may be added, their persecutors, — doing unto others
as others had done to them. But, for the rest, they were a simple-
minded people, closely agreeing with Jesus' teaching and dreaming
within their pious souls of the realization of the kingdom of God
on earth. Moreover, this ideal invested them with the influence
of a broad international reUgious movement, which in the course
of time has yielded riches valued by free Christians in all denomi
nations. There is no general appellation for the different adherents of this
reUgious movement, if we wish to avoid the mistake and the injustice
of their persecutors, who considered them to be aU of the same alloy
and caUed them aU together "Anabaptists." It is for this reason
I have purposed to caU them by the name "Baptizers." * I believe
this to be historically the best name by which may be combined
aU these different though affiliated sects. Nevertheless, I have not
used this term in my title because it is under the name of Mennon
ites that they have survived the days of their varying and struggling
convictions and of persecution by their oppressors.

II.
The history of the Mennonites is a history of tears and sorrows.
Without any restriction it may be stated that they were an ecclesia
pressa. Prison fever, tortures, decapitation, burning at the stake,
burials ahve, and drowning decimated their ranks. After aU criti
cal subtraction, their martyr roU is probably much larger than that
of any other Protestant sect. Even the mercy of their tyrants was
mercUess as a two-edged sword. Who should revoke his errors,
said a decree of WiUiam, Duke of Bavaria, would be beheaded,
who refused to revoke would be burned at the stake. As doves
before the hawk, they flew from country to country. The foxes had
their holes, the birds of the air their nests, but they, hke their Master,
had not where to lay their heads.
Persecuted people do not write their doings. Every record might
* See my article (paper) at the International Council of Unitarian and Other Liberal ReUgious
Thinkers and Workers held in London, May, r89i ("Liberal Religious Thought at the Beginning
of the 20th Century," London, igor, p. 209, "The Dutch Mennonite Community").

400
prove dangerous, treacherous. This is, perhaps, the reason why
their earher history has remained obscure and uncertain. Some
writers trace for them an apostoUc succession, as does L. KeUer,
who comprehends Mennonitism (Anabaptism) as one of the phe
nomenal forms of a spiritual currency as old as Christendom, and
of no less genuine significance than the ecclesiastical, dogmatical,.
clerical currency, though the latter is far more obvious.* Other
scholars, more or less hesitatingly, make them successors to the-
Waldenses. In my opinion the temptation to establish a spiritual
affiliation between the Mennonites and the earher Christian sects
is one that the sober historian must resist. The only incontestable
result is that in HoUand a few indications have been found of
sacramentarian heresy which occurred long before the starting.
of the Baptizers' movement in Switzerland. Probably the late Rev.
A. M. Cramer was right in decUning to enter into the controversy,
remarking that the origin of a spiritual movement is paraUel to that
of Lake Leman, which is formed by a number of larger and smaUer
rivers and brooks.
Their first obvious appearance in history was marked by a bloody
scene. It was when Felix Manz was drowned, a young and learned
man of a distinguished family at Zurich, but who had committed
the crime of controverting in pubUc ZwingU's theses on Christian!
Baptism and of disapproving of cruel and abominable war (Jan.
S, 1527). Then things went worse and worse. Their Ust of mar
tyrs was not long in waiting, and within a tew years they had an
endless oral tradition and a whole Ubrary of letters, songs, and
other relics of the champions of their faith. No later than 1581,
in South Germany and Austria, 2,159 Baptizers had already been
strangled. Within the brief space of four years no less than 1,000
Baptists had been murdered in the Tyrol. In the Netherlands
and Belgium, then part of the hereditary lands of Charles V.,
the fires of persecution burned with an intensity displayed nowhere
else. In Italy alone the extirpation of the Baptizers was, perhaps,
stiU more decisive and consistent, and ended with the total exter
mination of the movement. This is the more to be lamented, as
the ItaUan congregations distinguished themselves by a meek spirit
and a steady progress, guarding against mere poUtical visions, and,.
* See the article of Professor Cramer, D J)., in Dootsgesinde Bydragen, xliii. (igoj) p. iss-

401
moreover, sober and radical enough to break away from Roman Cath
oUc sacerdotalism and other errors. They stood even nearer to us
in their dogmatic views than the Mennonites of the School of Menno
Simons himself. Baptism, for instance, was, in their view, a sym
bol, not a sacrament; the reprobation of infant baptism hardly more
than an accessory matter; nor communion anything else than a
mere solemnization. In 1550 they had a council at Venice, at-
ttended by sixty delegates of thirty or more ItaUan and Swiss con
gregations.* The confession of faith upon which they agreed was,
of course, very Uberal: it acknowledged the humanity of Christ,
born of Joseph and Mary, though invested with divine powers;
it denied even the behef s in angels, in the devil, and in heU. Agos-
tino only, the delegate of the congregation at CittadeUa, could
not agree with such an unprecedented Uberalism, and withdrew.
Besides these hberal congregations -there were also a few of more
orthodox confession, which afterwards united with the Moravian
Huterites. The apostasy and treachery of Manelfi in 1551 caused
the total extermination of these Uberal congregations, while the
apprehension of Giulio Gherlandi in 1559, who had about him a
smaU band of Baptizers dweUing in fifty-one ItaUan towns in his
neighborhood, had the same effect for the more orthodox con
gregations. In consequence of such sad events no traces have been left of our
congregations in Italy, nor of those in Poland, Silesia, Hungary,
and Transylvania. The Holy Office, and the Pope's secular ad
herents and executioners, "brought forth the people that were
therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and
under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln"
(2 Samuel xii. 31).
In those dark days they found at times a safe refuge in certain
free towns, as Strasburg, Nuremberg, and Augsburg, and in some
independent principaUties, such as Hesse, the Palatinate, Alsace,
the bishopric of Bale, and, above aU, in Moravia. The last-men
tioned country was for nearly a century their Promised Land.
Though the Heyducs annoyed them now and then by their invasions,
robbing their goods, poUuting their wives, and carrying off the men,
and though Spanish and Neapolitan soldiers, WaUachians, Croa-
* Each congregation was represented by one or at most two delegates.

402
tians, and Polanders alternately troubled them and often massacred
them in their viUages, they maintained themselves, and their con
gregations increased. In 1662 they numbered no less than 20,000
souls. They lived here in a communistic organization of about
seventy colonies, or Haushdbens, at Nikolsburg, Auspitz, Aus-
terlitz, and some other towns. But in the days of the Thirty Years'
War they were driven away by force of arms. Robbed of aU their
goods, they were sent into exile by the Cardinal von Dietrichstein
(1621-22). Only a remnant of their once flourishing colonies had
survived, and even this remainder perished at the time of the
tremendous Turkish invasion of 1665. The "very small remnant
left unto them" was sustained for a time by the financial help of
the Dutch Mennonites, and found a temporary refuge in the neigh
boring parts of Hungary; but the very long arm of the Jesuits
finaUy reached them here, as well as elsewhere. In the second half
of the eighteenth century the last of them had to emigrate to Russia,
and whoever remained was forced to suffer Roman Catholic re-
baptism. My friend and coUeague, the Rev. J. B. Du Buy, recently
visited their descendants in Gross-Schutzen in Hungary, and found
them still living in one of their ancient colony-houses (Habanerhof).
They were greatly pleased at being remembered among the Dutch
Mennonites, but themselves knew nothing about the sad history
of their ancestors, and the Dechant of the viUage commended their
sincere fidelity to the Roman CathoUc Church! "Sic transit gloria
mundi!" The poor remainder of the transplanted Moravian Men
nonites (Huterites) emigrated in 1874 from Hutersthal in Russia to
South Dakota, United States of America, where they founded five
churches with about three hundred and fifty members.
While thus in Central Europe the light of the candle was extin
guished, the persecution in HoUand had ceased in consequence
of the breaking of the Spanish yoke. Here WiUiam the Silent had
inaugurated a long period of toleration. This is the more to be
praised since he did so in spite of the advice of his friend and fellow-
worker, Marnix Lord St. Aldegonde, and the malice of the celebrated
preacher, Petrus Dathenus, who went so far as to call the prince,
on account of his indulgence toward the Mennonites, "an Anti
christ and wicked man." The provincial and local authorities also
were not seldom in disagreement with his liberal principles, but

4C-3
the noble prince stood firm, the champion of freedom of conscience.
In IS77> "a generation before the birth of the founder of Rhode
Island," he answered the opposing magistrates of Middelburg:
"We declare to you that you have no right to interfere with the con
science of any one, so long as he has done nothing that works in
jury to another person, or a public scandal." It has been conjec
tured that the benevolent feelings of William the Silent were partly
derived from his gratitude for the support of two patriotic Men
nonites, P. W. Bogaert and D. J. Kortenbosch, who in the year
1572, in a pressing emergency, made up a sum of one thousand
guUders, an offering of some of their corehgionists in exile, and
brought it to the prince in his camp at Hellenrade near Roermond,
refusing any acknowledgment, but simply asking for his friendship.
Let this be as it may, it cannot but serve to the honor of both parties,
— to that of the prince as weU as to his clients.
The ideals of WiUiam the Silent were too premature for a general
apphcation in his time. As soon as he was murdered by the treach
erous buUetsof Balthazar Geraerdts (1584), intolerance reared itseU
again. We must acknowledge, however, that it remained an intol
erance of small dimensions, never imitating the unheard of atroci
ties of Roman Cathohc persecution.
In 1583 the States-General, the paramount legislative power of
the United Netherlands, promulgated the "resolution" that no
other divine service than that of the Dutch Reformed Church
would be pubhcly aUowed. In 1651, after the Peace of Miinster,
or the Westphalian Peace, the Great Assembly which had to organ
ize definitively the republican government renewed this act. And,
though the magistrates generally connived in behaU of the Men
nonites as weU as the Roman Cathohcs, and in favor of others who
attended their own religious services, they always had at hand, be
cause of this law, a weapon against them, and occasionally they
made use of it. In the province of HoUand the Mennonites were
treated rather weU, — nay, it was even allowed them to be married
in their own churches; but in some of the other provinces, as, for
instance, in Friesland and Groningen, they Uved not without occa
sional trouble. In the very year of WiUiam the Silent's death, 1584,
the States of Friesland empowered every Reformed minister "and
other person" to enter aU sectarian meetings and controvert the

4°4
preacher (Mennonite) and his hearers. Too zealous ministers, not
always of the highest standing, could not refrain from using their
legal power and distressing their harmless compatriots. In general,
it may be said that the Reformed ministry, at any rate in Fries
land, was not exempt from the eagerness of heretic-hunting.
Several Reformed Synods insisted on the States Provincial plainly
prohibiting every form of Mennonite service and aU traveUing of
Mennonite elders and preachers. Nay, they would have closed
Mennonite coUeges and prohibited the budding of Mennonite
churches! They advocated the taking from the Mennonites their
civil rights, and that they be compeUed to make oath, etc. In 1601
two celebrated Reformed ministers, Bogerman* and Geldrop, trans
lated into Dutch a pamphlet of Beza, in which the penalty of death
was even recommended as the proper punishment of heretics, and
quite proportionate to their sacrilegious offences.
The States Provincial, happily, did not comply with these extrav
agances. They worked, however, in the same direction, though
on their own hnes. They required, in days of large trouble and
war, large sums of the Mennonites, — by way of loan, it was pre
tended; but it was no free loan, and they paid a ridiculously low
interest. In this way they got in less than ten years (1665-72)
more than f. 1,000,000 in the two provinces of Friesland and Gro
ningen alone. Of a more inquisitorial character were their meas
ures against the Socinian heresy amongst the Dutch Mennonites.
As I have related in my address at the First International Council
of Unitarians and Others at London, | the Socinians Ostorodt and
Woidowski came to Amsterdam in 1590, and endeavored to enter
into relations with Hans de Ries, one of the most prominent leaders
of the Mennonites at that time. Afterwards, in 1612, they tried
to win the Dutch Mennonite congregation at Dantzic in Prussia.
Though they could not succeed with Hans de Ries, their doctrines
won the acceptance of other Mennonite ministers, such as Jacques
Outerman, of Haarlem, Nikkert Obber, of Amsterdam, and others.
For this intercourse the Mennonites had to pay dearly. Socinianism
was looked upon as little better than Paganism by the leading
Reformed ecclesiastics; and soon the Mennonites were said to be
* The same who presided oyer the famous Synod of Dordrecht, 1618.
t toe. cit., p. ns.

REV. NICOLAS JOZAN
Budapest, Hungary

PROF. THOMAS GARRIGUE MASARYK, PhD.
Prague, Bohemia

MR. THEO. BERG
Copenhagen, Denmark

PROF. OTTO EMIL LINDBERG
GOTHEBURG, SWEDEN

4°5
indocti Sociniani, as the Socinians were called docli Mennonitae.
Not later than 1611 a judicial inquiry was ordered to hunt out
Socinian books and documents among the Mennonites at Franeker.
In 1722 the Deputed States of Friesland required all Mennonite
preachers to make a Trinitarian confession. AU but one refused,
from which it is not to be concluded that aU but one of the Mennon
ite preachers were Unitarian in 1722. Far from that, but, as true
Mennonites, they reprobated the imposition of a creed, whatsoever
creed it might be. Their passive opposition succeeded in abolishing
the odious law. It was suspended at last. The base dealings,
however, of the Dutch Reformed minister Van Issen at Knype,
in 1735, had bad consequences for two Mennonite preachers. And
when the Frisian Mennonite Society, presided over by the cele
brated Joannes Stinstra, of Harlingen, interested itself for them, a
shower of pamphlets was discharged at this venerable man. If
only the affair had stopped there! But their endeavors did not end
until Stinstra was made the victim of their intolerance. The 13th
of January, 1742, he was arbitrarily dismissed, and remained out
of office until 1757. A simUar persecution distressed the Mennonites
at Blokzyl in the province of Overyssel, whose preacher, Jacob
Hendriks,was imprisoned in a subterranean vault, where a Reformed
minister, the Rev. Balk, and his daughter, tried to disturb the cursed
Socinian's mind by knocking and thumping at the door, by yeUing,
and by other tremendous noises. After his release the poor man
had to submit to stiU another injustice, — the public sale of aU his
furniture. The despotism of the States Provincial was only surpassed by
some of the local magistrates. Here economic jealousy united with
dogmatic disapproval, for a great many Mennonite "burghers" had
grown rich by honest trade, and their material success procured
them as many enviers eis rivals. It was for this reason that Men
nonites were excluded from some guUds. The Brewers' Corpora
tion at Deventer rejected even the son of one of its own officers,
legally appointed by the municipality, in 1684. That of the Drapers
seems to have resisted even the intervention of the King Stadtholder
WiUiam IH., 1691. The town governments not seldom co-operated
with their burghers. The municipality of Sneek prohibited in
1601, under the penalty of a fine, Mennonite meeting and preach-

406
ing. The Rev. Barend Jacobsz, disobeying the ordinance, had to
suffer the public sale of his household goods. The municipality of
Leeuwarden prohibited the Mennonites from keeping shops, and
banished three of their preachers (1608). The magistrate of
Groningen proclaimed a compulsory ordinance Uke that of Sneek,
and if the town government, proud of its autonomy, had not opposed
itseh to the stiU greater violence of the States Provincial, they would
fain have gone further than they did (160 1). A few years later,
1608, the Stadtholder William Louis of Nassau, — for the rest a
sincerely orthodox man, — together with the States- General, inter
ceded in their favor, happily with success.
Notwithstanding all these trials the Dutch Mennonite community
maintained its position, and though, we must own, destitute of new
creative power, yet a great many of the congregations enjoyed a flour
ishing condition. Some of them even grew proverbiaUy rich: let us
trust they were rich also by the blessing of the Most High. Perse
cution ceased. More satisfactory relations between the Dutch Re
formed Church and the various sects were graduaUy estabUshed.
The French Revolution finaUy concluded this process of growth in
liberal opinion, breaking a great many old customs and brushing
away the traditional reverence for secular and ecclesiastical despo
tism. The new constitution provided for freedom of worship and
equal civil rights. III.
The preceding pages treat of the sad fate and of the spiritual
defeat of Mennonitism as a seU-conscious international movement.
The Baptizers of the sixteenth century, in Switzerland as weU as in
Holland and elsewhere, were not only martyrs, but also mission
aries, not only a persecuted sect, but also a propagandist one. Sev
eral new Mennonite currents forced their spiritual blood into the
arteries of Europe. The appearance of Felix Mantz and his friends,
of Melchior Hofmann, Menno Simons, Dirk Philipsz, David Jorisz,
and others had an undeniable missionary character.
The same cannot be said of the history which is to be related
in the following pages. With the end of the sixteenth century
Mennonitism ceased to be an international movement, though

407
its international character has in some sort been preserved until
the present day.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Swiss magistrates
of Zurich and Bern tried to unite the Mennonites with the Reformed
State churches. Their iU-success in these efforts impelled them
to new persecution. The town council of Bern, which had rejected
in 1616 a motion proposing to hire out the Mennonites as gaUey
slaves, was converted to this injustice in 1671. The Republic of
Venice hired six of them for two years. This scandalous contract
caused a real panic. The weaker minds may have lapsed.
The stronger characters saved themselves by fleeing from the scene
of this hideous persecution. This "natural selection" obviously
is the reason why the Mennonites generaUy are such a stubborn
and conservative people.
The magistrates of Zurich compeUed some of our "defenceless
lambs of Christ" to serve in the French army. Those of Bern
tried in vain to get rid of them by the aid of the Dutch East India
Company. The directors of this mighty trading company, with
nearly sovereign rights, did not even reply to the hideous proposals
of Bern. They had no better luck when they deported fifty-six
Mennonites to the Carolinas. As soon as they had reached the
Dutch frontiers, they were delivered from their chains by the pru
dent and effective measures taken by our Mennonite minister at
Nymegen, the Rev. Hendrik Laurensz.
The Dutch Mennonites raised in those days large funds for the aid
of their brethren abroad, and mainly by their help the Swiss Men
nonites succeeded in settling in HoUand, Germany, America, and
other countries. Of a somewhat different character was their
emigration into Russia. The government of the Empress Catherine
II., desiring to people the large desolated provinces taken by force of
arms during the last Turkish war, invited the Prussian Mennonites to
settle in South Russia. As they had no absolutely safe abode in
Prussia, they compUed with the invitation, and in the spring of
1788 the first Mennonite caravan left their native Prussian soil to
become subjects of the Russian crown, though with the privilege of
free worship, a gift of fertile fields, and other favors. They settled
in Retschka Chortitza. New settlements foUowed when Paul
I. ascended the throne and confirmed the privileges of the Mennon-

408
ites. The threatening glare of the torch of war, lighted by the
French Revolution and by the warlike deaUngs of Napoleon Bona
parte, then drove a great many of the wealthy Mennonites of Cen
tral Europe to settle in the safe regions of far-off Russia. Several
flourishing colonies were established on the banks of the Molotschna
and throughout the southern states of the empire, a few of them
even to the east of the Ural Mountains.
Led simply by emigrant desires, in 1683 a Mennonite colony
settled in America. They came from Crefeld, were partly of Ger
man, partly of Dutch origin, and landed at Philadelphia, Pa. They
were, strictly speaking, not the very first Mennonites in America;
for in 1662 another colony of Dutch Mennonites had settled in
New Netherlands, at HovkiU, near the banks of the Delaware, but
two years later Sir Robert Carr had surprised the settlement and
destroyed it.
These Crefeld Mennonites caUed their settlement Germantown,
a name which led to some jokes on the ironical metaplasm Aermen-
town (Town of the Poor). They hved in very good relations with
the Friends, their new countrymen. This kind intercourse may
have induced the Society of Friends to vote a sum of six hundred
guilders to the assistance of the Mennonites in the Palatinate, in
1709. This did not, however, hinder the Mennonites of German-
town from protesting against slavery. They had not yet Uved
five years among their new countrymen and protectors when they
sent in their appeal to the monthly meeting of the Friends. "Would
any of you like to be treated as you treat negroes," they asked,
"to be sold and made a slave for life? How many when saiUng
fear to meet a Turkish ship, lest they be captured and made
slaves. But in what does your conduct differ from the Turks?
Nay, it is much more hideous, since you pretend to be
Christians! This being so, we protest against the deportation
of these people, thus unwittingly stolen and sold." The Friends
were uneasy and troubled by this protest, and sent their in
trusive guests from pillar to post. Is not this the manner with
many good people who fear that they will be troubled by their own
principles, if acted up to consistently? The Mennonites had finaUy
to permit themselves to be ignored.
The Mennonite pioneers in America had to make head against

4°9
innumerable difficulties. Before the coming of Willem Ritting-
huysen,* belonging to a Dutch family of paper-makers, they even
lacked paper. In 1708 there was no Bible to be had among them
for the pulpit of the First Mennonite Church at Germantown.
When the Second Church at Schieback (Shippack) had been founded,
one of the preachers of this new congregation, Heinrich Hunsicker,
often came over on horseback to preach at Germantown, and brought
his wife with him on the same horse.
But they stood firm, and graduaUy increased. Several new col
onies came over. In 1709 a few Palatine Mennonites joined with
them. The Swiss persecution sent over many others. In 1727
they numbered five congregations with sixteen preachers, in 1770
in Pennsylvania alone forty-two congregations with fifty-three
pastors and fifteen hundred members.
Meanwhile their principle of non-defence had repeatedly to stand
the test of the invasions of the French colonists and of Indians,
and stiU more in the days of the Revolutionary War. The wind
blew from every corner in those days, and neither the English
nor the Independents knew how to value or even understand their
neutraUty. Moreover, a party among the Mennonites would not
take part in the Revolution against the "legitimate authority."
After the treaty of peace these legitimists saved their consciences
by emigrating to Canada. New troubles arose from the* Civil War.
The Mennonites of Virginia were forcibly enhsted in the army of
the Confederacy. Their passive opposition succeeded, however,
in securing them exemption from military duties by the payment
of a fine of $500.
In the course of the nineteenth century Mennonites of nearly
aU countries of the Old World crossed the Atlantic, drawn by the
great attractions of America, cheap land, and political and religious
freedom. In 1820 a great many Swiss Mennonites emigrated.
Between 1836 and 1856 those of the Palatinate, Hesse, Bavaria,
and Baden came over. A Dutch company of settlers left Friesland
in 1853, m order to escape military duty. For the same reason
thousands of Prussian Mennonites left their native soil, and emi
grated in the last quarter of the century. The American Mennon
ites raised several funds to assist them, to a total amount of $100,-
* His descendants called themselves in English Rittenhouse.

410
ooo, and guaranteed a sum of $96,000 advanced by the Canadian
government, which money was paid off a few years later. CoUect-
ively, there are now dwelling in America more than 100,000 Men
nonites, with more than six hundred organized congregations, which
is as many as are in Russia and even more than are in HoUand.
A few Mennonites are scattered all over the world by the influence
of the cosmopolitan time we live in. These are found everywhere,
in East and West India, South Africa, Brazil and elsewhere. But
they are in want of organized churches, and are being lost to the
Mennonite community. IV.
Our esteemed friend, the Rev. James Harwood, rightly states in his
"Message to Mohammedans"* that "much may be gained for
the cause of Truth, as well as that of Goodwill, if persons, who re
main attached to their own Faith, can be induced to judge of other
faiths in the spirit of justice, and perhaps even of appreciation."
He judges the present time to be "eminently favorable for making
such an endeavor." Mennonitism, too, has been obviously favored
by this spirit of the age. Despised in former times, it has been ex
tolled almost too greatly in our own. I have already noticed this
fact in the beginning of my paper, and I should like to show it more
amply here.
The. Rev. Griffis, whose able paper in the New World of 1895!
deserves to be mentioned a second time, pours on their humble heads
a very cornucopia of sympathy. The Anabaptist movement is, in
his opinion, " the seed-bed out of which has grown nearly everything
which free and unpolitical Christians value most to-day." He extolls
the Anabaptist soul, which " transmigrated into thousands upon thou
sands of those Christians who helped to make Repubhcan HoUand,
the English Commonwealth, and the American Republic." "This
soul," he says, "is marching on in all human society. Its incarna
tions are independent fraternities of churches. One of its noblest
embodiments is the Constitution of the United States. It will have
even grander births in centuries to come. As a fact confessed and
* James Harwood, B.A., "A Message to Mohammedans," London, B. F. U. A., 1903, p. 1.
t See above, p. 398.

4n
gloried in, the main body of their belief is now held probably by a
majority of Christians in the United States!"
Professor Troeltsch, one of the most prominent German historians
and philosophers of the present time, judges hardly less favorably
the spiritual influence of the Baptizers' movement.* He com
mends Mennonitism partly as the renewal of Apostohc Christen
dom, relegating mediation by Church, Dogma, and Scripture to
individual religious institutions, partly as the cradle and origin
of modern hfe. Out of their doctrine of the inward light modern
religious subjectivism has developed itself. Hence our psycho
logical, empirical theology, considering reUgious traditions as causali
ties and symbols only, and valuing dogmas as secondary causes,
being themselves the product of reUgious sentiment, as its first
cause. The true basis of religion consequently is individual con
viction, leaving room for the most different forms of expressiort.
From their doctrine of the priesthood of aU believers resulted the
idea of religious equality and freedom and the emancipation of
woman, though not yet within the domain of social and political
Ufe. From the Baptizers' movement originated Independentism as
weU as Congregationahsm, claiming that the State, as a mere out
ward institution for the purpose of civU government, has no right
to interfere with the inwardness of religious sentiment or the indi
vidual conscience. By the English Revolution and German Pietism
the Baptizers ' movement was made an agent of great importance
in the history of civiUzation. Under this notion the religious doctrine
of Schleiermacher is but a philosophical explanation of the Bap
tizers' ideas about the nature of Religion and Church. The Prot
estantism of to-day stands more near to Sebastian Franck than to
Luther himself.
There is, I venture to beUeve, much to be deducted from this
eulogy, though I do not deny that the eye of a stranger possibly
sees us more clearly than we ourselves. Allow me, however, to re
duce it to its true dimensions.
The Mediaeval Roman Catholic Church had developed the dogma
of its divine institution. It was believed that all valid religious
truth came to mankind by the mediation of the Church. More-
* Troeltsch, " Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Gegenwart, " i. 4 ("Die Christ-
liche Religion"), B. G. Tuebner, Berlin und Leipzig, 1906, 304 PP- and f°H-

412
over, the Church held the keys of Heaven and the treasure of the
superfluous good works of Christ and his saints at its disposal.
The eternal as well as the temporal bliss of mankind being submitted
to the Church, it ruled the Mediaeval community, and left no part
of life outside the range of its regulating power. The Pope was,
of course, deemed the Sovereign of the World. AU civU govern
ment being subordinated to the Church, they bid no more glorious
mission than to uphold the Papal Supremacy and to maintain the
ecclesiastic jurisdiction.
Living behind a Chinese wall of self-adoration, the clergy did
not discern the signs of the times. Barren scholasticism and worldly
life lost for the Church its power on the souls of men. The need
of reformation grew more and more apparent. By what influences
this process was brought about I need not detail.
In this state of things every social class worked on its own Unes
at the cost of the ecclesiastical supremacy. Several governments
curtailed the papal authority. Francis I., King of France, claimed
the right of approving bishops. Henry VIII., King of England,
ruled the Church by the agency of Cardinal Wolsey. Ferdinand
I. and Isabella had no less subordinated the Spanish Church. The
Popes, however, accepted their humiliating situation for fear of
being submitted to the mercy of the Councils. On the other hand,
the scientific world, either humanists or theologians, weary of a
double bondage to Aristotle and to the Church, welcomed the re
vised independent philosophy and theology of their long-hoped-for
redeemers. The mutual influences exerted by these higher ranks
of the community, the ruling and the educated class, resulted in
consolidating the Roman Catholic and the Protestant National
Churches of France, England, the German principalities, Denmark,
Sweden, etc.
Meanwhile, quite silently, a lower class, the later so-called Third
Estate, arose. These men had never racked their brains in the
maze of Aristotelian or Thomist philosophy. They knew nothing
about the value of the pagan culture, decayed long centuries ago.
Their indignation was simply aroused by the extent to which the
Church had allowed itself to become paganized and conformed
to this world. They upheld the teachings of Holy Scripture against
the traditions of the Church, represented by such a corrupt hierarchy,

413
"the right of private judgment against the dictation of ecclesiastical
authority, the individual responsibility of every human soul before
God in opposition to the papal control over purgatorial punish
ments, which had led to the degradation of venal indulgences."*
They maintained the inwardness of faith to be the sole way to eternal
life, without disregarding the value of works and evading the ex
treme dogma of the total corruption of human nature. They be
Ueved "that Christ said what he meant and meant what he said,"
and, trying to take Jesus seriously, they strove for the purity of a
stainless reUgious community. To these men the New Faith and
the Scripture were what the study of Ancient Culture and the New
Theology were for the educated. True, their convictions have
been modified by the results of learned inquiries: they have been
compeUed often to recognize the majority of the great Reformers.
But the right of thinking and of beUeving for one's self was not sur
rendered thereby. Narrow-minded and iUiterate in part, they
sometimes seemed to be stubborn, but they were not unreflective
or inaccessible to new ideas. It is this middle class we meet in the
Baptizers' movement, whose reUgious convictions found their most
elaborate exposition in the doctrinal writings of Menno Simons.
The peculiarities of Mennonitism, both its organization and its
disorganization, are obviously connected with this origin. Mennon
itism spread itself wherever a thriving and relatively free middle
class existed, — in the Swiss cantons, the Netherlands, the free im
perial cities, and the Hanse-towns of Germany. In other countries
their propagandist ardor did not succeed.
Their individualism was one of the results of their origin. The
middle class, proud of their recently acquired civil rights, accus
tomed to manage their own affairs, — the town government, the cor
porations, and the town militia, — would not aUow their individuality
to be wronged. The Dutch Mennonites, especially those called
the Frisian and the Waterlanders, did not even like the name of Men
nonite, for fear of being judged spiritual partisans of Menno. They
caUed themselves Doopsgesinde; i.e., maintainers of adult baptism.
In their manifold doctrinal struggles they did not even allow neu-
trakty: every one had to think for himself and to stand by his
party. The congregation at Zierikzee, which would not choose
* Henry Sidgwick, "Outlines of the History of Ethics," London, r8o2, p. 154

414
between the Frisian and the Flemish Mennonites, was scoffed at as
"stationary people" (Stilstaanders), and finally was excommuni
cated by both parties. The Rev. Jan van Ophoorn, who for the rest
acted in sober earnest, ridiculed the Mennonite individualism by
casting out successively all Frisian and Flemish congregations and
ministers, and at last even his own congregation, remaining with
his wife alone as the Good Shepherd's true flock. A certain writer
of the nineteenth century has enumerated thirty-eight different Men
nonite sects, but, as we now know, a complete list would be at least
twice as long!
Mennonite individualism caused a number of doctrinal and cere
monial differences between them. By some sections the Lord's
Supper was solemnized by foot-washing, — a ceremony which is still
used by a few Mennonite congregations in Germany, Russia, and
America, and which was practised in former times by certain Dutch
Mennonites, not only at the Lord's Supper, but also at the wel
coming of delegates of other congregations. Some of them had no
audible prayers at their public worship, prayer being practised in its
true nature as a secret speech of each individual soul to the heavenly
Father. Even in so large and important a congregation as that of
Leiden it was not until 1672 that the ministers prayed audibly.
It cannot be denied that Mennonite individualism incidentally
degenerated into a petrifying affection for insignificant, exterior
peculiarities. At Sneek, for instance, a Frisian town, there existed
two different congregations in the eighteenth century. Lysbeth
Hessels, who had changed her mind and wished to pass from one
congregation into the other, was only allowed to do so on condition
that she would change her red-speckled neck-cloth for a blue one
(1747). At the same time a member of the congregation at Henge-
loo was censured because he wore a periwig, and a lady at Borne
was threatened with exclusion from the Lord's Supper on account
of her unusual cap. The congregation at Dantzic in Prussia was
in those days deeply moved by the question whether it might be
aUowed to wear periwigs, and even appealed for the mediatorial
aid of the Mennonites in Holland to decide this matter.
But the bright side is by no means to be overlooked. A brief
comparison makes clear what I wish to say. The Lutheran Church
restored the old Consistory, depriving the clergy of the right of

4i5
ordination and excommunication, and so paved the way for the
union of Church and State under one head. The Reformed.
churches aUowed to the secular governments the jus circa sacra,,
and hved to regret that the State had incidentally subordinated the
Church even in spiritual concerns. But Mennonite individualism
did not suffer any other meddling of the State with their affairs than
in temporal matters.
Another beneficial result of Mennonite individualism has been the
reprobation of any binding creed, every confession of faith being
considered as a quite individual utterance of a man's best self.
This basis of religious individualism enabled the Mennonites to
foUow the progress of the times. Nothing but their own back
wardness prevented them from introducing what was attractive in
the new or from abolishing what was decrepit in the old.
The decidedly orthodox character of the confessions of some of
the Mennonites, in the age in which we live as well as in former
times, cannot be denied. But Mennonite orthodoxy is ever a harm
less one. It does not disapprove of individual departures in faith.
It does not shut the gate to development. The most incredible
surprises are not impossible. The Mennonites in Russia, South
Germany, and America are for the most part rather orthodox: they
fear our new theology (our higher criticism, as they call it) as a
seducing Satan's work. Nevertheless, the gate is already being
battered down, and there is indeed no reason why it should be con
sidered impossible that within a century or less they should adopt
liberal theology as thoroughly as do the large majority of Dutch
and West German Mennonites.
Here it m,ay be added that Mennonitism, though during more
than three centuries rather ostracized, never hesitated to extend the
hand of brotherly love to other denominations. Dutch Mennonites
not only helped quite generously Swiss, German, American, and
other brethren of their own faith or origin, but also Huguenots and
others. And this by no means scantily. In 1685 the Waterlander
Mennonite congregation at Leiden coUected at one divine service no
less than 2,189.17 f. on behalf of the French refugees. Three
years later they coUected again at an ordinary service nearly an
other 1,000 f. for the same purpose. The guilder then was worth
more than a doUar now. " Ex ungue leonem ! "

416
Six years ago I introduced the Mennonites to our First Interna
tional Congress as a community of religious radicals. This char
acterization receives its historical explanation by my remarks to-day.
The Reformation of the sixteenth-century middle class was based on
the same principle as the Reformation generaUy. The Smalkaldian
articles of 1537, for instance, as well as the writings of Menno Simons,
accepted what our friend, the Rev. Charles W. Wendte, six years
ago, called the American theory concerning the relations between
Church and State.* They recognized no less the sovereignty of the
Church, the priesthood of believers, and the authority of Scripture.
But only the religious middle class, self-conscious and self -regulating
within the waUs of Mennonitism, was to prove itself consistent with
these principles.
As we find Jesus "the great type of practical faith," it needs
hardly to be said that the religion of this middle class of people, who
"took Jesus seriously," was of a practical kind. Their opponents
could not appreciate this peculiarity. The Archbishop of Cologne
denounced them as "Protestant Jesuits" (1672). Ubbo Emmius,
a celebrated historian, yet fuU of sixteenth-century Reformed preju
dice, charged them with weak integrity. A Lasco only acknowl
edged their honesty and probity. In truth, their charity was at once
generous and thoughtful. When, in former centuries, one of the in
mates of the Mennonite Old People's Home at Leiden died, the officers
(deacons) of the congregation were obliged to attend the funeral.
In my own congregation, at Makkum, this unwritten law of
brotherly love and piety has been maintained till the present time.
Sick people formerly were attended by the lady members of the
congregation, at Leiden and elsewhere, according to the hst which
the deacons made for this purpose. At present our larger congre
gations have arranged for district nursing.
Drawing to a close this survey, I hope to have pointed out the
morsel of truth which is to be acknowledged in the eulogy of our
recent panegyrists. Wishing to meet the question fairly, we must
concede, however, that the virtues we found were not so much the
results of special Mennonite principles as they were the particular
merits of the social class to which our ancestors belonged. That
*See "liberal Religious Thought," etc. (First London Congress of Unitarian and
Other Religious Liberals, loor), page 79.

417
these virtues are no longer our private property, but are more
and more adopted by others, is but one of the signs of the de
veloping democratic tendency of the present age.
Is Mennonitism destined to take part in the furthering of this
tendency? Will our Mennonite spirit "have even grander births in
centuries to come," as Rev. Griffis expects. It remains to be seen,
though I must confess my unbelief. For accomplishing such a task
Mennonitism should be a missionary church. But it has ceased to
keep ahve the propagandist ardor of the sixteenth century. More
over, the very stimulus of such missionary ardor fails, for it is no
longer possessed by any dominant idea.
It shares in this respect the fate of nearly aU historical churches
of the time. Missionary churches, in the proper meaning of the
word, are not in harmony with the age. The great spiritual cur
rents of the present day go beyond the churches.
Happily, this does not matter much. The Spirit of God works on
its own Unes; is not confined in the prison of human organization.
God himself is buUding up his kingdom, which is based on eternal
truths, — truths which are not to be undermined by the changing
order of human society. The fundamental truths of life will endure
forever, whatever may happen.
" Our little systems have tlieir day,
They have their day and cease to be:
They are but broken lights of thee,
And thou, O Lord, art more than they." Tennyson.
If it is so with our spiritual systems, it is aU the more so with
the churches embodying those systems. Consequently, we acquiesce
in the fading away of many outward peculiarities. For beyond the
boundaries of denominational devotion we are touched by the
eternal unity of reUgious aspiration in the sensitive heart of
mankind.

4i8

THE BURDEN AND BLESSING OF TRADITION.
BY PROF. DR. MARTIN RADE, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MARBURG.
In tradition the past speaks to us. The past of our race appeals
to us in the uttered, written, and printed word, in existing custom
and valid law. The man of to-day is compeUed to determine his
attitude toward this tradition, whether he may wish to do so or not.
In the tradition which speaks to us of the past of our rehgion
there lies both a burden and a blessing for the religious man of to-day.
We will treat first of the burden of tradition.

I.
How many who would gladly be reUgious and earnestly desire to
be Christians are afraid of this burden! Others drag it along and
groan beneath it. "Woe to thee, that thou hast forbears!"
For the Catholics, according to their own express declaration, the
only proper attitude toward ecclesiastical tradition is one of sub
missive acceptance. By means of it they prove the genuineness of
their faith. It is indeed said of Protestantism that it has rejected
the Cathohc Church's principle of tradition. But no one can reaUy
be a member of a Protestant church without having the claims and
Influence of tradition brought home to him in various forms, as doc
trine, cult, custom, or law. Those parents in Bremen who had their
children baptized without the use of the formula, "in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," and afterwards lived to see
the Senate declare these baptisms invalid, so that they were com
pelled either to have their children rebaptized or aUow them to
remain outside the communion of the Christian Church, are a striking
example of this in recent times.
What makes reUgious tradition burdensome and oppressive to the
mind of modern men ?

419
i. First of aU, it is the strangeness of tradition which is felt. Nu
merous customs, opinions, etc., do not seem strange to our mind or
foreign to our mode of feeUng, although they have been handed
down to us by tradition, because they live in us and we in them. But
every tradition may become a burdensome yoke to us, in less or
greater degree, as soon as we perceive that it has come to us from a
world which is not our own present world; and from what an
cient, distant, and strange time has not a large part of that which the
Church submits to us as religiously valuable and necessary descended!
Under the supremacy of the dogma of inspiration the Bible ap
peared to our fathers to be a timeless book. In every word of the
Bible the eternal spirit of God spake to man of things which indeed
concerned this mundane world also, but which happened in the main
under quite different conditions from those under which we Uve.
The thought that in the Bible story we also have to deal with history,
and that in these BibUcal books we also have to do with the works of
human historians, did not enter their consciousness.
To-day, as ever, the devout man hears the voice of God speaking
in the Bible. But he knows weU that it did not faU from heaven aU
complete, and that it is not one book, that it is not a collection of sa
cred oracles, which it is only necessary to open in order to draw upon
stores of superhuman wisdom. He knows that the Bible contains a
whole literature to which writers the most different have contributed
throughout a period of fifteen hundred years (1500 B.C. to 150 a.d.).
True, this literature possesses a certain inner unity, and to grasp
this is highest gain; but what impresses the modern reader first of
aU is the manifold difference and variety in the spirit of these writers,
and the strange and foreign nature of their material. The customs
and manners, the language and mode of expression, the assthetic
feeling and conception of the world, which he finds in these writers,
are aU strange and foreign to his mind. Indeed, how could it be
otherwise at this distance of centuries? Whoever possesses suffi
cient naivete to close his eyes to aU these things may live on very
comfortable terms with the old faith, but the number of such Chris
tians is perceptibly and steadily diminishing.
The Old Testament gives most offence and is the greatest stum-
bhng-block in this direction. When sun and moon stand stiU at the
command of Joshua, aU our ideas derived from the Copernican

420
astronomy, according to which the sun actually stands still, or rela
tively still, are contradicted. Even if we translate the occurrence
into the terms of the Copernican view of the world, so that Joshua's
command had regard to the earth instead of the sun, even then this
wonder story remains absolutely foreign to our way of thinking.
We simply cannot put ourselves in the place of those ancient narra
tors and hearers whose conception of nature aUowed them to accept
the story without even a shrug. To keep within the limits of the
familiar and well known, we wiU mention here only the story of the
floating iron (2 Kings vi.) and the narrative of the creation. It is
true that it is just these stories whose ideal content is clearest, so that,
in spite of all difficulties, it may be easily discerned in aU its great
ness, even by the dullest apprehension; but the strange, foreign,
exotic element is stiU there, and there are many who never get beyond
it. Worse by far are the moral difficulties. That a prophet should
be allowed to curse twenty-four little boys and deliver them to be con
sumed by bears because they caUed him ' 'Baldhead " is contrary to
our moral sense and ethical feeling. For that very reason this story
(2 Kings ii. 23) is no longer told in the schools, as it was in my school
days. And, in reading the beautiful 137th psalm, is it not like re
ceiving a blow in the face to hear that touching vow of loyal aUe
giance, "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her
cunning," followed by the vengeful malediction upon Babylon,—
"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy Uttle ones against
the stones." But the whole history of Israel is fuU of such moral
difficulties. It teUs of the blood of children shed at the command
of God ; and how often do we not read that at God's command whole
cities and peoples were "devoted" or "accursed"! There are those
who do not mind or are not troubled by the presence of such stories
in the Scriptures, and who can make light of such difficulties. There
are those who think they can set everything right by harmonizing
these statements with our moral sense in a superficial way, as a siUy
and over-subtle science of apologetics has tried to do only too often;
but, after aU has been done and said, how strange and foreign aU
this stiU seems to us!
In the New Testament we indeed breathe another atmosphere.
Here everything seems more familiar and friendly to us, thanks not
only to our early instruction, but because the spirit of these Script-

421
ures is a stiU hving spirit to-day, because this life-giving spirit con
tinues to animate and vivify our own generation. But let the neo
phyte open the Revelation of John, and its riddles and enigmas will
press upon his mind with alpine weight, or, if he does not take them
seriously, they wiU repel him. Paul is probably tolerably intelli
gible in great part even among the men of to-day; but he has trains
of thought which mock and defy our efforts to comprehend them
without the help of learned commentators, to say nothing of such
genuinely rabbinical passages as Galatians iv. 24. How much there is
that is strange and foreign to us in the circumstances and traditions
of the primitive Christian community, and in the phenomena in
which the hfe and spirit of that community uttered and expressed
itseh! such as the speaking in tongues (1 Cor. xiv.), the women with
faces closely veiled (1 Cor. xi. 4, ss.), the community of goods, the
multitude of miracles in the Acts and the Gospels, mostly, it is true,
of a more spiritual character than those of the Old Testament,
though stiU including the raismg of the dead, walking on the sea,
the feeding of five thousand, the cursing and withering of the fig-tree.
Finally there is the Sermon on the Mount, acknowledged to be, to
gether with the parables, the highest and purest efflorescence of the
teaching of Jesus. How much there is here which gives us pause
by its utter foreignness of spirit! I wiU mention only the saying
about the right and left cheeks, and the admonition, "Give to him
that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn
thou not away," — a precept which judicious charity alone often
forbids us to foUow.
What is true of the Bible in this respect is also true of the liturgi
cal tradition of pubUc worship, of the dogmatic tradition of the
catechism, and of every form of venerable doctrine, ceremony, and
form. 2. The second weakness of tradition is its uncertainty.
Men have indeed tried, here by an infallible institution and there
by an infaUible Scripture, to make up for this deficiency; but, de
spite aU, tradition has ever revealed its own unreliable and uncertain
nature. It cannot be denied that a fact which I have seen with my own
eyes, and have had opportunity to prove, is one thing, and a fact of
which I simply have the historical knowledge, that some one else

422
claims to have seen and proven it, is quite another thing. That which
is given in tradition, we may believe, was once a present actuaUty,
was seen, heard, and experienced; but in the very moment when it
became of the past, when it became only the report of eye-witnesses,
and very soon only the report of that report, it lost immensely in
reaUty and reUabiUty. Formerly, Uttle attention was paid to this.
A nai've historical method controUed the selection of events, and what
it chose to transmit was accepted as the authentic tradition; the
naivete" of the presentation was met by an equaUy naive and uncritical
willingness to accept what was presented. The entire history of
antiquity and of the Middle Ages is under this indictment: faithful
reports, upon which one may depend even to-day are found side
by side with monstrous fables. There came the time when men
became cognizant of this unreliability of tradition: criticism arose.
Laurentius VaUa, the humanist (-1457), destroyed the legend of the
"donatio Constantini"; and others, such as Hutten and Luther,
profited by his instruction. Flaccius, the Lutheran, sharply as
sailed the papal view of history, and Gottfried Arnold, in the in
terests of pietism, unmercifully turned the conception of church
history, which scholastic orthodoxy had worked out, topsy-turvy.
Criticism at first subserved a polemical interest; dogmatic bias and
prejudice opened the eyes of men to the weak points in a hostile
tradition. Leibnitz was the first to introduce regular methods and
scientific canons into historical research: by rejecting aU unfounded
traditions he showed the necessity of investigation and of a consist
ent use and dependence upon the original sources throughout.
Leibnitz died in 17 16: the eighteenth century developed great skill
and learning in the discovery of isolated facts and events and the con
nection between them. Upon this rests the fame of the theologian
Semler (1725-1791). But it took another generation to see the larger,
more coherent view and the vaster connections. Lessing, Herder,
Goethe, and Hegel were the pioneers: under their leadership the
sifting of details proceeded all the more freely and thoroughly. So
in the nineteenth century we saw the rise of a new and heretofore
unknown science of historical investigation and presentation. Two
schools may be distinguished in Germany: the Niebuhr-Ranke
school, which has made good its claim to undisputed leadership in
the work of exact research, whose prime inquiry is always and every-

423
where, "What did actuaUy happen?" and the Heidelberg school,
founded by Frederick Christopher Schlosser, whose most brilliant
representative in recent times is perhaps Treitschke, which freely
passes its ethical judgment upon that which has been, and always
strives to attain a unitary conception of the whole. These two
schools supplement and complement each other in the most fortunate
manner. To these may be added a third school or tendency which
takes into consideration the economic foundations of human society
in the various stages of historical development. There is much
justification for this, though a one-sided emphasis has been put upon
it. The Frenchman Taine and the German Lamprecht deserve
special mention in this connection. The universal endeavor was to
get back to the oldest and most reliable sources of tradition, and so a
grand and commendable emulation in the discovery and publication
of original sources accompanied the rise of the new science of history.
The active participation of church historians and of the historians of
reUgion in this great activity in the field of profane history was in
evitable: such names as Ferdinand Christian Baur, Hase, Weis-
zacker, Wellhausen, and Harnack wiU suffice to indicate this.
The task of giving a positive estimate of the significance and the
vocation of historical criticism we must reserve for some future time.
Our present concern is to point out one of its fatal consequences.
The layman, who could not keep up with aU this learned research,
has become confused. At first he probably rejoiced in the scholarly
work of one great authority or author, and was ready to swear either
by Rotteck, Gervinus, or Leo. But very soon he was overcome and
oppressed by a sense of uncertainty. The authorities arrived at
different results. They pointed out the inconsistencies in the old
tradition, but they contradicted each other even worse. In the place
of that which had been reported there came endless questions and
ever new problems. What was there still left ? What could be de
pended on? Can science deceive, or is it her rightful business to
resolve everything into merely relative truths or into a universal scep
ticism, replying to every inquiry, "It may have been so, or it may
have been otherwise"? Where shaU we look for the facts? And
what was Christianity, this historicaUy developed and established
religion, founded on and boastful of facts, and yet without rock-
bottom facts on which to posit its claims?

424
It is incalculable how much unrest and uneasiness has been pro
duced in the minds of religious people by this destructive and under
mining work of an historical criticism against which even the sacred
tradition of the Church has not been able to assert its complete
assurance. Many cherished opinions might easily be surrendered,
but on others the very heart's blood of faith depended.
Let us picture the situation to ourselves by means of iUustrations
taken from the story of the Reformation. The early biographies of
Luther relate that Luther entered the monastery in 1505 because his
friend Alexius had been struck by hghtning at his very side. A
more critical history teaches now that one of his friends, whose name
is unknown, met with some great misfortune about that time, whose
precise nature is also unknown, although one source reports that he
was stabbed. All that remains of the old story is the admission that
Luther did indeed experience a severe thunder-storm, which came
upon him suddenly like "a terror from on high," about fourteen days
before his entrance into the monastery. The old simple story is
discredited; but what does it matter?
Secondly, we have been taught that at the Diet of Worms, in 152 1,
Luther acted most courageously and stood his ground like a man, at
last crying out, "Here I stand: I cannot do otherwise, God help me!"
Criticism declares that it is doubtful whether Luther ever really spoke
these words. After Luther's examination the session of the diet was
dissolved amid considerable tumult and confusion. Luther caUed
out something; but who understood it, and who preserved his
words ? Nevertheless, it is impossible to deny that the old report
may be true.
Thirdly, in regard to Luther's death in 1546. Cathohcs have
lately essayed to prove that Luther committed suicide. Other
Catholic investigators have themselves contradicted this assertion.
We may affirm that critical historians have unanimously refused to
accept this precious historical find of a partisan school of history.
But is not the mere fact that such an attempt could be made at aU
most significant? Are the facts concerning Luther's death so un
certain ? May not this professed discovery contain a grain of truth
after all? And, if so, how could Protestantism meet the situation?
To what extent are we dependent upon historical opinions of which
criticism, apparently, may deprive us any day?

425
We have purposely refrained from illustrating the uncertainty of
tradition from the Bible. Nor do we intend to do so now. The
doubts concerning the historical content of the Bible are as innumer
able as its contents. Nothing is any longer certain. Even the his
torical existence of Jesus has been questioned. But we wish rather
to point out another example of special significence. The evangelical
churches have as their foundation certain symbols. The three oldest
of these are caUed oecumenical; that is, universal symbols, creeds
recognized by the whole of Christendom. They are the Apostles'
Creed and the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Historical science is
now a unit in declaring that none of these creeds can be caUed oecu
menical in the strict sense of the word. The Athanasian Creed has
nothing to do with Athanasius (fourth century) , and is post- Augustinian,
originating in the sixth century, and was never used in the Orient.
The Nicene, or Nicene-Constantinopolitan, Creed was formulated
neither at Nicaea in 325 a.d. nor in Constantinople in 381; and, even
if adopted in Constantinople, the synod which met there was not
oecumenical, but simply oriental. The apostles had nothing to do
with the origin of the Apostles' Creed. In its original form it belongs
to the second century, and its present wording dates from a much
later period. Once again we are constrained to ask, If such historical
errors have been brought to hght in regard to documents with such
abundant sanctions as these ancient creeds, what is there that stiU
remains firm? Does rehgious faith depend upon the work of the
historical critic? Does it stand or faU with the results which criti
cism has aheady accomphshed or is still to accomplish ? Is that the
value or the meaning of tradition?
Who can bear the weight of such uncertainty? Go to, let us cast
off the burden! But hold, that cannot be; for
3. Tradition asserts its tyrannical sway over us, whether we wiU
it or not, and this from our very first breath. Without weapons or
defence the child is exposed to the influence of the tradition which
presses upon him in home and school, and from the whole environ
ment in which he grows up, regardless of whether it be a religious
or an irreligious, a conservative or a democratic tradition.
Individual experience, freedom of faith, living in the Eternal as
an ever-present reality, — this is genuine religion. But now she forces
herself upon the mind of youth in the most tyrannical way, urging

426
the acceptance of doctrines only half understood, and demanding
to be appropriated by mechanical memorizing, according to the
prevailing methods in home and school.
But tradition also exerts the same tyranny over the life of the adult,
in various degrees, according to his station and manner of hfe. Both
in the state and in society certain privileges and opportunities depend
upon our attitude towards tradition. In Germany, at least, the de
mand for the production of a certificate of baptism or of confirma
tion is usual in purely civil affairs. One cannot aspire to certain
offices nor look forward to a career unless he is able to show that his
attitude towards church and tradition has been correct and re
spectful. Was it always thus ? WeU, it has even been worse. In the seven
teenth century not only the pastors, but aU state officials, aU university
teachers, including even the fencing and dancing masters, were
obliged to subscribe to the Lutheran confessions. In many countries
this obligation continued in force for aU faculties of the university
until the beginning of the nineteenth century. What did it matter,
then, in praxi, that the Lutheran confession itself declared the
Holy Scriptures to be the norma normans; i.e., the only authoritative
source of pure doctrine, so long as the confession itself, as the norma
normata, was the real law, according to which one must be judged
and the norm to which one must conform. It was in order to pre
serve and protect the correct tradition that ChanceUor CreU was
beheaded in Dresden in 1601 and Servetus was burned in Geneva
in 1553-
In 15 19 Luther burned the canonical law in Wittenberg, and
thereby declared war against that law in the name of religion. Not
that religious communities have no use for laws and fixed traditions
in the maintenance of outward order. Law arises of its own accord
wherever men seek to live together. But it is another question
whether the law of the jurist is stiU equal to its task where the inner
most sanctities of the human soul are concerned. But, it may be
said, law does not seek to regulate faith: it simply holds to precedent
and tradition. Just so, but it strengthens these, so that through
the support of the law they gain quite a different power and influ
ence than they would otherwise have.
Since when does this union or aUiance of law and tradition exist

427
in Christendom? We can give the exact date. It is since dogma
was completed and became valid law in the exact juridical sense. It
was on the 27th of February, a.d. 380, when the Emperor Theodosius
issued the foUowing decree: —
"We command all peoples that are subject to our benign rule to
live by the reUgion which the Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans;
i.e., that they believe in the one godhead of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, of equal majesty in the one, holy, adorable
trinity. They who foUow this decree shall be called Catholic Chris
tians; the others, who shaU be as fools and madmen in our eyes,
shall be branded with the shameful name of heretic. Their places of
meeting shaU not be called churches, and to whatever punitive judg
ment of God shaU befaU them, there shall be added also such chastise
ment by us as we shall determine and as the wiU of God may in
dicate to us."
At that very time the moral, social, and scientific or scholastic
compulsion which tradition aheady commanded was reinforced by
the compulsion of the law of the state. From this time on Christian
governments accorded privileges, protection, and preference, — honor
and riches to some, and disfavor, persecution, martyrdom, and death
to others, according to their respective attitudes towards tradition.
Even more, they fixed and determined the tradition. And, as this
edict of Theodosius still stands at the head of the corpus juris from
which our jurists derive their knowledge of Roman law, so even
to-day, despite aU progress and freedom of faith and conscience, the
delusion that the pohtical power has the right to intervene in matters
of faith is stiU deeply rooted in the minds of many of our jurists and
rulers. Wherever this happens, tradition or conservatism is the
gainer. For law is in its very essence the determination of precedent
and tradition.
Tradition, we repeat, wields a manifold and wide-spread power,
which bears no relation to its content, and which is felt as an op
pressive tyranny, even where the content of the tradition is good. In
this latter case this content would command an entirely different
kind of recognition and acceptance if the evil appearance of intellect
ual compulsion did not rest upon it. What glorious reading and
noble lessons we may find in the evangelical confessions of faith,
if we read them for edification, as the preachment of the Fathers or as

428
witnesses of a past spiritual life ! But how unbearable they become
as soon as they are set up by law as a standard to control the under
standing of faith to-day!
We have said enough of tradition as a burden. It is, as Harnack
once said concerning the letter of the emperor to HoUmann (in
the Preussische Jahrbilcher for March, 1903), "The weight and
burden of a long history, fuU of misunderstandings, of stiff formulae,
which stare us in the face like swords, of blood and tears, press
heavily upon us and weigh us down ; but in it a sacred inheritance
is also contained for us."

II.
The benefit and the blessing of tradition wiU best be seen by
considering its educational value, its social value, and its intrinsic
value. 1. Its educational or pedagogic value. We have spoken of the tyr
annical sway which tradition and precedent wield over the growing,
developing human being, through the home, the school, and the factors
in his environment. But that which we have here recognized as an
inescapable constraint is, nevertheless, also a benefit and a blessing.
How can it be otherwise ? And do we reaUy wish to have it other
wise ? In that case we would have to disapprove of, and give up, aU
education of children in general.
Wherein lies that which is essential to aU education ? Simply that
we do our part to give our children what we already have, to trans
mit our inteUectual possessions to them. This kind of transmis
sion plays the principal r61e in all forms of education; and, the more
completely such education can hand down the spiritual and ethical
treasures which we possess to those that come after us, the more
highly we think of it. ShaU every man that comes into the world
make an entirely new beginning, without profiting by the experiences
and achievements of those who have lived before ? What superflu
ous labor and unnecessary exertion this would imply! How it
would hinder aU progress in culture ! Look back as far as we may,
let thought travel backward into time as far as possible, yet we wiU
never find men anywhere compelled to make such an entirely new
beginning out of nothing, as it were. We cannot even picture to our-

429
selves in imagination the protoplastic mental condition of beings so
entirely dependent upon themselves and so entirely self -created. On
the contrary, when we reflect upon our position in the present, and
reahze how completely we, with aU our burdens, stand upon the
shoulders of our forbears, we are filled with a deep and heartfelt
sense of gratitude. " What hast thou that thou didst not receive ? "
(i Cor. iv. 7.) This is particularly true of our religious posses
sions. Tradition, and the act of passing on traditions and precedents,
is therefore something natural, moral, necessary, and beneficial.
For wherever and whenever there is any vital rehgion, just because it
is vital, it possesses the tendency to transmit itself from one genera
tion to another. One of the natural laws of the spiritual world is at
work here. Even the atheist bows himself beneath this law, in his
desire to hand on his atheism to those who come after him.
Therefore, the means which the Church uses for the transmission
of her spiritual treasures to others, by religious instruction and
various forms of divine worship, cannot be made a matter of reproach
to her. A vigorous tradition wiU create the forms necessary to itself.
We Protestants value instruction as the simplest and surest method
of transmitting tradition. It has indeed been said that religion
cannot be taught; and it is perhaps for this very reason, and because
this is true, that the transmission of doctrine so easily becomes a bur
densome task. But, if doctrine is extant in a church or plays an
important role in a reUgious faith, why should it not be imparted
to others ? We may see to it that this is done in the right way, and,
if this is not the case, we may take in hand the work of improving
existing methods; but that the extant, accepted, and recognized doc
trine or teaching of a church should be handed down to the foUow
ing generation is a matter of course, and its transmission is a benefit
and a blessing.
Custom takes the child into its lap to be fostered and filled with
the inherited wisdom of the past. They who have drunk deeply of
this stream of wisdom in their youth are to be accounted fortunate,
especiaUy when the time comes when they must go forth into life and
be thrown back upon their own strength and resources.
The young man ripening into maturity and inteUectual self-de
pendence makes a twofold use of this inheritance of traditional wis-

43°
dom. One part he grasps more and more firmly and holds more and
more securely. He appropriates it to himself and earns it for himself
(according to the saying, " Thou must earn what thou hast inherited
from thy fathers, before thou canst possess it "). The other part he
rejects, either laying it aside graduaUy and imperceptibly or making
a sudden and violent break with it. In either case tradition has been
a benefit and blessing to him. Two cases are typical of the rela
tion of sons to fathers, — the son who in his simple, homely, friendly
way grows up into and adopts the customs and opinions of his
father, and the son who, through constantly increasing friction,
culminating in a sharp and direct contradiction, works his way
through to an entirely different point of view from that held by his
father. It is almost impossible to say in advance which of these
two is most indebted to his father, and which received the greater
benefit from the tradition to which he was born.
In any case the existence of the individual in absolute indepen
dence of tradition is impossible. We are like men standing in a row
and passing bucket upon bucket along the hne. The buckets are
fitted with the water of tradition, and whether as passive or active,
good or bad, zealous or slothful members, whether we are being
educated or are educating others, we all find our place in this long
and endless succession.
2. Although the social character of tradition is already apparent
from what has been said concerning education, we feel constrained
to go still further in pointing out its value for human society.
Societies have their rules, states have their laws, and both are
supported, held together, and carried safely through many crises by
their history. Religious communities, such as have been caUed into
existence by the great historical reUgions and confessions, live upon
the memories which are cherished in common, and especiaUy the
memory of their origin. It is true that all piety that has genuine
value, all vital religion, is a life in the present, — in an eternal present
or a present eternity. But, the more rehgion is of this kind, the more
it would be dissipated into pure individualism and subjectivity if it
were not for history, memory and tradition. It is possible to conceive
of religious communities without traditions; that is, in the moment
of their origin. Then everything is comprised and compacted into
the To-day, into the enthusiasm of the moment. But to-morrow the

43i
present has already become past, and to-day has become yesterday.
To-morrow the faithful will already live upon that which existed
yesterday. The disciples of Jesus, even while they had the Master
with them, were not entirely without such a yesterday: each one
cherished the memory of his caU, and all together kept green the
memory of their meeting together and their common store of recol
lections of the Master's spoken words, of every act of his that they had
witnessed, and of the whole of that strangely altered world whose
atmosphere they suddenly breathed. Even Jesus himself was never
without such a heritage, which he had received from the past and
which he handed on further; namely, Moses and the prophets.
How the events of the beginning become fixed as tradition, and
how their memory is cherished and perpetuated, is a question which
it is impossible to answer here. It happens in different ways in the
various Christian congregations and confessions. But in all of them
the regulated order of divine worship renders a great service in this
respect. Even that which is incomprehensible or only half under
stood is handed on from generation to generation as a common
possession, and has its binding effect, such as the Amen, the Halle
lujah, the Kyrie, and the formula, ' ' in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The sacraments — baptism
and the holy communion— are instruments of tradition, and are
especiaUy effective means of fixing the minds of men upon the recol
lection of the origin of the community. The hymns which are sung
from the hymn-book, the sermon, and — to recognize its true worth
here again — religious instruction of every grade and kind, aU co
operate towards the same end. A church or religious community
without tradition is an impossibiUty, and does not exist. What
has greater cohesive power and holds people together more than the
festivals of the Christian year? And what would these ecclesias
tical feasts be without tradition ? It would be weU also to think of
the Bible in this connection as the common possession of all Chris
tians. Since the egotism of the individual continually exposes human
society to the danger of disintegration, every form of association is to
be welcomed, and therefore also the religious ; and, since such associa
tion is impossible without tradition, it foUows that religious tradition
must be a benefit and a blessing. It supports the weak, binds the

432
recalcitrant, and attracts the young. We are inclined nowadays
to ascribe everything to personality, and not altogether without jus
tice. But personahties pass away, while traditions remain. Per
sonahty also survives in the tradition, if the person has been great
enough. This leads us to speak of the third way in which tradition
becomes a blessing.
3. Its essential value. The value of tradition in itseh, simply on
account of its content, entirely apart from its educational, cohesive,
or any other incidental effect.
The Catholic Church expressly recognizes tradition as the source
of its Ufe and truth, and through Vincent of Lerinum she has set up
a glorious ideal of cathoUcity, — ' 'quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab
omnibus creditum est" (that which has been beUeved always, every
where, and by all, — that is the true and genuine tradition). Unfort
unately, the difficulty of fixing upon anything which would really
and fully meet this criterion is too great. So the Cathohc Church
leaves the decision concerning such matters to an infallible author
ity, and this decision the faithful Cathohc must obediently accept.
The churches of the Reformation, as already stated, have rejected
tradition as the source of saving truth, and stand entirely upon
scriptural ground. But this is possible only because the Holy Script
ures themselves include a tradition of inexhaustible fulness. They
could weU renounce the danger of extra-BibUcal tradition, because
in the Bible itself the religious experience of the past, concentrated
to a degree as in no other literature, was handed down. In it, as
nowhere else, they found the word of God. What more did they
need ? Everything else was but the work of man, which could only
confuse and pervert. And, indeed, the religious or spiritual power
of the Bible has proved itself inexhaustible until this day. The
preacher who preaches to his congregation aU his hfe out of the Bible
and about the Bible can bear witness to this, as well as the simple
layman who opens its pages to satisfy the immediate needs of his
heart. In the midst of all that is problematical, strange, and un
certain, which one instinctively lays aside or cannot help criticising,
there wells up ever anew an astonishing fulness of that which is per
manent and vital, and which proves its own intrinsic worth.
Moreover, there is nothing that stands in tlie way of making room
for the extra-Biblical tradition, even on Protestant grounds. The

433
churches of the Reformation have refused (the Reformed Church
even more decidedly than the Lutheran Church) to exalt the work
or words of the Church Fathers to the rank of articles of faith ; but,
nevertheless, they have been glad to feel themselves one in historical
continuity with the mediaeval church, and to use the witnesses for this
uninterrupted historical tradition in support of their own position.
We have aheady spoken of the fact that the theology of the creeds and
confessions rests its vahdity on the Bible. Suffice it to say that
nothing hinders us from drawing upon, recognizing, and appreciating
aU the wealth of the reUgious tradition of our own ecclesiastical past,
and aU the wealth of reUgion in aU times, in a way which we have
never done before, and thus to allow the power of this tradition to
work in us as never before. And this may be done in such a way
that no thought or event may be taken by us from tradition and given
a place in our own hfe, in obedience to any outward compulsion, but
simply because we feel and comprehend its value for us. It rejoices
the heart to hear of a generation that has seU-confidence and beUeves
itseh capable of doing something, and whose keen, adventurous
optimism essays to create something new. But the consciousness
of weakness and limitation soon comes. Then the need for support
and supplementation begins to make itself felt; and where can both
these be better found than with our fathers ? Are we ashamed to
learn of Goethe, Schiller, Lessing, or Herder ? Why then be ashamed
to leam of Luther, Augustine, Paul, Jeremiah, or Isaiah? For
Christian piety especiaUy a return to the sources always means a
wonderful quickening: just as, in the story, the giant Antaeus was
strengthened by touching his mother earth. As regards this Chris
tian piety, it has been demonstrated again and again that Jesus
Christ abides through aU the changes of time as the real source of its
power. Let no one say in contradiction that we must look forward
and not backward; that reUgion, like all other spiritual or intellectual
attainment of the race, can only progress by forward development
or evolution. What a confusion of ideas! Most assuredly we must
move forward. History does not walk backward in crab fashion.
But the future yawns before us as an abysmal void, as empty space
stiU waiting to be filled. We must fill this void with our own bodies
and souls, with our own doing or not doing, our hoping and willing;
and the rehgion which has no ideal aims and tods with which to peo-

434
pie this uninhabited time-space in advance, is dead. Nevertheless,
even while she strives towards the future, rehgion can Uve only upon
the past; and the wealth, as weU as the persistence of its power and
virtue, depend upon the content of the tradition which it brings with
it. Therefore, as Christians, we will always continue gratefully to
accept, as our motto, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and to-day
and forever" (Heb. xiii. 8).
But, if we must look to the past, why not look also to Buddha,
Zoroaster, and Confucius?
We may well admit that Buddha, Zoroaster, and Confucius rep
resent the most valuable traditions for the Buddhists, the Parsees,
and the Chinese, respectively. As long as they draw upon these
original sources of their religion, it will continue to live. But the
attempt to elevate Buddha to the rank of a real prophet for us is
most artificial. Those who earnestly desire this will have to put
superhuman powers into the attempt, and for these we cannot give
them credit. For us also Buddha is a bit of world history, a part of
humanity's past; but he does not possess the significance of a tra
dition for us. No historic past of our own speaks directly to us in
him or through him.
The more cultured a man is and the broader his intellectual
horizon becomes, the greater his abihty to appropriate, out of the
spiritual treasures of all times and nations, whatever may be to his
own profit. The masses of men must always be dependent upon one
definite tradition. All Christians should rejoice in the tradition to
which they have been born, and gladly recognize its advantages and
superiorities. Herein Ues the strength of a conservative education.
It at least brings tradition close to the minds of the rising generation.
And, despite aU tyranny, foreignness, and uncertainty, this is no com
mon blessing, provided, of course, that this tradition has a content
which makes it worth while.
But even he who has been emancipated and become intellectuaUy
free wiU, for the sake of this content, bathe in the stream of tradition
again and again, — henceforth, more than ever, in order that under
standing, heart, and will may thus be renewed and strengthened.
As Goethe says, — "Der Strom in dem ich bade
Ist Ueberlieferung, ist Gnade."

435

III.

To the present generation tradition is both a burden and a benefit
a bane and a blessing. There arises the task of thrusting aside the
burden as much as possible, in order that the benefit may come to
its full expression and exercise its rightful influence.
i. This is a task which must be comprehended and solved in
practice in the churches and reUgious congregations. The despotism
of estabUshed law, by means of which tradition exercises its harsh
rule, must be destroyed wherever it comes into contact with the real
inner and tender secret of rehgion; namely, personal feeUng or ex
perience or personal conviction. True, it is impossible to consider
every individual demand or to treat with tenderness every super
sensitive feeling. In every sphere, wherever individuahty has de
veloped, there is bound to be a tension between particular needs of
the individual and those fixed conditions under which alone com
munity Ufe is possible. A tension also exists at the same time be
tween the time-spirit which desires to create something new, that it
may fill the void of the future, and the spirits of the past which stiU
Uve, though they be dead. These tensions are wholesome and, thank
God, cannot be entirely done away with. But the purely beneficial
effect which they should have is frequently prevented by the way in
which the jus interferes in the wrong place. Jus (law or doctrine)
is always the codification of that which has become or that which
has been. But the individual desires to have a religion which is a
matter of present experience. He has no objection to the existence
of tradition or to its use in the support of his own religion, but
desires unconditional freedom in his use of it. He would not be
disturbed in his relations to God by any legal claims or requirements.
Therefore, as far as the state is concerned, it gradually becomes a
matter of course that, as Frederick the Great said, every one within
its borders "may be saved in his own fashion." But the various
churches and reUgious communities wiU be compelled more and more
to seek the forms in which their tradition may perpetuate itself without
the aid of legal compulsion. They can do this, provided they have
an honest and joyous confidence in the content of their tradition.
For then they will know that it can hold its own by virtue of the

436
spiritual power which it exercises over the minds of men through its
intrinsic worth.
Herein lies a great and unmistakable duty for the evangelical church
law. If it cannot accomplish this task, then men wiU be compeUed
to throw it into the same flames with which Luther burnt the canon
law of the pope.
2. In the second place there arises a problem for theological science.
The fundamental relations between faith and history, piety and tra-
dation, must be investigated and comprehended in entirely different
ways than heretofore. For one hundred and fifty years — ever since
Herder — it has been the vogue to discuss this problem. Some of the
best and finest work of our theologians has been appUed to it,
especiaUy in recent times ; but we must confess that hitherto no one
has found a satisfactory solution. Historical investigation sometimes
speaks as if it could draw up out of the past whatever may be neces
sary to faith; and, on the other hand, dogmatic theology often speaks
as if it had aheady found the magic speU which will enable faith to
remain entirely indifferent to all the discoveries and results of his
torical criticism. If revelation were simply a matter of ideas, every
thing would be plain and simple enough. An idea effectuates itseU
by its own truth and perspicuity. The more clearly it has been
thought out, the more it towers above the times in which it first came
to light. One can think it over again and thereby prove it and pos
sess it. But in the great religions, between which our choice must
be to-day, we have to deal, not simply with ideas or opinions, but with
facts. They have a history and an historical origin. They are
history. One cannot get beyond this by such wisdom as that of
Lessing's "Nathan the Wise." (The wisdom which Lessing puts
into the mouth of his Nathan is usually misunderstood, to boot.)
Neither can we give fresh currency and vitality to that other saying
of Lessing; namely, that "accidental historical truths can never
furnish the proof of necessary truths of reason." Necessary truths
of reason, such as Lessing had in mind, we no longer recognize in
our day in matters of faith or questions of religion. Neither do we
wish nor any longer try to prove our faith by accidental historical
truths, in the sense in which Lessing uses these words; and, finaUy,
historic truths are not as accidental, after aU, as Lessing thought.
Lessing, who has so often helped us to a newer, worthier, and

¦ -

wSM

I

fr 4

. ¦>
1 ^r^iaiH
REV. LEONHARD RAGAZ, D.D.
Basel, Switzerland
PROF. EDOUARD MONTET, D.D.
Geneve, Switzerland
REV. ERNEST ROCHAT, DJX
Geneve, Switzerland
REV. G. SCHOENHOLZER
Zurich, Switzerland
437
truer estimate of history, so that he deserves a great deal of credit
for the rise and development of the new understanding of history, is
stiU mentaUy involved, with his declarations concerning necessary
truths of reason, etc., in the viewpoint of the rationaUsm of the
eighteenth century, which, in most other respects, he has so victori
ously transcended. In this Herder was more advanced. To him
God spake through history. He understood better than Lessing
that reUgion is not a summary of doctrines and revelations, does not
consist in the impartation of doctrines, but rather that in deaUng with
reUgion we are deaUng with a fact which can be made the subject
of contemplation and emotion. History itseh is this great fact of
revelation. She consists "of seed-germs, hidden and sowed in divers
ways, which contained much that could only be developed in the
course of time, and often only after a long lapse of time." She also
certainly holds in her bosom reUgious representations and ideas; but,
above aU, she awakens emotions, immediate certainties, and springs
of action.
Schleiermacher also traveUed this road of the historical under
standing of truth, and here we have found the right way. Our
reason is not equal to the task of freely producing a reUgion, even
though we designate it by the title of the "rehgious reason." We have
only historical reUgions. These are capable of further development.
As surely as they have history behind them, they also have a history
before them. If we try to construct a new religion out of " necessary
truths of reason," this new rehgion wiU resemble the old as much as
the Homunculus in Goethe's "Faust," manufactured in a chemical
retort, resembled a real, hving human being. No, the real question
is simply how. the historical past is connected with the present, with
that which happens and hves and ought to be in our present. The
question is, what meaning, worth, and effectiveness the fact of former
times may have on the generation now hving? of how much real
worth are the traditions cherished by the congregation or religious
community for the transmission and handing on of these values and
forces? to what degree must the imagination of the individual co
operate, in order that the experience of former generations may be
reproduced in him ? For the old orthodoxy all this was much simpler.
For it the great redemptive acts — for instance, the atoning death of
Christ — were events which had significance in the first place only

43»
for God. God changed his judgment upon sinners on account of
the atoning death of Christ, and for the same reason also his attitude
towards them. And through the operation of his Holy Spirit God
gives to every one who opens his heart to him the benefit of the fruits
of this acceptable atoning sacrifice of Christ. This gift of salvation
or bestowal of saving grace is absolutely a thing of to-day, a present
event. The agents are the interceding Christ of to-day and the
Holy Spirit, equipped and armed for work to-day. The Bible, in
so far as it is taken into consideration as the instrument of this work,
is looked upon as the word of God spoken to-day, timeless, eternal.
In this kind of orthodox dogmatics the problem of how to make the
right connection between that which has been, between the historic
fact and the present need, cannot even arise. The connecting link
is God. He is and remains the real subject of that which has hap
pened in history, as well as that which happens to-day. But in the
very moment when in the course of time this is recognized as mundane,
as human experience, the gravest psychological and epistemological
problems arise. It is no reproach to theological science when we
say that she is still at work upon these problems, and wUl be at work
upon them for some time to come. It is certain, however, that the
subject-matter and the idea of tradition must be subjected to renewed
investigation. We will not close, however, with this interrogation, but rather
with a positive statement, which every reader can easUy test and prove.
It reads: —
There are two ways in which tradition may be used aright. They
are the way of criticism and the way of faith.
We commonly hear these two — criticism and faith — spoken of
as irreconcilable contradictions. They may appear to be disasso
ciated or even hostile, but that is simply a confusion of ideas, or,
of toner still, a pure delusion; for, in reality, these two belong insep
arably together in the use of tradition.
Faith is confidence. But how can we place complete confidence
in any person or thing without, at the same time, withdrawing the
same from other persons and things? In this manifold world of
contrasts and differences it cannot be otherwise.
Criticism is judgment, — an independent, weU-grounded judgment,
founded upon authentical and well-proven principles and con-

439
scientious labor. Criticism pushes aside much that is doubtful and
untenable in order to penetrate to that which is genuine, fixed, and
permanent. She is not here to deny. The negations are simply
the chips and shavings which must be made to fly in order that the
beams and rafters of the new structure may be beautiful and strong.
She works for the sake of the affirmations which must ultimately
result from it all.
Thus do criticism and faith fraternize. The one cannot exist
without the other. They are two sides of the same thing, the two
poles of one and the same transaction.
It can easUy be shown that the much-revtted historical criticism
cannot exist without faith. It is true that criticism apparently begins
in pure negation. To doubt is her first duty. She mistrusts
every tradition. "They say that this was so and so. Perhaps it
may have been quite otherwise." She seems to regard nothing as
too sacred or holy, neither the form (the text, the letter) nor the con
tent (history, coherence, meaning, or tendency). To the uninitiated
the excess of critical zeal with which critical science sometimes goes
to work may often seem barbarous and ridiculous. As a matter of
fact, the individual investigator may be guilty of mistakes and ex
aggerations in many cases, but they are quickly corrected by his
fellow-workers and feUow-students. Science is continually revising
and correcting its own conclusions. But the really important matter
is this: the critical investigator, even by the use and application of
the most exact methods, can never arrive at any positive result unless
he can make up his mind to believe. In the last resort he must
believe, he must place confidence and trust in some source or report
or supposition or commonly accepted theory; in short, in some
positive result. If he cannot do this, he must sink into absolute
scepticism. Such a scepticism may be ever so clever or intellectually
briUiant, it may put on all the airs of erudition and masquerade
under the cloak and name of science, but it is not science. If the
scholar wishes to write and present history, or if he wishes to reproduce
and describe the history of whole periods, and finally ends, perhaps,
with the purpose of treating the entire history of the human race as a
whole, then faith or behef must accompany him step by step, in order
to fit him for his work and enable him to create. He must have faith
in that which has been, or at least may have been.

44°
On the other hand, even the uneducated do not accept the traditions
of the past without criticism. The Protestant refuses to accept the
CathoUc view of history, and the Cathohc rejects the version of that
history commonly accepted by Protestants. In this case, where the
approved methods of scientific criticism do not suffice or cannot be
accepted, it is precisely faith itself which exercises the criticism.
In the same way faith and criticism walk hand in hand in the case
of the patriot who rejoices in the history of his fatherland, and also
in the case of the Social Democrat who studies economic evo
lution in the past, according to the scheme of Karl Marx, in
order to acquire hope with regard to what the future shaU bring
forth. Let no one say that, if we approach the subject in this way, aU
historical knowledge wiU resolve itself into subjectivism and par
tisan stupidity. This danger really exists, and it is the earnest duty
of science to meet it. But in what other way can past become future,
in what other way can the power with which we came in contact in
tradition be made fruitful for our doing, hoping, and striving, unless
it can be thus subjectively appropriated? Those profound words,
"The just shall live by faith," also apply here.
Let faith do its utmost, its highest and best, that criticism may
become the more active and efficient. For often faith is in advance,
and criticism must laboriously overtake it; and then, again, criticism
has the advantage, and faith must make haste to keep up with it.
But these two are destined to keep step with each other, and neither
one wiU ever reach the goal without the other.
The fact that criticism" is stronger than faith in the science of to-day
does not prove anything against faith. For the science of to-day is
simply more criticism than faith, as she knows very well hersett.
But knowledge or science is not the whole of Ufe. It is a part of
life, as certainly as criticism is a part of Ufe. But life itseh is faith.
We Uve by faith much more than by knowledge.
And if one, animated by reUgious faith, should bring to Ufe, through
the power of his mind, by his desire and sympathy, anything that once
has been, so that it lives anew in beauty and energy, nothing can
hinder him. Only it must reaUy be his own personal act and pos
session. Criticism, which always cries, Halt ! in the presence of every
reaUty, must then treat it with respect. This truth furnishes a

441
support for the quiet security of simple faith in the midst of the
breakers of the storm-tossed sea of criticism.
This process cannot go on without some friction and tension. But
there is no other way to Uve. We Uve by inspiration and expiration.
And tradition is the atmosphere which we breathe. That moment
of time which we caU the present is too short and too poor for us to
Uve thereby. Happy is he who has found in criticism and faith the
right use of tradition. What more does he need for the equilibrium
of his soul?

442

DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
Held in King's Chapel, Tuesday afternoon, September 24, Rev.
Franklin C. Southworth, president MeadviUe Theological School,
presiding. Mr. Southworth. — The International Council is an institution in
which men gather together in the interest of religious freedom, from
lands widely separated, to compare notes on matters of common in
terest. Its purpose has been to talk rather than to act. But the fact
that it occurs to us to meet together as a band of preachers, theolo
gians, educators, thinkers, and workers, who are seeking to unite pure
religion and perfect liberty, is a clear indication that the union of
these two is not yet complete. Now the American type of mind is
essentially practical. When it discovers a new idea, it does not
stand off at a distance and contemplate or admire it. It seeks
rather to harness it to a more or less definite task and set it to
work. That is why we have here in America such a variety of
religious sects. The foreign guests who come to our shores are
apt to be bewildered by this multiplicity. It seems to them to be
somewhat of an indication of eccentricity and instability of char
acter, or the lack of abiUty to work together for a common purpose.
It is, however, not that at aU. It is rather our national charac
teristic that, when we find a good thing, we like to have our neigh
bors share it. Americans are pre-eminently endowed with the mis
sionary spirit. Moreover, when there dawns upon the mind of a
philanthropic American a new religious idea, he not only wants his
neighbor to share it, but insists that his children shall share it,
too. Hence our growing interest in religious education. For that
reason there have been founded here in America the denominational
school and the denominational college; and, if our friends from
across the Atlantic look upon these institutions as the breeding-
place of sectarianism or as foes to progress, they make a serious

443
mistake, for these institutions have been a most important instru
ment in the work of religious education, and are at present our
chief recruiting-station for the Christian ministry. The problem
of education on this side of the ocean is a somewhat serious one from
the fact that it has had to do for many years not only with our own
chUdren, but also with the sons and daughters of Europeans, who
are coming to our shores in constantly increasing numbers. Inas
much, then, as our visiting brethren have had something to do with
forcing this problem upon us, it is fair to caU upon them in turn for
help in solving it.
It seems to me, furthermore, that the time has come in the history
of this International Council when we may address ourselves to the
question whether it may not take some practical step in inoculating
the youth of Christendom with the cosmopohtan spirit in religion
for which the CouncU stands. Two years ago, when we conferred in
the city of John Calvin, it was as if an invigorating breeze from the
very summit of Mont Blanc had penetrated the recesses of the haUs
in which we met, dispeUing the mist of local prejudice and the dust
of insularity and provincialism in which aU of us are apt more or less
to Uve, and giving us a new and brighter vision of the snow-capped
heights of tolerance and spiritual sympathy which beckon to us from
afar. Now may we not do something to make this vision perpetual
and to impart it to others who have not yet seen it ? I suggest that
as one of the topics for discussion at this meeting. We are trying
at MeadviUe to make a Uttle contribution to the solution of the prob
lem. Through the generosity of a Boston woman we are sending
from year to year, on the Cruft TraveUing FeUowship, to the cen
tres of theological learning of Europe, one of the brightest of our
graduates, to sit at the feet of Pfleiderer and Rade, even as we have
commissioned students in the past, and expect to commission them
again, to visit Oxford and Usten to the voices of Carpenter and of
Jacks. But it is a poor rule that wiU not work both ways. We
Americans may impose a pretty stiff tariff on certain commodities of
commerce, but we impose none as yet upon students of theology, and
we are vain enough to believe that, as our students have been freed
from provinciaUsm by study in Europe, so would the ends of this
CouncU be promoted if students from Germany, Switzerland, and
Hungary would come to us for a residence of a year or more at one

444
of our American institutions of learning. Let your young men from
Europe see how it seems to get out from under the shadow of an
ecclesiastical establishment and to come into the atmosphere of one
of our expansive American institutions. We know that their com
ing would be a good thing for us, and we have faith to beUeve that
it would not be bad for them.
During the past year an interesting beginning has been made in an
international exchange of pulpits between England and America,
the benefit of which has already been felt far beyond the limits of
the parishes directly interested. I submit that an interchange of
professors among our schools of theology ought to be equaUy possible
and would be equaUy beneficial, and that such an exchange would
make for international comity as weU as for reUgious fellowship.
These questions may be considered, however, as in a way inciden
tal to the theme to which we are to give our immediate attention.
As representatives of an international movement in the direction of
religious freedom, I have to invite your attention to the representative
of an association which has done more than all other associations in
America combined during the last five years, in behalf of reUgious
education. This association was conceived in the mind of one of the
most distinguished educators of our generation, the late President
Harper. He was its founder and for some time its directing force,
and he laid the foundations so deep and broad that it has grown
stronger rather than weaker since his death. The executive head
of that association is with us to-day. He is the best man we could
think of to invite to speak to us on the Future of Religious Education.
I have the honor to introduce to you Rev. Henry T. Cope,of Chicago.

445

THE FUTURE OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
BY HENRY F. COPE, GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE RELIGIOUS EDUCA
TION ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO.
The popular extension of educational privileges has in these last
years been accompanied by the development and elevation of educa
tion ideals. Education has come to mean the training and develop
ment of the lives of all into harmony and fulness of Uving, com
pleteness of character, and perfection of service as individuals, as
chUdren of one great famtty and one great Father.
The development of the educational ideal has been accompanied
by the development of the reUgious ideal; it has become both practi
cal and spiritual, personal and universal, free and bound by natural
law. Its purpose has become identical with that of education. To
the realization of the fulness of life, personal and social, it brings
the dynamic of the spiritual. In the Ught of this new day, religion
and education are evidently inseparable; religion is the motive and
energy of the largest ideals of education; education, the pathway
to the highest in rehgion. This is what the modern movement for
reUgious education means. And it therefore seems worth while to
discuss: first, the service of the present movement for religious and
moral education; second, the effect of this movement on the proc
esses of reUgious education in the future; third, the means by
which the promise of the present is to become the fact of the future.
I. The Service of the Present Movement for Moral and
Religious Education.
This movement is manifest in a deepening discontent, a growth
of honest inquiry, and an eager reception of new principles and
plans. The movement was born of deep convictions fusing into a
glowing vision, — the conviction of the educators that general educa-

446
tion was not bearing its fruitage in character, of the religious leaders
that education was, at least, an important method in religion, of the
scientists who demanded the recognition of the reign of law, the ab
soluteness of truth, in the moral and the spiritual realms. The vision
was that of the day when every force making for the development
of life shall work in harmony to bring men to the fulness of their
powers, the possession of all their heritage, and the privilege of all
their service, and when this shall be the common and supreme aim
of all those who serve both in the name of rehgion and in the name
of education, and when the methods used by aU shall be those which
life dictates and truth discovers.
The first definite service of this movement was in finding and
defining itself so that it passed from an indefinite dissatisfaction in
individual minds, accompanied by spasmodic efforts at improve
ment, into a clearly declared, unified expression of need and deter
mination for reconstruction. Perhaps the largest service which the
Religious Education Association has rendered has been in thus
bringing together those leaders and workers in ecclesiastical, educa
tional, social, and cultural institutions who were meeting their prob
lems separately, and binding them together in one comprehensive
organization for fellowship, interchange of thought and experience,
mutual co-operation and stimulus, and for organized, unified ser
vice for, and inspiration of, all the agencies of religious and moral
education. Without intending to suggest that the whole movement
is due to the Religious Education Association, it may be acknowl
edged that a great deal aheady has been done by that organization,
not alone in definite, concrete things, as through conventions, con
ferences, publications, exhibits, etc., but more in suggesting im
provements, inspiring and aiding the workers in religious education
and the agencies therefor. The result has been the stimulation of
public opinion, provocation to thought, to inquiry and examination,
leading to dissatisfaction, realization of need and square facing of
the problems involved, with honest endeavor to solve them. More
careful thought, skilled planning, scientific study, and elaborate
experiments have been given to this problem, more helpful schemes
have been worked out, and more valuable literature produced in the
last four years than in the preceding forty. The examination of
any bibliography on the subject will establish this fact.

447
This movement is resulting already in giving a new content to the
word "religion." Hitherto "religious education" has meant, to the
average person, instruction in Biblical lore or in theological dogma.
He was religiously educated who was a walking warehouse of spirit
ual or sectarian information. The Sunday-school was regarded
as the sole agency for the religious education of the laity, the theolog
ical school as the sufficient agency for the religious education of the
clergy. If this movement meant no more than increasing the effi
ciency of the Sunday-school as a miniature theological seminary or
even making more alluring and thorough the curricula of the semi
naries themselves, its interests would be confined to a small group.
It regards reUgion, however, as a matter of much greater breadth
than the Sunday-school, seminary, and pulpit. Religious educa
tion means the development of the whole life. It esteems nothing
that makes for the fulness of life as non-rettgious. That which
makes education reUgious is not the nature of the material of instruc
tion, but the aim and ideal which inspires the educator. Conic
sections become sacred when regarded as contributing to character;
soteriology becomes not only secular, but sinful, when contributing
only to sectarianism. When religious education comes to mean the
nurture and leading of a life into its fulness under the inspiration of
those ideals which have proved of greatest worth in character deter
mination, then men come to think of religion as, subjectively, inspi
rations and ideals, and, objectively, morals and ethics. It may be
that one of the most valuable contributions made by this movement
will be the retteving of the word "religion" from its sectarian, specu
lative, and theological odium and translating it into terms of life and
character. For aU the practical purpose of every-day life religion
and ethics will be regarded as synonymous, and the plain thinker,
the average man, will use the word "religion" with the connotation
which now belongs with morals and practical righteousness. It is
bringing the phrase out of philosophical abstraction into living
reality. Following this will come the adjustment of religious activities
to the changed emphasis in religion. Once begin to really educate
men in the art of living, the change in emphasis does not pause at in
dividual ethics: it passes on to deal with society; the new emphasis in
religion becomes socially ethical. As soon as men learn to live, they

448
find that hving is a problem never individual, always social, and, in
rough terms, reUgion becomes the art of living with others. Indi
viduals and social groups trained in this art wiU produce institutions
and agencies fitted to perform their social services, and these wiU be
reUgious agencies because dominated by the aim of social character
and inspired by spiritual ideals. ReUgious education wUl become
therefore sociaUy ethical.
The movement must create new standards of life. It should
assert again the dominance of the ideal. We wiU cease to measure
men as great or small by their incomes: they wiU be measured by
their offerings of personality to society. The age of things will pass:
the age of men and thought be ours. The greatest need of our day
is religion, that sense of higher values that in every age has made
men and women count not their hves dear to themselves, that inter
pretation of all Ufe in the Ught of the infinite, which, after all, even
in our day, makes a sentence from Emerson or Jesus mean more
than a check signed by Morgan and causes a Uttle brick house in
Portland, Me., for example, to be worth more than a Montana mUl-
ionaire's palace.
Our problems — strikes, trusts, graft, divorce — are the errors of an
age that has not learned to live. Suppose the science of morals had
kept pace with the science of medicine in the last twenty-five years,
or with the science of mechanical engineering, would we have had
in all the splendor of our material prosperity such exhibitions of
spiritual bankruptcy as we have seen of late? In vain is aU our
mechanical and material, our practical and technical, increment unless
to bind att together and hold aU steady for the eternal glory of man
by integrity, honor, and high spiritual ideals. With all ourgetting we
have failed to get wisdom. It is the getting of just this wisdom,
seen by seers of aU the ages, for which religious education stands in
our day: it is the wisdom that sees life in all its relations, that seeks
life in all its fulness, that wiU solve our problems when by its Ught
men have learned to live.
The movement for reUgious education should bridge the chasm
which many have fearfuUy anticipated between the hold of the moral
obligations of the old theology and the impetus of the spiritual ideals
of the new. There was a time when the fear of torment tormented
large numbers into moral conformity. It is true that as yet the

449
higher ideals have not gripped the popular conscience. It is weU
that compulsions should pass; but moral impulses must take their
place. Old beliefs have, in many instances, lost their power, and old
leaders their prestige. What shall fill the gap ? If under the dom
inance of that which we now regard as error communities were kept
respectable, in what way shall they now obtain those impulses which
wiU lead them to righteousness? We recognize that the possession
of the most complete mental cabinet of crystallized and catalogued
theological encyclopaedia witt avail nothing to hold the life true and
clean, apart from the love of truth, devotion to ideals, and feUowship
with divine and heavenly souls. It is the business of religious edu
cation to lead men who have escaped from the bondage of traditions
and ineffectual laws into the hberty of the law of life, into living
by those impulses, aspirations, and powers that shall redeem society
by restoring the individual to all that he has lost as the child of the
Most High.
The movement for religious education is creating new bonds of
union and setting up new aUgnments among the scattered forces
seeking these ideals. It sets up a standard to which all can come.
It commits reUgion to the educational and scientific method; it
brings men into the feUowship of truth; it sets aU in one direction,
facing the facts. It gives to all this high spiritual service of the lead
ing of our feUows to fulness of life. In phUosophy and practice we
may differ, but in this we are whoUy at one.
There are already signs of the effect of this movement in the deep
ening and broadening of the popular conception of general educa
tion. It moves from instruction to education, from the utilitarian
to the ideal conceptions. Character becomes the aim instead of
the curriculum. The strongest supporters of the movement are
among the school men in city schools and universities. Parents
are demanding more of the schools than recitations and examina
tions. Experiments in the schools as social centres indicate the
trend toward a larger mission. Church and school and social forces
come closer together as the unity of their aim becomes apparent.
Leaders in higher education are setting the individual in right rela
tion to the institution.
It may be thought that aU this is but a dream. It is not: it is
a vision, a rough sketching of a few of the fruits that are already

45°
seen in the flower, and some almost in perfection. No one who has
attended the great conventions of the Religious Education Asso
ciation can doubt that the ideal, cultural forces are being made
manifest in a new personal unity: the feUowship and liberty of
these meetings is no small part of their charm. The demand for
institutes and conferences from almost every State in the Union
the general unrest and wide-spread search for better ways; the steady
stream of letters of inquiry coming into the office of the Religious
Education Association, asking as to the new materials and new
methods; the rapid creation of a new literature, particularly in
text-books and methods; the changes taking place in many insti
tutions, some of them of the most conservative type; the demand
upon the Religious Education Association for more help, personally
and through literature; and the eagerness with which its materials,
volumes, journals, and gatherings are received, — are among the things
that point the new day.
II. The Effect of this Movement on the Processes of
Religious Education.
If we regard education as the training and development of a hfe,
by the discovery of self, by adjustment to the whole of environment,
into full personality and service, religious and moral education is
the inspiration of this growing life with those ideals which have
proved of greatest worth, and the training of this life to the expression
of those ideals in personal conduct and social service.
The actual processes of religious education will, first, be scientific
both in character and content. Religious education cannot differ
essentiaUy from any other department or type of education. It
deals with the same person, with the whole of the same person, for
the same purposes, and upon the same principles. It does not
seek to train the heart, the conscience, or the soul, as something
separate from the rest of the being. The faculty psychology has gone
¦to the attic. Man is a unit, and, therefore, education is unitary.
Whatever we may be ecclesiastically, we must be unitarians
pedagogically. Man is not a tenement or an apartment house,
wherein one flat may be depraved, while another is soundly pious.
Religious education will therefore be unitary within itself and

4Si
with all other processes of education. It will reach the whole Ufe;
it wiU concern itself with all that concerns the life; its reach will
take in the playground as weU as the hymn-book, and the doings
of the gang of boys in the make-believe robbers' den with at least
as much concern as it once bestowed on Daniel and the lions' den.
Within the church the various activities will be co-ordinated into
a progressive scheme of education, its schools and meetings pro
viding for the impression through formal instruction and through
worship, its activities within and without affording opportunity
for expression and for laboratory work. It may be that the church
wiU receive a new vocation: she wiU not be regarded as a tinker
of the souls of men, but as the educator of men and the constructor
and savior of society. She will see her work as a whole, with a
new coherency.
The work of reUgious education witt be unified through aU its agen
cies. First, amongst those agencies specially for its purposes. There
will come a standardization of the curricula, a recognition of stand
ards in methods. There is no reason why Sunday-school grades
should not be as uniform as public-school grades; there is no reason
why standard text-book materials should not be produced suitable
to aU schools and such that the pupils would never in the least be
ashamed to compare with the books used at public schools. Such
material is now being produced. There is no reason why we should
not find definite standards for courses of study in the churches
in a field much wider than that of the Sunday-school. As the
churches become, as they must, the spiritual universities of the com
munities, they wiU get together and secure unity in their work.
Absolute uniformity there never can be, especially as the plans of in
struction are subject ever to the purpose of inspiration.
There will result also unity with every other educational agency.
For example, the church wttl recognize and give credit for the re
ligious work of the schools, the schools will recognize and give credit
for the educational work of the churches. We shall see in the
public school a mighty force for religious education. The Bible
wiU not be taught formaUy in the schools, but the spirit of religion
wiU more and more permeate them. We need to recognize the
reUgious motive of the public school, its altruistic purpose, the self-
devotion of its workers, the religious values of its disciplines, its

452
power in the determination of habits, its service to the aesthetic
nature, and its important function in training human beings to Uve
together in society. Economy wiU suggest the correlation of aU
the educational forces, the home, playground, Ubrary, press, club,
fraternity, business coUege, university, and school. When we
begin to catch the breadth of education and fuUy understand in
how important a sense it is aU deeply reUgious, then we shaU have
taken the first great step toward inspiring the educational leaders
with the religious ideal. It is not that they are now doing an irre
ligious or an unreligious work, and need to make it reUgious: they
need to catch the vision of the religious significances of their present
service. The result of such a co-ordination of these agencies wiU be the
absolute reign of the educational and scientific method. It will not
be a science which excludes the spiritual, but it will forever exclude
the false and the meretricious. Religious education wiU realize
on the labors of the servants of education. The experts in pedagogy
and the specialists in psychology have already entered this field,
and there is no sign of greater promise than the new literature which
they are creating. There is a scientific seriousness and thorough
ness in these pieces of work and in the investigations which are now
under way that is fuU of promise.
The educational spirit will mean absolute honesty with the
materials of instruction. Children wiU not be taught that which
afterwards they must endeavor to unlearn, or later seem to be com
pelled to give up the eternally true because it has been inextricably
and essentially woven with that which is now seen to be false. The
painful struggle we have known against our own prejudices, the
torture we have endured in order to escape, ragged and torn, from
the prison walls built by our early instruction, is an experience our
children must be spared. Religious education must be reUgious
in character; that is, holy because absolutely honest, reverent because
reasonable, faithful because fearlessly facing the facts.
It will be no mean result of the movement for religious education
that the normal method of the salvation of humanity shall again
prevail, when from first awakening of life there shaU develop the
consciousness of one's right as the child of God, when the nurture
and development of the whole life into fulness of character shall

453
go steadUy on through the combined and harmonious operations of
all the forces that touch the hfe co-operating with the powers within,
when the necessity for the spasmodic reform and revival shaU have
passed, and men shall think of religion not as something extraneous
and occasional, but as essential, all-inclusive, infinite, when our
children shaU actually and continuously receive the nurture and
admonition of the Lord.
It wiU be no small gain when we are able to send our children to
Sunday-school without fear that they wiU be led away from divine
and eternal beauties or be twisted and dwarfed in mind and heart.
The formal agency of the church for the religious instruction of the
young must be organized as an educational institution. It wiU have
a comprehensive, unitary, graded course of study, based on the stu
dent's interests, needs, and developments; it wiU be so organized as
to provide for the regular steady advancement of the pupil; it wiU
provide efficient, adequately trained teachers, suitable material
equipment, and every f acuity that modern educational science affords.
Sometimes, impatient with the Sunday-school, we cry, "Away
with it! it cumbers the ground." But the new type of school is
coming into being. Its organization is educationaUy sound; its
work is co-ordinated to the pubhc schools and coUege; its course
is not theological; it is homocentric rather than bibUo-centric; its
purpose is not the production of Bibhcal critics, but the perfection
of character.
Patience but for a few years, with dihgent endeavor to help every
school reach such ideals and with painstaking labor to provide the
right materials and trained leadership for them, and these schools
wiU become, under the combined spiritual and educational impulse,
worthy agencies.
But, before these things can come to pass, certain definite things
must be done. The church must train a teaching ministry: provision
must also be made for those whose work will be exclusively that of
religious educators, who will guide aU the nurtural activities of a
church or a community. A new type of man is coming into the min
istry, — the man who will face the facts and adjust himself and his
work to them. With such men and under the impact of this move
ment the churches will become the communal expressions, through
definite service, of reUgious aspirations and ideals; they wiU be the

454
adequate and efficient agencies of formal religious education and the
power inspiring with spiritual ideals aU the educational agencies
of the community. Three things such churches wiU do: give in
struction in religious truth, give impression of religious ideals, afford
opportunity for their expression in personal and communal service.
III. What are the Means by which these Changes are to
be Effected?
First, by agitation; awakening the public mind; stirring up the
conscience of our people to a sense of the need and value of religious
education. It is good to have our most cherished institutions
ridiculed, if the process leads to beneficial reconstruction. Our peo
ple must realize the grave national danger, the danger indeed to the
race, if we continue our one-sided methods of education, training
men to efficiency in making a living and neglecting the art of living.
We need the voice of prophets in popular religious education.
Second, by education; clear, patient teaching of just what relig
ious education means; educating the leaders, teaching the present
teachers, slowly giving to all the new ideals, leading them into the
liberty of the truth, converting coUege presidents and even seminary
professors, training the new type of minister and public leader.
Third, by assistance. We must stimulate the best men and women
to make experiments, work out plans, conduct definite pieces of in
vestigation, and produce material. We must make that which has
been produced available to aU workers, be ready to answer all in
quirers, and aid all who are meeting the actual, practical, next-to-
the-ground problems. The cry for help, for materials, instructions,
and directions, stirs one to the depths. Here, on one hand, are the
seekers after the right way, and, on the other, those who have direc
tion, assistance, and inspiration for them. But it takes money to
bring them together. Money is needed for institutes, for the print
ing of literature, for bureaus of information and exhibits. We are
obliged to refuse to help simply because we do not have the means.
A great need of this moment is money to set men to work, to produce
material, and to make the material aheady produced available to the
leaders, teachers, ministers, and workers.
Fourth, by promotion, — promoting the right types of local organ-

455
izations, whether of churches, in groups of the cultural forces of the
community or in the institutions of learning, bringing together men
and women with the newer ideals, forming local centres of religious
education; by conventions, institutes, addresses, and correspond
ence, by the curriculum of Uterature, by every means within our pow
ers as individuals and through appropriate organizations, stimu
lating thought, directing endeavor, determining plans, conducting
experiments, fostering organizations, leading them to the larger vision,
helping them to build in the unity and liberty of truth, on the firm
foundation of ascertained fact, the glorious fabric of faith.
These are the things of a new day: we must be willing to blaze the
way, be wiUing to work often with inadequate tools, to dweU for a
whUe in rough-hewn log cabins. Pioneer's work must meet frontier
conditions. The aU-important thing just now for the future of relig
ious education is not that we may have immediately the most modern
machinery and conveniences, but that we shall be loyal to our ideals,
that our hght may not grow dim, that we may not be "afraid of that
which is high," nor fear to tread new paths, nor fail to blaze them
boldly and make them plain for other feet. We are coming to a large
open space, a clearing, where we shaU find that others have been
cutting trails to the same place; and all together will see together.
They wiU confess that education without religion results only in de
grading materialism, that religion without education issues only in
slavish superstition, and aU shall rejoice to see the religion that is
in education and the education of men in religion.

456

SOME REMARKS UPON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
CONVERSION. *
BY REV. P. H. HUGENHOLTZ, JR., OF AMSTERDAM, HOLLAND.
During these last years a new shoot has grown on the tree of the
comparative science of reUgion. To you, American scholars, theo
logians, and psychologists, we are indebted for the initial culture of
this shoot. By such scholars as Professors Starbuck and James,
Leuba and Pratt, the psychology of reUgion has been introduced into
the sphere of theological science. Thus they have brought about a
very desirable and necessary evolution in the study of the science of
religion. Some years ago religious scientists confined themselves
principaUy to the history of reUgion, to the ideas and notions, the forms
and ceremonies, in which the religious sentiment expressed itself,
but the sources of reUgious faith and hfe were scarcely explored.
Now, under the guidance of your eminent leaders and pioneers, they"
try more and more to obtain access to these sources from various
directions. Their illustrious example has been followed by different
European scholars, as Emil Koch among the Germans, Ribot and
Murisier among the French, Luigi VaUi among the Italians, Hoffding
among the Danish psychologists, and lately a Zeitschrift fiir Re
ligions psychologie appeared in Germany, with a doctor of medicine
and a Protestant pastor as joint editors.
Two different methods are employed in order to reach this end,
the biographical method and that of research. Thus Professor James
in his highly interesting book, "Varieties of Religious Experience,"
tried to penetrate the inner Ufe of great historical personalities, such
as Saint Paul and Francis d'Assisi, Saint Teresa and George Fox.
So Dr. Starbuck and Dr. Pratt sent their interrogatories about re
Ugious experiences and ideas to persons of different ages, sex, and
opinions. Both methods have their advantages and their draw
backs. The biographical method recommends itself by its objec
tivity and versatility. The biographies of eminent reUgious men

457
and women can be quietly studied, critically explored, and com
pared with one another. But they have this drawback, that the
Ufe of a reUgious hero or prophet reflects itself in the mirror of the
biographer, who beholds it from his particular point of view and
through his own spectacles, so that some biographies teach us
more about the mental attitude of the biographer himself than
about the object of his study. How totaUy different, for instance,
are the impressions which a Froude and a Norton received from
the hves of Thomas Carlyle and Jane Welsh!
The other method apphes directly to the hving objects of research.
Men and women, especially young people, are examined about the
awakening and the development of their religious Ufe. But here the
difficulty occurs that reUgion develops itself more or less instinctively
and unconsciously, so that it is very difficult, almost impossible, to
many a man to give account even to himself of the birth of his re
Ugious convictions. Moreover, many people do not easily open the
gates of their inner sanctuairy. You Americans are accustomed to
live in houses of glass. You are interviewed about aU kinds and
conditions of sensations and opinions. We Europeans, especiaUy
we Dutchmen, are more reticent in this respect: our natures are
reserved, and it requires both tact and deep knowledge of humanity
to penetrate into our inner hfe. Those who reveal themselves more
easUy are more or less exceptional natures. And so the pathological
and sensational sides of rehgious life are better known than the normal
experiences. The reUgious mind that waiteth upon God is often shy
and timid. You have to penetrate it by the Rontgen rays of silent
observation and daily intercourse. A syllabus of questions enables
you to observe the exterior phenomena of religious Ufe, but you need
a great intimacy with the person whose soul and character you wish
to know thoroughly. In order to understand and to appreciate fuUy
the answers you get, you need a profound acquaintance with the
character, the surroundings, and the circumstances of the object of
your research.
Nevertheless, we have "to row with the oars we have." And so it
seems to me that the biographical and the experimental method must
be used conjointly, whenever possible, and should complete each
other. Submitting some remarks about the psychology of conversion
to your kind attention, I witt try to foUow this twofold way.

458
In his interesting book Professor James draws a distinction between
the religion of healthy-mindedness and the religion of the sick soul,
quoting these words of Francis W. Newman: "God has two families
of children on this earth, the once bom and the twice bom. The
once-bom see God not as a strict judge, not as a Glorious Poten
tate, but as the animating Spirit of a beautiful harmonious world,
beneficent and kind, merciful as weU as pure. The twice-bom are
vexed by the anxieties of their accusing conscience and by the
temptations of the devil: they walk in the dead of night tiU sud
denly the light of the divine grace pierces through the clouds."
This contrast indeed exists to a certain extent, but it is not so strong
as it may seem superficially. The once-born, too, know in their Uves
a certain period of deeper communion with themselves, of a certain
awakening of conscious religion, while the apparently sudden con
version of the twice-born has been prepared graduaUy and silently.
So we perfectly agree with Starbuck's conclusion: "Conversion is in
its essence a normal adolescent phenomenon, incidental to the
passage from the child's small converse to the wider intellectual and
spiritual life of maturity." So the deliverance of the soul from
the fetters of sensuaUty and egoism, the awakening of the higher
life, can be compared to the bursting forth of the beautiful petals
from the bonds of the imprisoning calyx. Says James, "When the
new centre of personal energy has been subconsciously incubated
so long as to be just ready to open, 'Hands off!' is the only word
for us, it must burst forth unaided."
So conversion apparently sudden and miraculous can be explained
from the subconscious or subliminal life, or from a set of trans-
marginal memories and impressions crossing at a certain moment
the threshold of conscious life. Saint Paul, for instance, was con
verted, according to the account in the Acts of the Apostles, suddenly
and miraculously by Christ's appearing to him in the clouds and
saying to him: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard
for thee to kick against the pricks." But, psychologicaUy, this won
derful vision was prepared by his manifold meetings with many
Christians, and last, not least, by the stoning of Stephen, in which he
was concerned, and the quiet death of this heroic martyr. The
apparently sudden conversion was indeed a process prepared long
time before in his inner life. The impressions which he had got on

459
several occasions, and which had sunk beneath the threshold of his
subconscious life, crossed it at the moment of his conversion.
Therefore, the question presents itseh how conversion, either sudden
or gradual, has been sUently prepared by the first religious impressions
the child has got.
Here the weU-known theory of Hippolyte Taine, the eminent French
philosopher, presents itseh to mind. According to his idea three
factors govern the Uterary development of aU great authors, — la race,
le milieu, le moment (the race, the surroundings, the moment).
Perhaps the ingenious author has overestimated the influence of
these three agents, but at all events they have a great influence on the
reUgious evolution also. In the first place, the hereditary influences.
In a generation in which rehgious traditions are predominant, the
chUdren, as a rule, wiU be under their influence. To how many ap
phes the word of Saint Paul to his pupil Timothy! "I call to remem
brance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy
grandmother Lois, and in thy mother Eunice, and, I am persuaded,
in thee also." Augustine never would have become so eminent a
prince among the Fathers of the early Church if his pious mother
Monica had not sown in his heart the seeds of fervent piety,
which, long choked by sensual passions, yielded at length their fruits
of righteousness. On the other hand, Luther would not have been
vexed during his whole life by the fear of God and the devil if the
narrow Roman Cathohc faith of his parents had not roused that fear
in his mind.
How great is the influence of the surroundings, the milieu, on the
chUdish mind! The best pupUs of our Sunday-schools and classes
for reUgious instruction come, as a rule, from famiUes where a con
scious reUgion purifies and warms the home atmosphere. How many
times, on the other hand, in my long pastoral practice, I have had the
sad experience of finding that a child whose home offered only narrow
and absurd rehgious ideas, later on, by reaction turned his back on
aU reUgion and changed anxious superstition for radical unbelief!
The moment, lastly, the period in which the younger generation
grows up, has a mighty influence on its religious life. In this respect
the present generation is in an unfavorable condition. We older
people found the religious truth more or less ready prepared for us:
the faith in a personal God, an aU-sufficient Saviour, a personal

460
immortaUty, was imprinted on our childish mind. From the be-
Uef imposed by authority we had to form by storm and stress our
personal conviction, but at aU events the foundations of our faith
were aheady laid. Now the younger generation grows up amidst
a multi-colored mixture of tendencies and opinions rushing in on
each other. Theosophy, Christian science, spiritualism, sociaUsm,
anarchism, and how many other isms crowd in upon the youthful
minds, exciting the imagination by their sounding catchwords and
causing a babel-Uke confusion in many brains. The simple faith in
a moral order, in a divine witt, in the kingdom of God coming not
with observation, offers Uttle in comparison with these big phrases.
So many a young man has to go through a period of doubt and so-
called unbeUef before attaining peace of mind.
I am sorry to say that I cannot apply to HoUand what Dr. Pratt in
his interesting book, "The Psychology of ReUgious BeUef," testifies
from America: "As a fact, we find our friends and neighbors, of aU
degrees of education and inteUectual abiUty, almost to a man accept
ing God as one of the best-recognized reahties of their world and
as simply not to be questioned." On the contrary, we find many ag
nostic and unbelieving people among our countrymen, not from in
difference, as a mie, but from sincere and honest doubt.
It is a pity to observe how many parents unconsciously prepare this
period of storm and stress for their chUdren by totaUy ignoring the
need for reUgion in the childish mind. Some of my pupils told me
that they got the first impressions of God and reUgion not from their
father or mother, but from a nurse or a maid-servant, and oftentimes
such a person, herself knowing only an angry and dreadful God,
awakened in the chUdish heart only fear of a heavenly tyrant. Others
fill the head of their children with incomprehensible Scriptural pas
sages or hymns, and compel them to attend Sunday after Sunday
long and tedious religious services, so that the only impression of
religion they get in their youth is one of weariness and disgust. By
way of reaction a period of entire unbelief foUows very early in the
life of many a child.
A very distinguished and religious woman told me that in her
twelfth year she professed her unbelief in God, and refused to repeat
any longer the daily prayers that were taught her.
So a boy of fourteen confided to his teacher: "Every fortnight I

461
have to go to church with the whole famUy in procession. There I
often think, 'How many chUdren are sitting here who hate it as
much as I do ! ' " One must needs grow bad from such a reUgiosity.
I myseU in my youth was so crammed with Bible lessons and re
Ugious services that, having become a student at Utrecht University,
for a whole year I never entered any church, tiU after a long struggle
rehgion revived in a higher form in my heart and became the light of
my Ufe.
On the other hand there are children who aheady rack their brains
in infancy with the question of the personahty of God. Two Uttle
boys of four and six held this conversation in bed: —
Bob (four years): "TeU me, John [six years], do you know how
God looks?"
John: " God does not look at all. God is a Spirit."
Bob: "What is a spirit, John?"
John: "That I don't know, either, but it is something very fine,
much finer than a man; for, when you pinch grandfather in his
elbow, you feel a bone, but, if you pinch God in his elbow, you
don't find any bone at all."
The gradual awakening and growth of religious impressions is
sketched very weU in this confession of a young man: "I was a very
pious child, but in my heart I felt a certain fear of God. When I
heard you say that Jesus caUed God 'Father,' it made Uttle im
pression on me; but I Uked to hear the history of Jesus very much.
My fear disappeared, of course, as I grew up, aheady before my
twettth year, I suppose. Doubts troubled me sometimes, but posi
tively unbeheving I have never been. In my secluded Ufe here [as
an engineer in a far country] I have felt grow up into adoration and
unutterable love the great emotion which I felt as a boy when I
heard you and other serious people pronounce the powerful word,
God." From these observations foUows the conclusion that a gradual
transition from lower to higher Ufe, from a selfish and sensual exist
ence to a life of abnegation and self-denial, cannot be too early
promoted by education. Therefore, religious habits in the family
can be of high value. Misused and awkwardly appUed custom can
hinder the growth of spiritual life. Daily prayers and Bible lessons,
mechanicaUy and slavishly repeated, are wearisome to many a childish

462
soul. They may be the cause of a misunderstanding and disUke
for reUgion in later Ufe.
In many a childish mind an inundation of Bible texts and hymns
washes away the germs of natural piety. I know several young men
who call themselves infidel as a reaction from the surfeit of dogmatic
religion they received in youth. But, on the other hand, custom,
inteUigently and cautiously foUowed, can be the channel through
which the stream of religious life flows. The first impressions and
habits are decisive for later life. "The chttd is father to the man,"
says Wordsworth. Has not the weU-known word of Horatius the
same meaning ?
" Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit odorem testa diu."
" The dish witt long keep the smell of the food with which it once
was imbued."
So a childish prayer, not formally imposed, but uttered sponta
neously, can be the first expression of religious desire. Therefore, it
should not be hmited to physical wants in the first place. Grace
before and after meals, as a rule, is a mere form and a worthless
ceremony. It often happens in a family where grace before and after meals is
a mere ceremony that some one asks, "Have we said grace already?"
" Yes, we have," says another one. " Oh, I did not know."
A sharp boy, dining with a family as a guest, had to say grace after
dinner, during which no drink had been offered to him. " Heavenly
Father," he said, "I thank you for the dinner. Drink I did not
get. Amen," giving in this manner a gentle hint to his hosts.
Prayers should be connected rather with moral needs and spiritual
desires. When the child goes to bed with the knowledge of having
been naughty and having caused sorrow to its parents, it is the right
moment for putting into its mouth a prayer for pardon annd strength
to be good.
Nature, as a rule, makes little impression on the childish mind.
There are exceptions, it is true. Some of my pupils told me that at
the age of about eight years they looked up to the starry sky with the
idea, "Beyond these stars God is sitting on his throne," or that a
beautiful landscape suggested the question, "Who has made this
wonderful world?" Usually, however, the cosmological argument

463
does not occur to the childish mind. But the sense of shame and
repentance, of guUt and contrition, may awake early in the childish
heart the dawn of a sound conversion.
Moreover, the teacher of reUgion should impose on his pupils no
system of dogmatic rules, sharply defined and immovably fixed, —
stones for bread, indeed! — but simple principles and reUgious beliefs
forming the foundation of the building which the growing man has to
raise in himself. A deep respect for the voice of conscience, for the
categorical imperative, Du sollst (You ought), must be the basis of
that spiritual temple which graduaUy arises in every religious mind.
If these first moral principles are supported by the moral authority
and the spiritual superiority of the teacher, they wiU exercise a
mighty influence on the childish mind. Not what, but how, you
teach is the great question. Every teacher who speaks with real
conviction and warm enthusiasm, "quem pectus dissertum facit"
(whom the heart makes eloquent), wiU conquer the heart of his
pupils, especially when his instruction concerns the highest life of
the soul.
For the rest the reUgious development of young people must be
governed by the principle, "diversity of gifts, but the same spirit,"
— one spirit of holy earnestness and profound piety, one thirst after
truth and righteousness, but at the same time the utmost liberty and
the deepest respect for individuality. There is not one way, but many
ways, to the heaven of celestial peace and blessedness. You can
reach God by the inteUectual, the mystical, the ethical, the practical
road, each foUowing his own path. The heavenly Father has many
sorts and conditions of chUdren, and each needs to be educated
according to his personal talents and temperament. You cannot
desire, says Lessing in his "Nathan der Weise," " dass aUen
Baumen eine Rinde wachse " (that all trees should grow the same
bark). So the once and the twice bom, the mystical and the intellectual,
the theoretical and the practical nature, each in his own way comes
to God, the everlasting and ever-flowing source of spiritual life and
love.

464

DEPARTMENT OF PRESS AND PUBLICATION.
Held at the Unitarian Building, Wednesday afternoon, September
25- This conference of the editors and pubUshers of liberal reUgious
papers and periodicals was one of the smallest meetings of the week,
but was of interest and value to those who took part in it. Rev.
Frederick A. Bisbee, D.D., editor of the Universalist Leader, pre
sided, and spoke as follows: —

REMARKS OF REV. F. A. BISBEE, D.D.
In this, one of the smaUest departments of this great Congress,
I invite you to the consideration of a theme of largest importance.
The secret of commercial success lies very largely in the manner
of putting the goods upon the market. However great the merit of
a commodity, invention, or idea, it comes to its own only when it
reaches the people whose need it is designed to supply. Production
becomes potent through wise distribution. The mediator is essential
to both God and man. I rank the religious journal chief among the
instrumentalities for the spread of religious truth and inspiration,
and, amid present conditions, vital to any religious propaganda.
In this country we have, approximately, 900 reUgious periodicals,
reaching about 5,000,000 subscribers, and, according to the newspaper
standard, read by 20,000,000 people. My impression is that during
the last quarter of a century the number of journals has slightly
increased and the number of subscribers considerably decreased.
During the last half -century there have been marked changes in the
character of these periodicals. Once they were religious with a
miscellaneous annex: now they are mostly misceUaneous with a
religious annex. With the multiplying and cheapening of papers
and magazines appealing to every department of human life the

465
reUgious journal has been driven to various expedients to preserve
its very existence, and in some cases committed unintentional
suicide by abandoning its own familiar and chosen field of service in
its search for material success, or secured the material success only
through the crucifixion of its religious purpose.
It is not necessary in this presence to argue the importance of the
reUgious journal. We all know it, and, knowing it, look with keen
anxiety upon what seems an impending echpse. We naturally face
reluctantly so gloomy an outlook. And yet why should present con
ditions shake our confidence or daunt our courage ? If we are deal
ing with the things of eternity, only the verdict of eternity can in
fluence us.
Yet I acknowledge that we face some very serious problems, though
I am not at att pessimistic regarding the ultimate outcome, providing
we endure to the end with singleness of aim. And I am disposed to
look these facts fairly in the face with you to-day.
The rehgious journal is losing ground. There are not half a
dozen sett-supporting rehgious papers in America to-day, and not
one making money. What are the reasons, and what are the reme
dies? I am going to suggest one reason as primary to all others, and con
taining a potential remedy. I do not believe you witt all agree with
me, but the conviction is upon me and strengthens with observation
and experience.
The reUgious journal is the composite pastor of a conglomerate
parish. Its problems are but the problems of the local pastor mul-
tipUed and made more intricate. The editor preaches to an unseen
and unresponsive congregation, and does pastoral work by proxy.
The practical poUcy of the reUgious press does not differ from that
of the modern pulpit in cultivating a diversity of interests to such an
extent as to defeat any specific purpose. I am not in the critic's
chair, but in the confessional. I only note the facts to which we have
aU been driven seemingly, however unwUUngly, — the fact that we
have pushed the distinctly reUgious interests, to foster which we are
called into being, farther and farther back in our papers to make
room for the so-caUed "live topics" of secular life, devoting our con
spicuous columns to the same class of editorial work we find in the
secular press, until we have destroyed the very reason for our own

466
existence. The primary purpose of the religious journal is to foster
religion: aU else must be merely incidental. In proportion as it de
parts from this purpose does it cease to have reason for being. When
we suffer or encourage the crowding of the specifically religious into
the obscurity of small type and narrow columns to make room for
the superficially "interesting," we are not only disloyal to our holy
purpose, but, I firmly believe, are committing slow but certain suicide.
People will value our words and work no higher than we do our
selves, and, if we thrust religion into a secondary place, we must
expect them to do the same. Why should any man subscribe for a
religious journal which is but a poor imitation of a secular paper
costing only half as much ? How can any man be expected to sustain
a religious paper which is not religious? And this is my contention:
that religious journals have failed because they have ceased to be
religious, and run after aU sorts of idols and passing fads and fancies,
and mixed into business of every other interest instead of minding
their own and magnifying it untU none should pass it by. I would
contend for the primacy of religion among Ufe's interests; that relig
ion shall have its rightful place and true valuation; that religion is
not an annex or a product of some other life-quaUty, but a vital
entity, independent and in the end sovereign, to which every life in
the ultimate test of experience acknowledges aUegiance.
I was impressed with the statement of Dr. EUot, in his opening
address as President of this Congress, that "we should not make«»real
distinctions between the sacred and the secular," but there is a real
distinction which we cannot afford to ignore, and which Dr. Gordon
emphasized when from the same platform he insisted that "rehgion
is an independent and momentous fact," — a fact which stands in
relation to all other facts of life, but to-day we are magnifying the
"relations" and obscuring the fact. There is a world-fuU of good
things and worthy objects well deserving attention, but regal among
them all stands religion, but because we have despoiled her of her
crown we ourselves are fallen.
With this but passing suggestion of primary reason and remedy,
I turn to some practical considerations of immediate interest, which
I shall little more than catalogue, leaving them for discussion.
The age is indifferent to organic religion, one of the fruits of what
I have already pointed out. The age is not irreligious, but, where

467
it once received its supply from the single source of the pulpit, relig
ion now flows in through many channels. Every newspaper of
note has its religious department, and religion is more frequently
than ever the dominating note of literature, but organized religion
must now appeal where once it commanded.
It is an amusement-loving age; it has gone pleasure-mad in spots.
The satiated tastes must have piquant sauces.
It is a hurrying age, and forces growth. It cannot wait for the old
man to die, but wants its inheritance now to spend in riotous hving.
It wants to get rich quick, to get healthy quick, to get education
quick. It is immediate, and cares not for the future. It solves all
its problems with fads.
What is the rehgious journal to be and to do in such an age ? It
must adjust itself, but without sacrificing its ultimate purpose.
The fact is we have come into a time when the religious journal
does not, perhaps cannot, receive its normal support from the indi
vidual, and yet never was there a time when its ministry was more
needed or could be made more efficient. Never was there a time
when the Church had such need of its service, for, instead of people
coming to the church, the church must go after the people, and its
best messenger is the church paper: that never tires and never fails,
but every week goes into the home as a reminder of church obliga
tions; and it appears to me that under present conditions the wisest
thing any church can do is to subsidize in some way this most effi
cient missionary. And, speaking from my own experience, I can see
how all the problems of my own paper could be solved in a day if
every one of our churches were to subscribe for a certain number of
copies, to be placed at the disposal of the minister, to be sent where
they were most needed. This would insure a better paper, and in
return revive the interest in the local church and the general cause.
Another dream I have had, but which may never be realized,
is that in the great centres, where there are a number of religious
papers pubUshed, we might some time learn a little wisdom of the
world, and do away with aU of our Uttle mechanical plants, where
we work under such limitations, and combine in an establishment
which would do our work better and cheaper.
But, brethren of the pen, there is no chief among us to-day; no
one may furnish aU the copy. We are here for mutual conference

468
and help, here to face our problems frankly and courageously in
the confidence of a feUowship which should be closer, and I leave
with you for consideration the interests of this greatest instrumen-
taUty for reUgious advancement and human good, — the reUgious
press. A general discussion foUowed.

PROF. JEAN REVILLE, D.D.
Paris, France

PROF. G. BONET-MAURY, DJ).
Paris, France

I

REV. L. E. T. ANDRE, D.D.
Florence, Italy

ABBE ALBERT HOUTIN
Paris, France

469

DEPARTMENT OF COMITY AND FELLOWSHIP.
Meeting held in King's Chapel, Wednesday, September 25, 3.30
P.M., Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, of Chicago, presiding.
Mr. Jones. — Friends, the hour fixed for this meeting has arrived.
We are here to find out what we are going to do about it. We have
been delighted to find how much akin we are. Our friends have
crossed the seas and chmbed the mountains to get here. They have
crossed the deeper seas and cUmbed the higher mountains of race
prejudices, theological animosities, sectarian distrust. They have
come and found themselves in dehghtful accord. They have found
themselves one in the strength and joy of comradeship and feUowship.
If I understand the object of this section this afternoon, it is to
inquire whether this experience is to be only a delightful spasm,
only a talking-fest, only a tea-party in rehgion. We know that there
are great tasks awaiting us. We know that there are great problems
unsolved, and we know in our moments of frankness that, as the
battle is now carried on in many sections and on many points, it must
be a losing battle. Despite aU the congratulations and all the sur
prises of these days it still remains true that the minister in rehgion
is the last to yield to the spirit of the age which calls for co-operation
and combination. The industrial world does learn at least the
wastefulness of competition. The industrial world has learned the
economic value of combination. Now we have to investigate, some
times with microscopic instruments, to find the names and the things
that keep us apart in the great realm of rehgion; and still these
microscopic differences, these antique traditions, these obsolete
names and fancies, obtain effectually when we face the great tasks of
the world. Universalist, Unitarian, Quaker, Congregationalist,
findthemselves in this presence thinking the same thoughts on man,
duty, destiny, do they not? They are learning to speak with great
confidence their affection for the Man of Nazareth and their loyalty

47°
to the great Missionary to the Gentiles. And still if you go to any
cross-roads here, touch any New England village in its purity and
its power and study it on its religious side, you are apt to find
its weakness and its imbecility.
I am reminded of a story of Father Taylor, who landed in one of
these New England villages on a winter night, and the deacon who
took care of him stopped to count the spires, — "One, two, three,
four, five, six, seven spires." Said the deacon, "Father Taylor, the
Lord has come into this place: see seven churches here." "No,
no," said the old prophet, "the Lord has gone, and the devil has
come. You may be sure there is war aU along the line in a place of
this size that tries to maintain seven churches." He had entered
into the higher secrets of faith and the higher meaning of religion.
What are we going to do about it? Are there not some things
that we can do together that we now try to do with great loyalty
apart? Is this international body going to scatter and go to their
homes without feeling that they have received a high commission,
a charge to carry out in their respective places? Here we talk of
peace: how much can we do together as ministers of reUgion to
bring about the disarmament of nations? We see the pain and
sorrow and waste that comes from the bitterness of race prejudices.
How much is this International Congress going to do towards lev
elling up their constituencies into the harmonies they talk about,
into the fraternities they expound, and the brotherhood they believe
in, when they go to International Congresses? Those are the prob
lems. I am not here to discuss them, I am simply asked to make
the wheels go round; and I hope that there will be many wheels to
go round this afternoon on this Une. But it would be ungracious
in me to spoil the clear argument and the wise statement that the
gentlemen have prepared to give us who are to foUow me.
The first speaker fittingly is the Chairman of the New York State
Conference of ReUgion, Dr. J. M. Whiton, of New York.

47i

THE NEW SPDAIT AND ITS RISING TIDE.
BY JAMES M. WHUON, "THE OUTLOOK," NEW YORK.
The New York State Conference of Religion, for which I have
the honor to speak to-day as one of the co-operating bodies in this
Congress, was organized a year earUer than this Council and on the
same basis, with the same motto, and with the same inclusive feUow
ship, — a feUowship more inclusive than any other in our State, — in
cluding Jews on absolute equality with Christians in our Executive
Committee, in att our meetings. We meet in Jewish synagogues
just as freely as we meet in Christian churches, and among all the
members of the State Conference of ReUgion I know none who are
more enthusiastic in its promotion and in the principles it stands for
than some of our friends in the reformed wing of Judaism. And
the New York Conference brings you greeting to-day and salutation
on the New Spirit and its Rising Tide.
That a Copernican revolution has taken place in reUgious thought
during the last half-century, none can be so deeply conscious as those
of us who have long memories. It is one of the advantages of a long
Ufe that one can cover the time between the day when the builders
rejected the stone and the day when it was made the head of the
corner. The revolution has been from the distinctively mediaeval
to the distinctively modern conception of the way and the working
of God in this world. The New Spirit thus arising, as "the thoughts
of men are widened with the process of the suns," has drawn the
old-time disputants together, to see eye to eye and join hand to
hand, by its substitution of the scientific temper for the dogmatic,
and by the precedence it secures for religion above the philosophy
of religion.
I wish I had time to say what this suggests to me respecting that
which is still the goal of hope for many of us, the reunion of the
divided sections — not divided now so far apart as formerly — of the
historic church of New England, the church of the "Mayflower," the
church of the Winthrop colony that settled Tri-mountain, where we
stand, in 1630. It is coming. Some of you wiU live to see it.

472
''Religion unites where theology divides." We lift to Heaven our
prayer, Thy will be done. This prayer is the symbol of the pro
foundest unity, compatible with many diversities of formulary and
form. Jew, Mohammedan, Brahmin, Christian, lifting that prayer
together, feel alike, "We are many: we are one."
Look at our gold or silver coins. Read on one side the national
Confession of Faith, In God we Trust, placed there in May, 1865,
by Act of Congress, one month after the Republic had emerged with
victory from its four years' fight for Ufe. Read on the other side the
national motto of our forty-five States, so diverse and sometimes dis
cordant in their local interests, E pluribus Unum, — one in their atti
tude toward the world, like the cloud that " moveth altogether, if
it move at all." Here the political world has realized the ideal that
is stiU beckoning to the religious world, of which a glimpse and a
foretaste is presented in this Congress. Here we have to-day an
E pluribus Unum, with the confession of faith that makes us one:
In God we Trust, the true and ultimate "Formula of Concord."
Important as it is that men should think alike, — and they will
think alike in religion as in astronomy, in degree as the Copernican
revolution succeeds in diffusing and popularizing the regulative ideas
of modern as distinct from mediaeval thought, — the concord of wills
is more important than the concord of inteUects. PsychologicaUy
•and practically, the man is centred in the will. Apart from the will,
the whole man is not carried into action, however he may speculate,
philosophize, or feel. To effect anything in the world, religious unity
must be a unity of wills. The central aspiration of the reUgious
¦spirit that trusts in God is to link the human wiU with the divine for
the fulfilment of its prayer, "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on
earth." Right here appeared to us in New York the point of urgency, —
to affirm the unity of the religious spirit in the supreme interest of the
religious will. That is to say, of real religion as distinct from mere
religiosity. God's will can be done only as men can be got to do it;
and they must be got to do it. Behold, then, the present riot of sett-
ish greed and libertinism and fraud and lawlessness which de
moralizes so large a part of American life to-day, and reports our
national shame throughout the world. That no such moral crisis
is looming up in other lands, no one will affirm. Bishop Gore, of the

473
AngUcan Church, said a year ago "that, paradoxical as it sounds,
Christian people do not yet understand what Christian morality
reaUy is, " as distinct from the morality of custom. The New York
Conference has been saying this for years. Are the churches ancti
synagogues, each holding its own fort separately, able to roU back.
the threatening tide? If it is high time, as was said twenty-five
years ago, to call out all the moral reserves, the most potent voice
is the voice of rehgion. But it must be raised with a will all along
the Une by every regiment and brigade, — not as Methodists or Uni
tarians, Episcopalians or Jews, but rather as simply religious men,
united in the supreme passion of religion to suppress all iniquity
by the enthronement of God's righteousness in human hearts and1
human laws. And, in confronting the present moral crisis, religious
men may well adopt the saying of the author of "Ecco Homo":
"No heart is pure that is not passionate; no virtue safe that is not
enthusiastic." Unity can come only so. It is just in the flame of
enthusiasm for the furtherance of the moral government of God and
the enthronement of the righteousness of God that our differences
are fused together in the unity of the forward movement.
I have interested myself largely in the deeper problems of relig
ious thought, with the result of a growing consciousness of unity with
others who approached the same from different points of preposses
sion or prejudice. But the conviction has also grown that the vast
majority of men will for a long time care little about the agreements
which we work out in the science or philosophy of religion. Not these
will bring men to trust in God, or to do the wiU of God, or to strive
for the righteousness of God in the unity of a spiritual morality and a
thoroughly ethical reUgion. For this result the religious unity that
we proclaim and exemphfy, and the reUgious liberaUsm which fosters
that unity, must crystallize in forms of wiU and act as well as in forms
of statement : it must be dynamic against concrete wrong and wicked
ness, mUitant not only against superstition and priestcraft and popery,
whether Roman or Protestant, but stiU more against aU unright
eousness, social or personal, and aU the economic wrongs that still
defraud multitudes of our laboring people of their rightful share, not
so much of property, but rather of opportunity to lead normal and
wholesome lives. With the normal aspirations of these disinherited
ones the cause of liberal religion must actively identify itself; for the

474
ultimate test of religion is in what it can do to humanize and to in
spire the lowest ranks of the social body.
This practical world of ours is ever demanding of the prophet a
sign: "What sign showest thou? What dost thou work, that we
may see and believe?" We do well to trust in God and confess
sonship to God. We shaU do well to remember the ancient word:
"For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might
destroy the works of the devil." Only so can the Son of God manifest
himself as such, and make his epiphany complete and convincing.
Mr. Jones. ParUamentary bodies have a way of unloading them
selves from a mass of detaU and confusion that comes from too much
elaboration by moving the previous question. That clears the deck
and gets back the first issue. Our Quaker friends a long time ago
moved the previous question in religion. When scholars were con
fused and dazed over the question, "What readest thou?" they
said, "What thinkest thou?" When ecclesiastics were entangled in
their ropes of their own weavings, they moved the previous question
and asked, "How feelest thou?" If you and I agree upon the text,
look inward, and perhaps you wiU have a little revelation on your
own account and get a good ways on the strength of that revela
tion. I know not why it is that too often in making up our cata
logues of Liberal forces and Liberal men these Friends who have so
effectually moved the previous question and carried aU of us nearer
to the heart of things are left out. I am glad that in this program
this afternoon there is provision made for a representative of this
feUowship. He does not represent this feUowship, aU fellowships,
our fellowship, but Fellowship. Henry W. Wilbur, of the So
ciety for the Promotion of Friends' Principles, wUl now address us.

HENRY W. WILBUR, OF PHHADELPHIA.
The great trouble in all matters when we undertake to discuss
the question of fellowship is that we give altogether too much time
to our denominational fences. We give too much time to the possi
bility of burning these fences. It is not necessary to burn them.
If we keep on in the even tenor of our way, the tooth of time witt

475
eat them up anyway, so we need not worry about that. It is not
necessary to drown individuality in order to remove our differences:
we may remove our differences and maintain our individuality, and
the test of the whole matter comes largely in our ability to do ex
actly that thing. The principal thing that we need now to line up
the Liberal forces in behalf of the things that ought to be done, and
ought to be done from our standpoint and with the spirit which we
can put into their doing, is that we shaU co-operate in spirit rather
than to attempt to form a paper fellowship or a great religious trust
which shaU put all other opponents out of business. What we want
is not the great reUgious trust which shaU swallow up all these in
dividual expressions of human thought and human truth, but such
a feUowship of spirit and of feeUng as wiU make us unite our efforts
along certain lines in our own individual ways and aiming at the
common result.
We shall never make very much progress, however, until we get
a different notion of what we caU broadness. To many of us broad
ness is simply a frothy sentiment which does not mean very much
except for dress parade purposes. It very often happens that our
broadness has become narrowness; and how often has that narrow
ness been our condemnation! Real broadness makes us able to
take in, in the study of the sweep and swing of things, a fair recog
nition of the good and grace that there has been in every religious
system which the world has evet seen that is fundamental to the
consideration of the whole proposition, and to be able to see that
every one of these systems has made some contribution towards
clarifying the atmosphere and towards bringing us a little bit nearer
to the thing for which we aU aim, and that is the establishment of
the real brotherhood among men. We do not have to break up
our family Unes in order to attain a feUowship and a united spirit in a
neighborhood, and we do not need to break up all our religious lines,
U that is the right word to use, in order to be sure of having comity
and feUowship in the reUgious world. The whole thing is a matter
of spirit.
There has been a germ of truth lurking in the midst even of the
world's mythologies. When men groped their way darkly, and in
that groping saw a divinity in every flower and a spirit in every grove,
they were simply doing their best to make an apprehension of the

476
larger truth which has come to us of the universal pervading, resi
dent divinity. What they wanted was a resident divinity, and they
got it by chopping divinity up. What we want is a resident Divin
ity which is united and lives and breathes and moves in the world
of His creation and inspires aU hearts to the doing of His wiU.
There was the germ of a tremendous truth in the postulate that
was made during the old Deuteronomic reformation in the times of
King Josiah, when what now seems to us the foolish geographical
proposition was laid down — very logically, to be sure, as far as it
went — that, inasmuch as God was one, he could only be worshipped
in one place, and that place was Jerusalem. There was a germ of
truth in that. God is one, and he can only be adequately worshipped.
in one place, but it is not Jerusalem nor any other place on the map.
The only place where God can be worshipped is in the individual
human heart. There, there he sets up his holy shekinah, and there
are just as many holy shekinahs as there are human hearts in the
universe. Let us be able to see that truth which wiU tend toward that broad
ness which wiU land us where we ought to be, — in the midst of a.
genuine brotherhood.
But possibly we may test the whole matter more clearly by trying
to find out the particular contribution to the great range of broad
feUowship we have individually made to the world's progress. And
what I say now is not to magnify a very weak and meagre and poor-
denomination, but simply to point a moral and adorn a tale.
The Religious Society of Friends managed to behave itself fairly
weU for nearly two hundred years in substantial unity, but after a
while that demon of theological doctrine which has gnawed at the
vitals and the spiritual fibre of our race from the beginning crept in,
and we quarrelled and we divided. But for eighty years the branch
of the society which happens to be represented here to-day has beem
more and more making a somewhat substantial contribution to iUus
trate the fact that there can be genuine unity of spirit in the midst.
of great diversity of individual opinion. We have among us a num
ber of very exceUent people who believe in the Virgin birth, in the-
Trinity, in the literal resurrection, and all of the postulates of evan
gelical theology. We have a still larger number who do not beheve
in any of them, and we have a stiU larger number who don't care

477
a copper about them, who give them no thought, who do not con
sider them vital to the building of the right spiritual life. But in
the midst of all this we have reached the point where there is abso
lutely no theological quarrelling, and a historian, not of our faith, has
recently declared that it is a common thing to hear absolutely di
verse opinions in the same meetings for religious worship. That is a
fact, and yet in the midst of aU that we maintain a reasonable de
gree of fellowship and unity and harmony, and have reached a point
where one man never feels himself called upon to antagonize an
other man's thinking. That seems to me to be a distinct contri
bution on a small scale towards the development of that spirit which,
when it becomes universal, will have settled the whole matter.
The reason why this position has been reached is simply this:
that it has dawned upon us somehow or other that our entire busi
ness is to seek to interpret the message and carry out the mission of
Jesus Christ. And that can be summed up in a single sentence, — to
bring the kingdom of God among men. What we may think about
a thousand theological principles necessarily has nothing to do with
bringing the kingdom of God among men, for "the kingdom of
God cometh not by observation," neither does it come by much
speculation, neither does it come by wrangUng or contention, but it
comes in attempting to get the fruits of the Spirit among men. So,
therefore, as exclusive as we have been in the years that are gone,
we are beginning to approach at any rate a certain degree of broad
ness in feehng that, if the whole world were made up of Quakers, it
would be a somewhat sombre and unsatisfactory world after aU,
that diversity of opinion and of method, both of worship and of hv
ing, has some merit. And we are beginning to see in the midst of
our protest and our testimony against formalism that possibly there
may rest behind form and ceremony a measure of the same spirit
which beats beneath our formless and creedless little communion.
And it is this feUowship of the spirit which we must have, which we
witt have if we try for.
I believe that the message of the time to-day to Liberal religious
people is simply that they may be inspired to do about half as
weU as they know how! We have reached a splendid position re
garding many things, very delightful to ourselves. We — the Quaker
and the Unitarian and the Universalist — believe in the immanent

478
God; believe, as Clement said in the second century, that "the
Creator hath filled the universe with the seed of salvation"; beUeve
with George Fox that a measure of the seed of God has been planted
in every human soul. We believe that, the whole of us, but we are
a good deal like the smaU boy in the Quaker kindergarten. The
teacher had a way of taking the Uttle feUows when they became
obstreperous, and keeping them off by themselves and telhng them
that, if they kept stiU, they would hear something inside of them tott
ing them what was right to do. So she put this little feUow behind
the screen, and went to him in about fifteen minutes and asked,
"WeU, John, what is it?" And the Uttle feUow said, "It's a-talking
aU right, but I ain't hearing it." That is the trouble with many of
us Liberal people. We beUeve in the spirit inside of us, we know
that it is talking all right, but we don't hear it.
Now what do we owe — what do we owe as Liberal people — in the
direction of a united fellowship and a wide comity in the midst of
the perplexing and complex civilization in which we find ourselves?
We need simply this: to learn that where in some places some of
us are too weak to do a thing alone, by using a vulgar term heard
on the street, — by "pooUng our issues," — not by putting down our
fences, but by pooling our issues, by uniting our forces in an effort
to put light where there is darkness, physical light where there is
physical darkness, we may do something in that direction, for the
broadening outlook teaches us that we shall never bring the kingdom
of God among men in the midst of a submerged society divided into
classes and clans and prejudices and hatreds. The kingdom of God
can only be brought in the midst of society by establishing an
absolute conception of the common brotherhood and the universal
Father. We all of us like to believe that and to talk about it, and
it is all very pleasant to us that the best of men are the sons of God
and our brothers; but the simple fact is that the worst of men are
the sons of God and our brothers just the same. And, until we get
able to see that, all of our broadness will amount to nothing. And
to see and to feel it and to know it, in the midst of the civilization of
which we are a part, would let a great amount of daylight into most
of the economic and pubhc questions before us for settlement to-day.
Then, again, we have given altogether too much time, some of us,
to doing missionary work among the poor. The Liberals to-day

479
in this country ought to organize a world-wide mission to the rich.
That is not as nonsensical as it sounds. What I mean by that is
simply this: that, ever since the world began, the people at the top
of society have set the pace for society. Half of the peculation and
the fraud, half of the extravagance and the folly, half of the pride
and hatred, which consume our American civiUzation, is because of
the constant effort of those at the bottom to ape those at the top.
li there could be brought to bear upon the spirits of the men and the
women in this country who reaUy set the pace a single conception
of the simphcity and dignity of the genuine religion of the Master,
it would putt down two-thirds of aU the class barriers we have in the
world, and would help usher in the common brotherhood more
quickly than anything else.
Half of the splendid impulse in our civiUzation, half of the splen
did zeal of our humanity, is consumed in our time in the vulgar dis
play of the rich and in the not more vulgar effort of the poor to keep
up with them. And to make it perfectly plain that society needs
reforming from the top as weU as from the bottom is one of the
concerns regarding which the whole Liberal Church might profitably
and successfully unite their individual forces and forget for the time
being their individual fences. There is scarcely a neighborhood
represented in this meeting this afternoon that does not present a
concrete example of some of the things that could be done in that
community to make life more worth the living.
The kingdom of God can never come among men while half of the
world confesses that it does not know how the other half lives, and is
glad of it. The kingdom of God wiU never come among men until
those who have seen the precious delight and felt the moving of the
Spirit, and know what justice is, have helped to make the moving
of the Spirit and justice the common heritage of their neighbors in
the community where they dwell. These are the common things
regarding which we could very easily unite.
Again, and possibly last, we could unite in demonstrating a fact
against a fiction. For aU these centuries we have been chopping
ourselves up as men and women into sections, dividing ourselves into
inteUectual and moral and spiritual and physical beings and dealing
with them piecemeal. The new revelation, the larger light, the com
pleter Uberty, is involved in the conception that man is a solidarity,

480
that the wisest philosopher that ever lived cannot tell where his body
leaves off and his mind begins, cannot tell where his mind leaves
off and his spirit begins. We have got to leam to deal with men as
men, as a whole, not talk about these things being intellectual, these
things being physical, and these things being moral and these things
being spiritual. We have got to learn that there is more of the grace
of God in some communities in taking education into them than there
is in giving them tracts; teaching them to so deal with the forces of
nature that they shaU be able to get out of them the largest amount
of life and hberty, and the greatest amount of real comfort in the
world which they inhabit. First that which is natural, and then
that which is spiritual, if there is any division at all.
The time has come when the message of the Liberal Church has
become more practical than any message that ever came to the world
before. We do not have to run the universe, we do not even have to
tell the Almighty how to do it: we can trust it to Him. We do not
have to solve the mysteries, for it is very few mysteries that have
been solved since you and I can remember. Modern science, with
all its splendid discoveries, has left the great facts and mysteries con
cerning the origin of Ufe as dim and dark as they were when it began.
But it has given us a theory of the universe. The message of the
Liberal Church to-day does not solve the great eternal mysteries at
aU, but it gives us a rational theory of the spiritual universe. It
gives us a complete and universal Fatherhood; it gives us a general
brotherhood, a common kinship, and makes us able to see that because
of this general kinship and this common brotherhood it becomes us to
so listen to the moving of the Spirit upon the waters of our hves that
out of our lives shaU come that helpful concern, that appUed Chris
tianity, that religion put in practice, which shaU make men better
equipped on their physical side, make them better equipped on their
intellectual side, make men better equipped for all things of this world,
making them fit to live here before we provide for them large rela
tions in the kingdom of heaven yonder.
Mr. Jones. — You expect me to so run this meeting that we can
have three or four more twenty-minute speeches in the next half-hour.
Is Dr. J. H. Asbeck, of Pittsburg,* in the room? He represents
* Dr. Asbeck, to his great regret, was prevented at the last moment by illness from attend
ing the Congress, of which he was a member.

481
the German feUowship and the German Evangelical Church. His
name is on the program and he is expected to speak.
One of the first graduates of Horace Mann wiU next address you,
the man on whose shoulders feU to a degree the mantle of that great
prophet, a man who represents a feUowship which has tried to move
the previous question in Christian terminology, which refuses any
other label than that of the word "Christian." Rev. Dr. J. B.
Weston, of New York, wiU next address you.

REMARKS OF REV. J. B. WESTON, D.D., PRESIDENT OF THE CHRIS
TIAN BIBLICAL INSTITUTE, STANFORDVH.LE, N.Y.
I began to write some things for this occasion,but I do not dare look
at them. This subject is one to which I have never needed to be
converted, for I was born that way; and I am heartily glad to have
Uved to see this meeting at which representative men and women of
broad sympathies, of earnest purpose, of consecrated endeavor, meet
together to consider the interests of inteUectual Uberty and practical
action. For what is thought good for unless it is coined into action?
What is the use of hberty in thinking unless it is coined into activity
in doing? What is the use, as yourself just said, — what is the use of
this convention if it is to be merely a Uberalized tea party, to be repro
duced two years hence, simply with another tea party? We are here
for inspiration; but what is the use of inspiration unless that inspira
tion means something solidly done for the cause that inspires us ?
I say, sir, it is a gratification to me to enjoy this meeting and to be a
humble part in it. Beginning my life in the northerly part of Maine,
where the pines grow taU and where the air comes fresh and free
over the northern mountains and the broad forests, I was born a free
man. And that spirit of freedom has grown with my growth and
strengthened with my strength. And enjoying, as you yourself have
kindly remarked, for six years the daUy association in school life with
that great hero, Horace Mann, every element of liberty, every enthu
siastic purpose for the welfare of mankind, was made the stronger
thereby, and that has been my life. And so it needed no conversion
on my part to come into harmony with the spirit of this convention.

482
I stand, moreover, as you have kindly said, as the representative
of a body that has in itself some peculiarities. Our body came
into existence as a protest against ecclesiastical domination, and in
assertion of liberty of religious thought and speech. The early
preachers of this gospel were prophets of God. They felt that
they had a message, a message from God, and, as it did not accord
with the dominant spirit of their times, the ecclesiastical authority
commanded them to speak no more in His name. But, hke the
apostles before them, they said, "Whether it is right for us to hearken
unto you more than unto God, judge ye: we cannot but speak the
things which we have heard." And they went with the message of
God, believing that God was the Father of aU, that Jesus Christ
was the Saviour of aU, that the message of salvation was to all,
that God was no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that
feared Him and wrought righteousness was accepted. They went
with that message, and in that spirit they have hved. We call our
selves simply Christians, as you said, — not by any arrogation, not
because we are the only ones or the exclusive ones, not because we
are a special part by ourselves, for we are only a part of the univer
sal whole. We belong to a church — not the church — that is as broad
as the mission of Christ.
Mr. Chairman, you belong to our church, and you cannot help it.
These brethren belong to our church, and they cannot help it. When
ever you are working to build up humanity, whatever you are doing
to deepen rehgious thought and bring spiritual conviction into men's
hearts, whenever you are doing anything to bring the reaUty of the
Fatherhood of God into human hearts, whenever you are doing any
thing to create in human souk the aspiration Godward, whenever
you are doing anything to make the conception of humanity broader
and the welfare of man more intense, you are working to build up
our church. You are working in our cause. For we beUeve — as
you do, — that the great agency in the world for the welfare of
mankind is the inborn Spirit of the Son of God. The agency for
doing away iU, for solving the moral questions, for levetting up what
is down and levetting down what is up, bringing men onto a com
mon level, — that is the spirit of Him who is Father of all, the spirit
of Him who came to be the Redeemer of all. Representing such a
body, we are glad to be here.

483
And we look forward to greater achievements. There is going
on at this time on the other side of the water a Hague Conference
in which representatives of different nations are meeting together
to consult in the interests of peace, of national harmony, national
co-operation, the welfare of the world. We are another Hague
Conference on our own part. We are the representatives of another
class of workers in the human world. We come from the different
nations, as they do. We come from different faiths, as they do, —
not a different faith, for faith is one, faiths are multiple. The little
faiths here are different, but we come from the one grand faith. I
was glad to see on the vicepresidentship of this Association such
men as Robert CoUyer and Oscar S. Straus along with Charles E.
Jefferson and George A. Gordon, representing I care not how wide
extremes in one sense, but aU one in the pulsations of humanity that
bring us here together.
This, then, is a milestone of progress, and I believe that, as the
last Hague Conference when it adjourned had settled some things,
and this second Hague Conference has grander things to contem
plate, and I beheve the next Hague Conference will have stiU grander
things to accompUsh, so, when the next session of this body shall be
held, it wttl have larger achievements already attained, a broader
work to do, a grander courage, a higher faith, a stronger combination
of holy zeal and earnest determination to work for God and
man. Mr. Jones. — The next speaker I am instructed to call upon is
the man who stands in Dr. Munger's pulpit in New Haven, pastor
of the United Congregational Church, an old neighbor of mine in
Chicago, — the Rev. Dr. Haynes. Is Dr. Haynes in the audi
ence?* Mr. Jones. — Rev. Charles F. Carter comes in the Une of Haynes's
succession, and is invited to address us.
*Rer. Dr. Haynes was a member of the Congress and attended its sessions, but was called
away by unexpected duty and could not address the meeting as he had promised.

4»4

REMARKS OF REV. CHARLES F. CARTER, OF THE FIRST CONGREGA
TIONAL CHURCH, LEXINGTON, MASS.
I am glad to be in this feUowship, glad to have a man caU upon me,
really, who intellectually, and in many ways perhaps, stands at such
a different point of view, because I rejoice in the movement that is
represented by the gatherings this week, and one rejoicing in that
finds it incumbent on him to give the reason for that faith. Surely,
in the past we have somewhat overworked — greatly overworked—
the thought of diversity and the importance of our differences in
thinking. We are getting away from that decidedly. We are com
ing to a sense of unity. I raise the question whether there is not
also perpetual danger in overworking the principle of identity touch
ing unity. We must remember that the two are not the same, that we
are not striving to think alike. We are striving to get at the truth,
and, if the truth brings us together, then indeed we do rejoice. But in
the presence of this great word which we are using and rejoicing in,
this word "unity," I believe we need to use two or three other words,
in order that the sharp meaning of it may not be obscured, in order
that we may not run into that mush of sentiment which Emerson ab
horred in matters of feeling, and that we may not run into a sense
of identity of thought in place of organic unity. Dr. Gordon, I be
lieve, has stated that in this era of theological thought there has been
this overworked principle of identity. I believe we need to remember
that. And the three words that I would bring into this feUowship
this afternoon are these: —
First, the word of a growing discernment. I do not think it is
nearly so important for us to think alike as it is to realize that there
is an essential truth in what the other man is thinking. It is quite
as important for me to understand the other man as it is for him to
understand me. And it is quite as important for us to cherish dif
ferent thoughts as it is to come to sameness of thought. But, if we
differ, what is of absolute importance is that we emphasize this
word "confer," — get together and try to understand the spiritual
significance attaching to the other man's point of view.
I doubt not that it would be easy and a congenial task before such
a gathering as this to set forth some figures from the Norse mythol-

485
ogy, Siegfried, Parsifal, and to win our mutual recognition of the
great spiritual ideal involved and iUustrated in those figures.
Would it be as easy a task for me to win your recognition to the
great spiritual principles involved in the doctrine of the Trinity and
in the service rendered by Athanasius to the spiritual progress of
mankind? I beheve the temper in which we should hold ourselves
should make as easUy possible the one as the other. And, when I
speak to an assembly of recognized and estabhshed Orthodoxy, I want
to feel that the spirit in them makes possible the presentation of
ideas under the name of Channing or Theodore Parker, that they
may with equal readiness respond to the spiritual significance involved
in those interpretations of Christianity. So we seek for a widening
insight, a spirit of discernment into aU the interpretations of the
spiritual life that have been given. We emphasize the spirit of
conference, and, doing this, we emphasize the spirit of respect for the
other man. The thing in which the sects have failed lamentably
seems to be just that. They respected very much their own indi
vidual opinions, and have stood for the right to maintain those
opinions. Now the obverse corollary of that demand for personal
hberty is an equal respect for the other man, and that is the spirit
we need to show, moving on in this great and splendid stream of
progress. I rejoice in the emphasis that has been given touching this move
ment and its bearing on practical affairs. I believe that out of this
great sentiment of an organic union and a vital feUowship we are
hearing a fresh chaUenge. We are going to try to keep our thought
in its proper place, and we need fundamental thinking to-day, and
never did we need it more. We need this emphasis on the will and
the feeling,— the witt that brings things to pass. AU truth, brings
men into closer connection with the Spirit of God, gives them really
more practical inspiration, and the challenge of the sentiment in
which we gather here teaches us to go out into the world, to look
the needs of men squarely in the face, and address ourselves to
that social reconstruction which must be the proof of the vitality
of our inspiration. There are two things for us to do who feel
the unity and the quickening of this fellowship,— first, to keep
pure the inner fount of the personal life, to keep open that channel
of connection with the divine; and then under that inspiration to

486
go forth and try as we may, and wherever we may, to reconstruct
the conditions of the lives of men, so that life here on earth shaU
be fairer and diviner.
Mr. Jones. — Rev. Charles G. Ames wiU now speak a word to us.

REV. CHARLES G. AMES, D.D., OF BOSTON.
I asked brother Samuel Eliot what is going to be the big word of
this Congress, liberty, truth, or life. He said: "Our brethren from
abroad will make it liberty, for they have not yet won it. With us,
liberty has been won, and our business is to ask what we shaU do
with it, what use we shaU make of it." It is in that spirit that the
speaking this afternoon has brought the general subject before us.
We have a measure of liberty, we have a measure of power: the
question is about our duty and our responsibiUty.
Some things are stiU difficult, nevertheless, and I for one am afraid
of programs laid down in advance of the readiness of communities
to receive them, because once there was a time in my youth when I
thought that I was going to take hold of this world and help bring it
right around. In trying to do it, I have had some awful jarring, and
the world hasn't got around yet. The reason why The Hague Con
ference this year seems likely to dissolve without agreeing on a treaty
of arbitration is because the governments represented in that con
ference are not ready for it. They have some guns and they think
they may want to use them, and they hold back. They have ques
tions between themselves and other nations which they may not
want to submit to arbitration, and they hold back, which means
that the nations are not yet ready for universal peace, and it will not
come until they are ready. I do not know whether Providence is
ready for the millennium or not. Some of us think we are quite ready
for it, but it does not come, and it will not come next week, perhaps
it will not come next year, but it is coming aU the same, and it is
coming when it is due. I have faith enough that the world is run
on program to believe that it will come at the right time.
I believe, nevertheless, that it is possible for you and me and other

487
members of the community who see a good thing in sight to help
make that the universal, common blessing of mankind. We need
not wait for the whole world to come around, we must begin where
we are, and in the solution of social problems the place to begin
on the part of these housekeepers is to begin in the kitchen. The
place of the employers is to begin with their employees, the place of
the employed is to begin with their employers, and, as soon as the
spirit of justice is between any two, it wiU spread; and, when it is
estabhshed between many, it will soon become the common law of
mankind. I do not know, but it seems to me that the human race is not yet
sufficiently human to reahze its own best possibilities. The hardest
problem we rehgious men ever have to deal with is why such a
Father as we beUeve in should have such a family as we are. It
seems as though He ought to do better, and He is showing us how
to do better, and the very fact that we are dissatisfied with ourselves,
even if it leads us to be dissatisfied with His management, is a good
sign. We are calling in question what is, because we are coming in
sight of what ought to be, and aU these things are hopeful. If Mr.
Jones, as he intimated in the outset, has his definite work planned to
lay before us this afternoon before we part, I shall listen with all my
ears; but I am not looking for any definite program by which we
can realize our ideals with the general consent of mankind on any con
siderable scale, even in the most advanced communities of the world,
for the most advanced communities are stiU very far from being weU
along. We are Uving before the sunrise: there are signs of Ught in
the east, but the full dayUght is not here. That there is light in the
east means much to aU of us. I once asked General Armstrong
what possibUity there was of any serious improvement in the condi
tion of the colored people of the South. I asked him first, "What
we hear about their ignorance, their degradation, their sensuality,
their dishonesty, their laziness, is it true or is it overstated?" He
said, "You cannot paint it dark enough: it is worse than anybody
ever spoke of." I said: "What hope, then? They are multiplying
at the rate of a mittion every few years, and aU our schools are get
ting hold of a few thousand at the most." His face lighted up with
great joy and hope, and he said, "When you see the first streak of
dawn in the east, you know that dayUght is going to get the best of

488
darkness." And it is in that spirit that we go back to our work,—
not to our rest, not to our tea party merely, but to our work.
Mr. Jones. — This has been an interdenominational program.
Is there not some brother from across the seas who will make it an
international symposium? Let us have a voice from across the
Atlantic. I introduce to you Rev. Arthur Heron, of London.

REMARKS OF REV. ARTHUR HERON, OF LONDON.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, — I thought it unseemly that
I should sit down there and hear no voice from across the Atlantic,
so I thought perhaps it would not be out of place if I heard my own
voice. I have come with a good many more, and have had a wonder
ful experience as for the first time I have seen this great continent
and this great city. I have been inspired at the sight of this coun
try, its wonderful natural phenomena, and I have been inspired more
by the sight of the wonderful way in which this great people have
subdued this great country in a remarkably short space of time. There
is all the vitality in the American people which I had imagined. I
shall go back again confirmed in the view that I had from reading and
from interviews with other men, that you have on this side great
forces, great vitality. We EngUsh, I beheve, are getting rid of our
soreness that we were so defeated a great many years ago. For my own
part, I cannot help feeling glad for it continually. I am not at aU
sorry that a foolish king and a conceited minister were set aside by the
men of Boston and the New England States many years ago, because
that started going this great nation which has such a wonderful des
tiny before it. I think that one could not have an international con
gress of religion in a better place than in this new country, where,
although there are so many problems and so much that one has to
mourn in the way of evil, yet there are also so many signs of dawn,
as our friend has said; so many signs that men are giving all for
the sake of the work of God in their land, and are determined
to keep aloft the ideals that the fathers and teachers of religion
long ago set forth in other lands.

489
I am glad that I am able to be here this afternoon at this Depart
ment of Religious Fellowship, because I believe this to be the most
important of aU branches of the work of this Congress. As I under
stand it, it is the real object of this Congress that we come to know
one another better. We come from various parts of the world, and
are placed here in Boston in these inspiring buildings, among these
inspiring people, that we may commune on our various difficulties,
on our various problems, and give one another our various ideas
for the solution of our problems.
A recent speaker said that we had not across the water perfect
Uberty. I think there are many of us on the other side who have
perfect Uberty, and who would deny the right of any one to take it
away. But we can see that both in our own land and in other lands
there are many who have not perfect liberty. It may be that you
think that in this land there is perfect liberty, but I feel that there are
many signs of a want of it, in religious thought and in other ways.
Men are not enslaved, perhaps, by government and by churches which
have all the influence of long standing, but they are enslaved by
other things. They are enslaved by the current religion, and are
not able to escape from it. I have seen signs even here in Boston
that there is a kind of slavery to Unitarianism which must be
escaped from. I will teU you what I mean, and I say this in
aU seriousness. There is too great a tendency to think that we
are the people. I speak as a Unitarian and as one in sympathy
to the fuU with Unitarians. But we did not want to have here
a Unitarian Congress. Your American title for the Congress, as a
Congress of ReUgious Liberals, was a grand and a broad one. It was
one that reaUy stood for comity and for fellowship. But, when I
read my program here, I read "A Conference on Possibilities
of Closer Co-operation among the Organized Christian Fellowships
represented in the Congress." WeU, I had hoped that the idea of
the members meeting here might be rather broader than that. Why
should we aU be Christians that unite to do the work that we want
done? There are in this conference many who are not Christians,
and I would that we should banish from our program these sec
tarian terms which have the effect of excluding many from the con
ference whom we would wish to see here; because my experience is
that in the work of religion there are many in the world to-day who

49°
wiU not aUow themselves to be caUed Christians, but who wiU yet
co-operate with all that is best in the work of Christians or of Uni
tarians. What is it that we want ? Do we want men to agree with
us in our thinking? Then let us turn ourselves into a society for
philosophic argument, and let us convert them by the best argu
ments which we can bring against their theses. What do we want?
Do we desire that they shall all share our views? Then we must go
up and down the country preaching our views and seeing no other
views. No, we desire that men should be free in their attitude toward
religion; we desire that they should apprehend the truth which makes
free. But we do not think that we have aU the truth. We believe
that truth is very broad, much broader than anything that we have
attained. Why not, then, unite with our feUow-men, not on this plat
form of a common Christian belief, but of a common reUgious need,
of a common spiritual aspiration, and banish from our thoughts and
minds the idea that we shaU get men to agree exactly with us in in
tellectual matters or that we have attained the truth? I believe that,
when we take this idea strongly, we may have this union of
action without uniformity of thought. Then we shall go forward
in our battle against the evils that are in the world. Why is it that
the churches are to-day so comparatively impotent in their fight
against evil ? It is simply because they place so much stress upon
the theological. We must not fall into that danger. We must unite
to place the stress on the religious. While in our own minds we
give the theological its right emphasis, yet we must also give the
religious its necessary and its far greater emphasis. And then
we shall get men of all shades of opinion, who are earnest in
their moral aspirations, to unite with us in this great work of sav
ing the world.
Mr. Jones. — I think you would Uke to have me ask the Rev. Mr.
Puddefoot, Field Secretary of the Congregational Home Missionary
Society, to say a word before we part.

491

REV. W. G. PUDDEFOOT, FIELD SECRETARY, CONGREGATIONAL HOME
MISSIONARY SOCIETY.
I don't think you are orthodox here, for the Scripture says, " Lay
hold suddenly on no man," and you have taken hold of me without
warning. I sun in hearty sympathy with aU that has been said,
and it is a grand thing that we have in our minds. This church itself
shows a good deal of unity in diversity. I have been looking at your
little cherubs, and your orthodox stained glass windows, and your
Apostles' Creed, which I don't beheve the apostles ever saw.
It is pleasant to be here, and find this spirit of unity. I went to
Philadelphia a Uttle whUe ago to a meeting of a committee on which
there were several denominations represented, among them Congre-
gationaUsts and Presbyterians and some United Brothers. I told
them that if I could get unity I would be wiUing to be caUed a United
Sister. What do I care for the name? I have seen a church, by
virtue of necessity, made up of seventeen denominations. There
were not enough of any denomination to make a church, so they were
forced to unite. I was at the dedication of that church, and it is a
marveUous church. If we could only get people to unite without
forcing them, what a great thing it would be! The little committee
I spoke of had seven denominations represented on it, and there were
five ministers on it. One of them told me he was a Seventh-day
Adventist. Another man among them thought that the two tables
of stone were the tables that the apostles talked about when they said
they could not serve the tables because they were free of the law.
I was glad to hear my brother who spoke last, — my countryman,
although I came here thirty years before he did. We have more
freedom to-day in England than you have in the United States. I
don't beUeve I could speak my thoughts so freely here as I could in
Hyde Park. I have seen the time when a man might talk against
the king and kaiser, and I would like to have seen the man who
would have dared to put him down.
Some one has said that there are tens of thousands of men and
women who stay out of their church in order to save their reUgion.
There is truth in that.
One evening, where I was speaking, a young woman burst into

492
tears, and said, when I asked her what was the matter, " Oh, my, I
am a hypocrite, Mr. Puddefoot." "I don't beUeve it," I said.
" Yes, I am. I belong to the church, and I don't believe half of its
creed." I said, "Good for you: neither do I." The girl was para
lyzed. It was a new idea to her.
We are coming to learn how much the different parts of the com
munity depend on one another. If the Back Bay wants a clean biU
of health, she must look after the North End. Didn't we lose our
beloved governor, Roger Wolcott, through a hundred thousand
microbes coming in through a keyhole, giving him typhoid fever?
Fifty years from now, if a man dies of that disease, the town in
which it occurs will be disgraced.
We must have better paid men on the frontier: we must have men
that can stand up and defend their position. It would be easy enough
to hold any town with one church if the man was big enough for it.
The trouble is, we have lots of fellows with little brains, who are
afraid to speak out. Thank God, I have never been troubled that
way! When God says a thing to me, say it I must. I have got a good
deal of Quaker in me. Some of us damn our souls by keeping back
what we ought to burst right out with, and let it go and cry out, and
spare not, and show the house of Israel their sins. There is a heap
of sin among you Unitarians. You are too exclusive; you are too
polished. You don't want to take hold of disagreeable things. You
help the poor : you love them if they keep off your street.
You have been praying for an open door; and God says, "I wiU
open it: I will open the door at New York and San Francisco, and
there is your opportunity." And it seems greater than you can
handle, and you go to Congress for help. Congress cannot help you:
each one has got to help the other. We must all do our part. And,
oh, what a lot of work for us to do, you Unitarians especially! You
don't seem to realize that in this land of free schools and pubhc
libraries men and women are growing, and they are growing far be
yond these six hundred odd folks that we send out to talk to them, and
the consequence is we cannot reach them. You have a mighty
mission. I don't care how many converts you get, if you get a man to
do good. I don't care if he cannot formulate his creed: what is
the odds about that so long as he is trying to live a righteous life?
He wiU have something to do with everything that is going on in this

493
great city; not stand off and growl about it, but go into it. I want to
see accomplished what has been done in New Zealand: I want to see
the time when there shall not be a millionaire or a pauper. I want
men who will hear Yahveh speak, and prophesy. That is what I
want you people to wake up and do. You have had a mighty chance :
you have not taken your chance. I know you have given us good
literature, but, as I say, your books, some of them, are pretty old-
fashioned. Some Unitarian writers are back numbers to-day. Of
course, Channing will never be a back number, because he was in the
front when he started. But do not think that you have done all you
can when you have distributed books: you must distribute your
selves. Give me books, and I thank you: give me sympathy, and I
love you.
Mr. Jones. — We came up this afternoon to find out what we were
going to do about it. The brother has shown us what we are going
to do about it: there is no obscurity about the program that awaits
us. People are selfish and ignorant and mean, and there is
poverty, indolence, and intemperance all about us, and that religion
alone is reUgion which sets itself to these high tasks of ameliorating
the woes of the world, of laying hold of the miserable, of taking the
conceit out of the bumptious and putting courage into the dis
couraged people. And that is a work that is open before us every
where and aU the time, and, if this Congress is to realize its mission
and to justify itself, it will enable us to go to work, and not be
forever harking upon our history, but ever pushing forward to the
high task of making history.
Infinite Father, touch us with a new purpose, guide us into new
usefulness, christen us again in the spirit of helpfulness which is the
spirit of hoUness, and Thy witt abide now and evermore. Amen.

494

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND PUBLIC SERVICE.
Held at the Old South Meeting-house on Wednesday afternoon,
September 25. Chairman, Rev. Dr. Joseph H. Crooker: —
Dr. Crooker. — Friends, this buUding is one of the shrines of
American patriotism, and it is stiU one of our great educational in
stitutions, productive of the very highest type of American citizen
ship. This is one of our ancient meeting-houses, closely associated
with our national history. In its very shadow Benjamin Franklin
was born over two centuries ago, and there are many interesting and
memorable events clustered about this ancient meeting-house.
When it was abandoned some thirty years ago as a place of wor
ship by the congregation over which Dr. Gordon so graciously and
eloquently presides, it became a centre for education in patriotism
under the supervision of Edwin D. Mead.
But I do not stand here this afternoon to describe this ancient
edifice or the work that goes forward so successfuUy within these
walls. We have met to consider the great question of the relation
of religion to social life, and it is a question that demands our best
thought and our best feeling. In the last few years I have heard a
great deal about the religious outlook. Friends, I am not so much
interested in the religious outlook as I am in the religious output.
It is not the outlook from our position, but what are we ourselves
putting forth into the world? Not our prospect, but what is our
product? I have heard also a good deal about the Unitarian opportunity
and the liberal opportunity. But there is another point on which I
would put more emphasis, and it is this: the Unitarian obliga
tion, the liberal obligation: what we owe to humanity, not our selfish
opportunity, but our obligation, holding this great faith in trust.
We hear the plea, and with interest and approval, of a recon
structed and enlarged theology that shaU be in harmony with de
mocracy. AU that is worthy ; but, more than a new theology, we need

495
a new reUgion, making itself felt through a new church, remember
ing that religion is something more than a private conviction. It
isa life, a great truth that many of us liberals have forgotten; and,
as liberals stand at the judgment bar of the world to-day, the world
is asking, "What can you send out into our midst in the line of moral
regeneration, in the line of spiritual fervor, in the line of organic
effort, for the uplifting of humanity ? " We are going to be judged as
a religious movement by our contributions to the spiritual life of
humanity and the social amelioration of human society.
We hear to-day a great deal about applied Christianity. I would
widen the term and speak of apphed religion, — the necessity of hav
ing a reUgion that can be apphed and the necessity of applying the
religion that we have. And that is just our object here this after
noon, to consider these great questions that link themselves to the
social betterment of human society and human life; and it is with
great pleasure that we have with us one who has won a large place
in Great Britain by his eminent services along these lines. We wiU
hear from Mr. Maddison, who is at present a member of the House
of Commons, and he wiU speak to us upon "Religious and Social
Reform."

RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORM BY FRED MADDISON, M.P.
Standing in the Old South Church of Boston, one is surrounded
by a great cloud of witnesses to the vitality of religion as a progressive
force in the affairs of men. The colony of Massachusetts itself
sprang into being out of a deep and abiding religious conviction
shared by the men of that day, and the same spirit animated the
great founders of your ttlustrious republic. The Puritan never
divorced his religion from his politics. These worthies believed,
with WiUiam Penn, that "a man should make it a part of his religion
to see that his country is well governed."
But since those early days times have changed, and the problems
of our day are different. They were formerly largely political: they
are now to a great extent economic. Has, then, religion in our gen
eration any message for the toUing miUions in miU and mine, work
shop and factory? Religious liberals ought to have no difficulty
in answering so important a question in the affirmative. Our faith

496
is a simple one, and therefore a powerful one. We believe in Godr
the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, in the divine origin
and destiny of man, and in the oneness and the persistence of the
life of the spirit here and there, in this world and in aU worlds.
We have no anathemas for the sincere unbeliever, and we ought
to have no apologies for the wrong-doer, whether he be rich or poor.
A thief is not made honest by living in the West End of London or
on Fifth Avenue, New York, not even if he runs a church and owns
a minister. But too often the pulpit thunders violently at vice in.
the Bowery or Whitechapel and fawns on it in high places.
Friends, you have got to make your minds up. You cannot retain
your influence over the people if you do that. Its influence is de
pendent upon its discriminate application to men and women as
such, apart from their standing in society. But I submit that the
function of the religious teacher is not to settle for us details of pol
icy, not to teU us whether we should be Democrats or Republicans,
Liberals or Tories. We can manage that for ourselves. It is rather
to lay down great basic principles of human conduct. Religion
begins by reminding the world that the whole human famUy, irrespec
tive of race, nationality, or color, are the sons and daughters of God.
But in my view this Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of
man does not in any way commit us to that disordered cosmopol
itanism which, in the name of brotherhood, treats humanity as
though it lived in a world joss-house instead of in the separate
families of nations, who learn to love other families and so bring
about a real international fraternity.
But this thought of the Fatherhood of God does give a reality to
the work of social amelioration. If we really have a common divine
Father, a state of society which often leaves the industrious poor
and the idle rich cannot be for the religious man the last word of
social policy. But there is in my view a danger here. I have known
foUowers of liberal religion so touched with the infirmities of their
poorer brethren, and so sensitive and alive to the evils in our midst
which ought to be remedied, that they have thought proper to throw
themselves into what are vaguely enough caUed the "Advance
Movements," with the result that they have lost their position as
religious teachers and have not been thought very much of in the
ranks to which they have gone.

497
Because we have not yet abolished poverty from our midst is no
reason why we should destroy individual possessions, as the state
•socialist is seeking to do. Communism, as Joseph Mazzini, the
inspired prophet of democracy, more than half a century ago de-
•clared, might bring to the sons of men a system which would prevent
hunger, but it would be the life of the beaver, not that of progressive
man. What is wanted is not the abolition of private property, with
out which there is no real security for individual liberty, but its wider
equitable distribution. This surely ought to appeal to all professors
of aU religions. Whilst rejecting the materialistic conception of
life, they reaUze the enormous power of environment.
Friends, poverty is the common foe of progress. It limits and
sometimes destroys human development, and you get the same re
sult by an excess of wealth at the other end of the social scale. We
want neither the miUionaire nor the pauper. Religion claims for God
and mankind the fuUest and most complete life, physical, mental,
moral, and spiritual. Religion then must of necessity be concerned
with all the agencies which go to bring about this desired result.
Now, necessarily, the brief time at my disposal will only permit a
brief reference to two of these agencies; namely, Trades Unionism
and Labor Copartnership. Of the first there is an enormous amount
-of misrepresentation or of misunderstanding, probably a little of
both. The ignorant misunderstand it, and the interested opponents
misrepresent it. I quite agree that it is a subject on which we are
not hkely to get anything like complete agreement. One has only
to mention such burning topics, weU known to you here in America,
as the open shop, the black-list of employers (which of course they
always deny), and the boycott of the trades-union, which they do
not deny, in order to raise very fierce controversies.
Here it might be not amiss to just give a figure or two taken from
the official returns of the trades-unions of England. I do not take
these figures out of preference for my own country, although that
preference is very marked, but I take them for the more substantial
reasons, or, rather, two reasons, that, first of all, England is the
home of organized labor, the beginning of organized labor, and we
have a larger proportion of it to the population than any other great
country in the world; and, secondly our trades-unions have got to
the mature stage where alone we can judge any institution. I merely

498
quote a figure or two to disabuse the minds of any who imagine that,
when organized labor does reach the settled stage, it is not the kind
of thing which certain people seem to think it is.
Now, taking the last ten years pubUshed, the average annual
expenditure of English trades-unions was £1,605,000, — not doUars.
Of this amount the average expenditure on strikes and lockouts,
aU disputes, was only £234,000. In other words, for every £100
spent per year, less than £15 went to industrial disputes, showing
that we in England, at any rate, are not by any means in love with
the strike as a weapon which we Uke to use frequently.
But, friends, my appeal for a favorable consideration for trades-
unionism is confined to the vital principle of organized labor, — col
lective bargaining. If you take this away, nothing is left; but, if
you let it remain, aU the excesses — and there are many, which aU
good men deplore — are no necessary part of it. Now what is col
lective bargaining? Why, simply a means whereby the units of
labor may bargain on something hke equal terms with concentrated
and organized capital through the chosen spokesmen of the work
men. Surely, friends, this is an insistence upon the essential con
ditions of buying and setting. Our laws, and probably yours, con
stantly speak of a free purchase made by a free buyer of a free seUer,
and coUective bargaining only seeks to secure that desirable end.
It has proved to be the only way in which in these days of financial
corporations (of which you know, I am glad to say, far more than
we do) this can be done. In the absence of this coUective bargain
ing, I venture to say, there can be no freedom for the ordinary work
man; and nothing is more sickening to me — and some of its worst
echoes have come from Boston — than to hear non-unionism advo
cated in the name of liberty. Liberty has many such incidents to
record, and none worse than this.
Organized labor has its faults, as every other human institution
has, including the Church and including the liberal churches, and I
confess and admit that it does at times act contrary to the common
weal; and, whenever it does, though I am a trades-unionist myself,
it must be dealt with impartiaUy and sternly. But I am here to say
that its net results have been good. It has enabled men to be in
dustrial freemen instead of the mere slaves of capital.
But, friends, I do not claim your favorable consideration for organ-

499
ized labor merely on this ground, though I think it is strong. Every
man and woman in this room and every citizen of the United States,
whatever may be their politics, is alive to the dangers of industrial
strife and conflict, even when they are not accompanied by some of
those wUd scenes which occasionally occur in your country as weU as
in our own. In the interests of the republic and of the common
wealth and the community it is most undesirable that a state of war
from time to time should exist in our midst, a war which on the one
side reduces the bank balance of the rich capitalist and on the other
brings starvation to women and children. Therefore, every religious
person must be in favor of industrial peace. But, friends, it is no
use indulging in meaningless phrases about "industrial peace."
The man who wants industrial peace and is opposed to trades-union
ism is either not honest or has no knowledge. There can be no
industrial peace unless both sides are organized and are able to put
forward their accredited representatives. Without organization you
must have chaos and anarchy. Do you not believe, in this republic of
yours, with those great public schools which I am always as ready to
salute as your flag, which are the admiration of us Englishmen, — do
you not beUeve, if you had no trades unionism, that you would have
great masses of men moved and manoeuvred and controUed by your
great trusts and your corporations just as they think fit? Trades-
unionism is the pathway of industrial peace.
Friends, in the very short time that remains to me I want to allude
to the second agency to which I referred; namely, the Labor Co
partnership Societies. Now I cannot stop to explain this except
just to say in a sentence that it is an attempt to incorporate into
industry the principle of participation on the part of the workshop
in capital and profits and management. Already in England some
advance has been made in this direction. Last year workmen's so
cieties — purely workmen's societies — conducted on these lines had
an output of $6,000,000 and an invested capital of over $3,700,000.
Over and above the trades-union rate of wages, which all of them
paid, they divided during the year $36,000 to those employed in
these workmen's societies. This is an effort to bring democracy,
about which we hear a great deal, often more than we realize, into
industry. Your Horace Greeley, whose name is just as familiar
on our side as yours, used these words many years ago. He said: —

5°°
"Co-operation is the true goal of our industrial progress, the ap
plication of the republican principle to labor, and the appointed
means of rescuing the working class from dependence, dissipation;,
prodigality and need, and establishing it on a basis of forecast, cal
culation, sobriety, and thrift, conducive at once to its material com
fort, its inteUectual culture, and moral elevation."
Those, friends, are wise words, and they have long represented
my conviction. I submit that this is the antidote to the virus of
both aggressive capitalism and destructive sociaUsm. .,,
But, friends, in conclusion, to us who belong to the liberal religious!
faith, nay, to aU religious people, it must be clear — and I would that
it were as clear to the men who are in outside labor and poUtical
movements — that the social problem is more than political and
economic. It is human, it is moral. You can read the volumes' of
our political economists, and they teU you all that is necessary 'to
know about every phase of the economic question; but one thing
so many of them seem to omit is that the systems which they are
advocating have to be applied by and to human beings, not to pieces
of mechanism, without hearts and heads and feelings and emotions.
It is not merely what laws or industrial systems do or may do, but
it is what the individual is and what he does which makes so much
difference. I remember, when I was in the House of Commons seven years
ago, sitting on the bench by the side of Mr. John Burns, one of the
ablest and best workmen that we have in England, whUe some par
ticular thing which I forget now was under discussion. Turning to
me, he said, "Maddison, I have come to the conclusion that a bad
system run by good men will give a better result than a good system
run by bad men."
This, then, is at once our call to work and our responsibility and
our great advantage, — we who believe in religion. ReUgion is the
one great personal force in the world: it is personal work, its key
note is duty. Under its influence citizenship and office become a
sacred tmst, not a means of graft. It is not what we can get out of
public life, but what we can put into it. Money-making cannot be
separated in the minds of religious men from honesty and equity.
Religion comes right home to the man himself, not to the manager
of his store or the foreman in his shop or his political boss, but to

PROF. H. U. MEYBOOM. DT).
Groningen, Holland

REV. PHILIP H. HUGENHOLTZ, Jr., D.D.
Amsterdam, Holland

PROF. H. Y. GROENEWEGEN, DJ).
Leiden, Holland

REV. F. C. FLEISCHER
Makkum, Holland

him. The great message of reUgion is to him, to his conscience
and to his heart. And, if I could influence one of you workers in
the field of social reform who are outside the churches, and, what
is far more important, outside of rehgion, I would just say to you
that in your turmoU, in your strife, — and there is both in these move
ments, — it is useless to concentrate aU the vices in the capitalist.
There is not a single vice that they possess that we do not have in
the labor movement, and I also think we can claim to have their
virtues, without hurting ourselves.
It is this, then, that is the great and paramount value of religion
to social reformers, that it comes to men and women appeaUng
directly to them. Jesus did not talk of rights, but of sacrifice, of
love, of duty; and the great office of reUgion, one that the great reform
movements yearn and pant for, is to stimulate the sense of duty in
all people of aU classes. Friends, society will be regenerated just
in proportion as each of us do our duty to one another in the spirit
of reUgion. I verily beUeve that he who is most possessed by the
thought of God is best fitted for the service of man.
The Chairman then introduced Rev. Leonhard Ragaz, of Basel,
Switzerland, who spoke on "The Ethical Basis of Liberal Chris
tianity."

5°2

THE ETHICAL BASIS OF LIBERAL
CHRISTIANITY.
BY REV. LEONHARD RAGAZ, OF BASEL, SWITZERLAND.
No doubt you aU know that remarkable Uttle book in which the
Japanese, Kanso Utchimura, tells us how he became a Christian.
It ranks, in my opinion, among the best defences of Christianity
that have ever been written. One of the most impressive passages
in this work is that in which he depicts for us the tense feeling with
which he first trod the soU of a Christian land, — his eager expecta
tion of finding at once the Divine City of the book of Revelation,
a humanity after the pattern of Jesus Christ, fuU of purity and
brotherly love and of sunshine from God the Father, — and, then,
the depth of his disappointment. The fact that this Christian land
happened to be North America is beside the point. Similar experi
ences, or even worse, would have met him in any other so-caUed
Christian land. And in this same country of North America he
afterwards witnessed other scenes which cogently convinced him of
the superiority of the Christian faith. What makes this witness
for and against Christianity so important is the fact that here we
have, for once, a Christian — a highly cultured, earnest, and profound
Christian — scanning this self-styled Christian world with unsophis
ticated eyes, and so perceiving in aU its naked clearness that sorry
miracle which we can never see so weU because our eyes are accus
tomed to it, and we take it aU for granted. I mean the contrast
between the demands and promises of the gospel of Jesus and the
Christianity of actual experience. To one who knows his Chris
tianity chiefly through the New Testament it must present, indeed,
an incredible spectacle: a world in whose name the beUs caU day
and night from the church tower, confessing "peace on earth,"
while it looks upon the founding of more and more big guns, of
more and more powerful cahbre, as one of its most important tasks;

5°3
a world in which the brotherhood of all mankind is proclaimed at
least on Sundays, while racial hatred and national arrogance seem
continuaUy to increase; a world in which we are proud of our knowl
edge of the true God, while not only does Mammon boast greater
temples and more passionate worship, but even vice assumes more
frightful forms than among races which are stiU pagan; a world
in which there stands, in churches and at the crossways, the image
of him who in his suffering and death revealed and sealed the truth
of ministering love, auid in which at the same time even divines,
who are especially and pecuharly caUed to the preaching of this
cross, are proclaiming, in the name of practical politics, the principle
of force as the will of God. Perhaps this is, after all, the problem
of problems for our reUgious thought, as weU as for our practice, —
this apparent ethical sterility of Christendom. The ethical longings
and searchings of the present time bring this problem nearer home
to us than ever, make it a question of life and death. The oppo
nents of Christianity, the Positivists, Monists, free thinkers of every
type, are Uving on the taunt which they can fling at us: Your Chris
tianity has had two thousand years in which to show whether it is
able to transform the world. Has it transformed the world? And
where do we find, in ordinary moral practice, the difference between
those who are Christians and those who are not ?
In this general charge of moral steriUty there are two counts
which standout especiaUy, — that Christianity is simply a force of
reaction and that as a source of untruthfulness it is without peer.
In fact, this is the very culmination of that sorry miracle about which
we were speaking: that the gospel of Jesus, the most revolutionary
radicaUsm that the world ever saw, has always, through the length
and breadth of Christian history, been aUied with the established
powers of the world, has figured, indeed, as their passionate defender
and advocate; that he who is the Truth, he who bled and died in
battle for the truth, has become a terror to the sincere; that he whose
most fitting name is "Liberator" has become the most cruel yoke
of the spiritual world.
It is, I repeat, the question of questions for the religious thought
and activity of the present day that we should probe this evil mys
tery, and, so far as in us Ues, banish it from the world. How are
we to explain it? What is the cause of that moral sterility of a great

5°4
part of our Christian life, — a steriUty which as honorable men and
women we cannot deny? Is it, forsooth, the gigantic power of evfl,
the natural depravity of the world, the selfishness and weakness of
human nature? Or is it merely that Christianity means to countless
numbers of people no more than a confession of the lips, and not a
Uving, spiritual reality? These are certainly factors whose impor
tance we are not inclined to forget. But they do not bring us to the
heart of the problem. The real strangeness of the matter is not
that the world resists the gospel, but that the gospel leaves the world
so much in peace; not that the lukewarm or even hypocritical Chris
tians are in the majority, but that there are profoundly earnest
Christians who, nevertheless, faU to bear the fruits of the gospel
and to become the salt of the earth. Where is the explanation to
be found ?
The short time which stands at my disposal wiU not allow me to
do more than make a few suggestions with reference to a theme
which volumes could not exhaust. Let me then condense what I
have to say briefly as follows : the fruit of the gospel has been ruined
mainly because the gospel itself has been changed. For the relation
between God and man which was revealed in Jesus something of
quite a different kind has, to a large extent, been substituted in
Christianity. I will at once lay stress on the two main points.
The internal authority has been displaced by the external. In place
of the living God whom Jesus proclaimed, who reveals himsett
directly to souls that seek him, and is apprehended in moral
obedience and unforced love, other things have intruded, — dogma,
the church, the Bible, the formulated confession. The second
matter, however, is a change in the conception of faith. That free
trust in God's power and love which appeared in Jesus, the trust
which pours itself forth joyfuUy in the doing of God's wUl, has been
displaced by assent to the church or the reUgious system, especiaUy
to the dogma of vicarious propitiation by the God-man. The fol
lowing of Christ has been thrust out in favor of Christology. To
express both changes in one sentence, the relation between God and
man has been removed from within to without, has been changed
from a direct and immediate to a mediated relation.
Orthodoxy,— this it is that rests on external authority. Only
a very superficial rationalism could ignore what the forms of piety

5°5
which bear the stamp of orthodoxy have done for the world. Far
from us be any such injustice. But we must not on that account
be bUnd to the evU side of this development. The displacement
of a free, internal, living authority by a legalisticaUy rigid and
external authority has been, indeed, the dreadful source of that
spiritual repression and of that hypocrisy which is poisoning the
world. The false conception of faith makes quite clear to us how
men can embrace with ardor the cross of Jesus and yet indiffer
ently pass by the brother for whom Jesus died, — yes, even hate
those that do not acknowledge their own reUgious system. It ex
plains how passionate zeal for a religious system may coexist with
conduct which does not even reach the average moral standard
of the higher paganism. The ethical centre of the gospel has been
shifted, and on the ground thus gained the most terrible enemy of
the gospel has planted itsett rankly, — religious selfishness, which
seeks to make use of God for its own ends, to gain advantage from
him, and is all the more zealously alert to play the courtier to God
with confessions and forms of worship, the less earnestly it is set
on doing his will.
At this point it becomes luminously clear what ought, in accord
ance with God's plan, to be accomphshed by an unorthodox or
liberal theology. Let me exhibit this once more by taking our his
torical bearings. The free theology which we acknowledge took
its rise in the ethical ideattsm of the German and Anglo-American
phUosophy of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The names
of Lessing, Herder, Kant, Schleiermacher, Hegel, Schiller, too, and
Goethe, as well as Coleridge, Carlyle, Martineau, Emerson, and
their spiritual family, name also the springs of a new religious thought.
At the centre of this new thinking stands the principle, Nothing is
true except that which our own individual spirit recognizes and attests.
What is imposed upon me from without, or what I compel myself
to accept, is, for me, not true. It is an outrage on the moral per-
sonaUty, and, therefore, on morality itself. For this alone is moraUty,
—to obey the law of our own inner being, in the intuitive expectation
that therein the holy world of goodness wiU become manifest. These
two words, "Freedom" (autonomy) and " PersonaUty," are the
fountains of a new spiritual world. To show that this is so, I need
but utter the two names Kant and Emerson.

5°6
ffWe stand here before a moral new creation, the range of which
our sight is hardly yet able to measure, before a new ethical reve
lation, a new unfolding of the kingdom of God. It is from this,
too, that the new theology derives its best-grounded right. It is
not a child of fashion, of half belief or of rationaUstic illuminism,
but the eldest born of that idealistic ethic which has its centre in
veracity. What is being accomphshed is a mighty revolution —
theoretical, indeed, but aheady becoming practical, and destined to
become so more and more — in man's relation to the highest reality.
The place of the external authority is again being taken by the inter
nal, and that of church, dogma, and Bible by the God who attests
himself in the present. This does not mean that the revelation of
history has been cast aside or assigned a lower value than before.
On the contrary, the more we enter in our own lives into the experi
ence of what revelation really is, the more thirstily do we seek for
it in the divine history of the past; but it is not revelation for us
until we experience it as such. The whole religious world of thought,
as it has hitherto existed, is being recast in the fire of this new relig
ious knowledge, that it may reveal its worth in new splendor. The
new theology does not simply deny the old dogma in order to fashion
a new one. That would soon result in a new orthodoxy. It gives
the old truths a new determinant, a new sense. Revelation, Bible,
redemption through Christ, the cross of Jesus, — all this retains its
truth, is even truer than before; but instead of a mere external
event it must all become a vital experience, a part of the soul. The
moral personality in its truthfulness becomes the sole mediator between
God and man, and in this way we reach the moral basis of the gospel
of Jesus.
With this spring freshly opened and purified, is it possible that
there should be no renewal of the ethical might of the gospel ? When
the inner authority is once more proclaimed as the highest court in
reUgious matters, and moral truthfulness made the centre of life, the
axe is laid to the poisonous tree of Christian untruthfulness of which
we have spoken. If faith becomes again the most personal concern
of man, it cannot but bear fruit, for that which is alive bears fruit.
There is no other way to God than that which leads through the centre
of personality. This is assured by two great facts of our time:
first, the general collapse of religious tradition; second and especially,

5°7
the criticism of the Bible. So far as this criticism is concerned, it
flows, as a necessary consequence from the basal ethical principle
of the new age and the new theology, that we must recognize nothing
as truth but that which attests itself to our own mind and soul.
The root, then, of the much-abused modem criticism is not unbe
lief, but the pressure of reUgious veracity, the longing to bestow
reverence not on shadows, but realities, to serve no imaginary good,
but the God that is. It is through this cause that criticism, often
without its own knowledge and even against its own wiU, has been
a tool to open that mighty fountain of hfe, the original gospel. It
has destroyed much on which we used to lean, and has often terrified
us mortally. It has torn away not only ruins and rubbish, but also
the ivy which we had grown so fond of; but at last it has laid bare
the rock on which alone the soul of modern man can rest now that
other props have been taken from him, but on which he can rest in
safety, — the witness of the Holy Spirit of God's truth; and in every
soul which seeks him with deep and earnest moral concentration
that witness is heard.
It is upon the knowledge of such foundations and results that the
free theology stands. Its principle is the free, Uving, and quickening
revelation of the Uving God. This sounds like arrogance, but it
is not arrogance. For we are not thinking now of parties or systems,
but of the new unfolding of his truth which God in his grace has
bestowed upon us all. It is only that the new theology has, with
especial determination, made this the basis of its thought. We are
dealing with a new disclosure of the truth of the kingdom of God,
premonitions of which are to be found, more or less, in aU parties
and churches. This is clearly God's way in the religious crisis of
our time, that the ethical nature and power of the gospel should reveal
itself afresh to the world. This world pays but little attention to
churches and dogmas, but it begins to listen at once so soon as the
talk is of righteousness, purity, brotherhood. From materialism,
naturalism, the pleasures and pains of civttization, it lifts eyes of
longing to the heights. The modern view of the world, fashioned
by natural and historical science, has robbed the world of God; but
it finds him again in ethical yearning. There lives in the world's
heart a stronger hope than it has ever felt since the early days of
Christianity,— the hope for a transformation of its whole being that

5°8
shaU make for righteousness and joy. But this brings it at once
to Jesus. It leams with astonishment that he is the appointed
guide for aU this seeking and yearning. For what was his aim but
this kingdom of God and man, which is to give unity for disruption,
solidarity for the strife of aU against aU, service for the rule of might,
and thus to set up a new order of things through Ught and Ufe from
the Father? It often seems to me that we are only beginning to
understand Jesus. Far from having been overtaken and left behind,
he stands far ahead of us and high above us. It is only by going
forward that we can learn to understand him. The God-man of
dogma has disappeared. But that which has taken his place seems
to us greater, the divine man, — that one compact miracle of this
Ufe beside which aU dogmatic miracles fade into nothingness, — his
freedom and boldness, his trust, his love, his childlike simplicity
united with inflexible heroism, his parables, his Sermon on the
Mount, his cross, and (grandest of all) the voice which caUs to
us from aU these miracles does not cry, " Believe on me," but " FoUow
me." In the service of this great new thing which God intends to give
us the new theology must enroU itself, well knowing how modest a
part any theology must play, whatever be its name, and that the worth
of a theology is exactly measured by its understanding of God's
progressive work of creation. In this service it may cherish the con
sciousness of carrying on great traditions. When the Reformation,
after mighty beginnings, was again inclining in many respects
towards Catholicism, those radical spirits had already appeared
in whom those thoughts Uved which move us to-day, — I mean the
Baptists. Against letter-worship they set the principle of the spirit,
against tradition the "inner light," against church estabUshment
by the State the brotherly unity of like-minded disciples of Jesus,
against an inert Christianity of dogma the following of Christ. The
ethical-social promises and demands of the gospel, its subjectivism
and its brotherhood, its world-transforming radicalism, its message
of the kingdom of God, had worked so marvellously upon these men
that they were intoxicated with them. Repressed on the Continent,
their spirit flamed up in the Puritanism of England, especially in
Quakerism, streamed over to the New World, which it made into
a world of freedom, and then returned with renovating power to

5°9
Europe. It can be shown that a great part of that possession which
the modern world calls its own, especially all that is bound up with
freedom, has grown up beside this stream. The soil on which we
are here gathered with thankfulness and pride has been blessed by
it with ethical fruitfulness. A Channing, a Parker, an Emerson,
have here gloriously embodied, each in his own several way, the
ethical power of the gospel. Standing upon this ground, we look
forward with joy to a future in which Jesus' message of the kingdom
of God shaU complete its work, unfolding in ever more glorious
shapes, to make the world free in the name of God.
The Chairman introduced next Rev. W. G. Tarrant, of London,
whose paper was on "The World War against Intoxicants."

5">

THE WORLD WAR WITH INTOXICANTS.
BY THE REV. W. G. TARRANT, B.A., LONDON, ENGLAND.
The Church which shaU be "equal to the needs of man" wttl not
ignore one of the most urgent of those needs; namely, the need of
deUverance from and protection against mtoxicants. AlcohoUc
drink has been declared by high authorities to be the most destruc
tive material enemy of the human race. H this declaration comes
within measurable distance of justification, what body of reUgious
people can hold aloof from the warfare it impUes? WhUe phUoso-
phers discuss nice points of speculation, while erudite students
dexterously reconstitute the past and dreamers forecast the future,
the problem of how to conquer intoxicants cries out for the imme
diate attention of aU practical men. Granted that many other
perils summon the thinker to action, here is an evil without a rival;
for we have here to deal with the problem of a dangerous appetite
abetted by a vast commercial interest. Its dimensions are appalling.
The Special Commissioner of the United States Labor Department,
Dr. Gould, said: "The danger resident in these huge national
Uquor bills reaches beyond misery and moral degradation. CiviU
zation itself is menaced by this growing economic waste." In saying
this, I think he had in mind not his own country alone, where in
proportion the waste is considerably less than in others. We, at
any rate, coming together from many lands, know that his solemn
warning finds ample illustration in them all. The evfl arising from
the use of intoxicants is world-wide, and calls for a world-wide
campaign against it. The language of the Commissioner is in no
degree exaggerated. The resources of wisdom and vigor in the
world's ruling races are no doubt great, and appear equal to most
things; but in this connection even the strongest nations are almost
paralyzed, while subject races wither away under this plague Uke
sheep under the pestilence.

5"
No historic age has been free from it, and always and everywhere
the story of loss and misery has been the same. But in our age the
problem has assumed a more formidable shape than hitherto. The
appetite for something to drug the mind and veil the face of reaUty
with temporary Ulusiveness was sufficiently difficult to meet when
its cravings were left to the casual stimulus of local circumstances.
To-day the trade venture in alcoholic drink is bound up with huge
finance. The conditions of modern commerce and the facilities for
rapid distribution arm this business with a far-reaching effect quite
beyond precedent. AU the arts and devices discoverable by eager
and ingenious men, who act together for lucrative ends, promote
its extension. It is powerful to manipulate houses of legislature,
to control local administration, including poUce; and, as for its adver
tising, that is on so Uberal a scale that great journals are said "to
float on whiskey, with some assistance from soap." No one who
has had experience in this matter will deny that such a sleepless
financial interest is much harder to fight than the intermittent appe
tite upon which it thrives.
We must keep these facts steadUy before us if we are inteUigently
to enter upon this field of battle. Of course such an interest puts
the best face it can upon the trade in which it is engaged. Its pleas
are specious, but they can deceive few. The trade in intoxicants,
say its promoters, exists for the convenience of the public. "What
people want, people wiU have." They ask in the name of freedom,
May not a man have his glass if he likes, and if he pays for it?
Sometimes they assume a tone of raiUery, and demand in the name
of sociabUity whether, because you think yourself virtuous, there
shaU be "no more cakes and ale." FinaUy, they pose as friends of
virttity and muscle, and roundly declare that a nation of water
drinkers must go down in the struggle for existence before a nation
able to quaff deep its beer and mm. Considering, however, the
swift and certain loss of hberty entailed on many a poor fellow's
glass when he has had it, considering the innumerable quarrels and
fights that have so often ended the tavern's social hour, and, above
aU, considering the deplorable physical deterioration of large masses
of our people through the use of alcohol, more than through any
other one thing, there is something about these famfliar pleas that
approaches the magnificent. But, Uke the charge of the Light

512
Brigade, though magnificent, they are not war. The real moving
force is not the pubUc weal, but the pubUcan's wealth. Sheer
covetousness, caUous, bmtal, the bUnd and reckless desire of gain
at whatever cost to the community, voild, Vennemil
The formidable trade interests now confronting the reformer do
occasionaUy, indeed, get an academic support from gentlemen who
do not happen to Uve next door to a saloon. These amiable theorists
must be exonerated, of course, from the suspicion of having any
commercial or poUtical axe of their own to grind. Liberty is the
breath of their nostrils, their one hope for man. They would fuUy
sympathize with the mood of Frederick the Great when he announced
that, if his theologically-minded subjects of Valangin would insist
on being damned eternaUy, he had nothing to say against it. Re
striction of any kind is abhorrent to such fanatics of freedom. To
them the word "abstinence" sounds almost immoral, and "prohibi
tion" savors of downright tyranny. If you say society must at some
sacrifice protect itself against the perils of drinking habits, these
people turn philosophers, and cooUy argue that society's drinking
habits did not evolve without "sufficient reason." FinaUy, under
more or less pressure, they confess they like a drop themselves, and
then you understand why they champion their wine decanter as U
it were the Holy Grail. Between Uberty and Uking, the cause of
abstinence, restriction, prohibition, fails to win their support. And
yet if they would but leave their prepossessions awhile, and Usten
to facts!
The pertinent facts, alas! need no long seeking. We have at
hand evidence from ages the most distant and races the most diverse.
Its weight is overwhelming. Granted that Bacchus has been a god
of mirth and joUity, he has charged mankind heavily for his jest
Were it only in money's worth, the biU is enormous. We pay for
drink in Great Britain each year nearly three times what that very
expensive Boer War cost us each year it lasted. So much for the
drink itself. What we pay for the consequences of the drink is
incalculable. Of course economy is a dull virtue, especiaUy when
one has plenty of cash. But, when the richest states of Europe are
so near to bankruptcy that miUions of their people herd together in
dens that defy decency, in slums that Tennyson caUed expressively
"the warrens of the poor," and when most men in civilized lands att

5^3
over the world are such daily slaves to a tyrant they caU "business"
that they cannot afford rationaUy to enjoy their earthly existence
tttl another — heavenly or otherwise — draws near, it would seem
worth whUe to consider this expenditure on drink, and especially
on its consequences, and to ask whether it is necessary and who
pays the bill.
In Great Britain alone there are fuUy a miUion paupers, with
probably double that number chronically on the verge of pauperism,
say one in thirteen of the population. Now we know it is easy and
fooUsh to make rash and sweeping statements as to the causes of
this mass of poverty, with its attendant misery and degradation.
But take a sample fact. Very careful inquiries have been made by
capable and responsible persons from time to time, and the Man
chester guardians of the poor, for instance, announced not so very
long ago, that over 51 per cent, of the cases of pauperism in their
district were found to be directly caused by intemperance. Probably
few would doubt that there were many additional cases where, if
indirect, this factor was no less reaUy an influential one. There is
abundant ground for beUeving that this state of things is typical of
pauperism generally.
Again, there are some fourteen thousand prisoners convicted
yearly in the United Kingdom, and their miserable and desperate
army is kept at bay by an extensive array of poUce and prison ward
ers, with the costly supplement of judges and courts and the whole
paraphernaUa of justice. The Rt. Hon. C. T. Ritchie, speaking
from his personal knowledge as Home Secretary (in an adminis
tration not thought to be unfriendly to the drink trade), said in the
House of Commons, in 1902, "I do not think I am going wide of
the mark when I say that nine-tenths of the greatest of aU the crimes
have been in the main caused by drunkenness." The chairman
of the Prisons Commission of Scotland found that the same pro
portion held good as regards aU classes of crimes, great and smaU.
Officials of unimpeachable authority and freedom from prejudice
testified over and over again, before Lord Peel's Commission eight
years ago, that but for the drink there would be little or no work for
police or prisons. The same story comes from other lands. The
French Minister of Justice is reported as saying that "no less than
S3 per cent, of the persons convicted of murder, 57 per cent, of those

5i4
convicted of arson, and 90 per cent, of those convicted for causing
bodUy harm are confirmed drunkards." The New South Wales
Drink Commission, whUe deprecating a "tendency to exaggerate
the percentage of crimes directly caused by drink," found that very
few of the witnesses examined by them placed it lower than 75.
The statement is attributed to Mr. CarroU D. Wright that " 72 per
cent, of the crimes in Boston are liquor crimes"; and the Massachu
setts State Board of Charities is credited with the report in 1893
that "the proportion of crime traceable to intemperate persons must
be set down, as heretofore, as not less than four-fifths." But I might
simply fiU my paper with similar evidence, suppUed not by cold-
water cranks, but by persons of the most exceptional knowledge of
the subject and of the coolest impartiaUty, — judges, magistrates,
commanders of regiments, captains of ships, chaplains, governors of
prisons, inspectors, State Commissioners, and other experts, — who
aU find in this one evil the most fertile source of aU kinds of breaches
of the law.
Thus, because of the beer barrel and the gin-tap, the whole com
munity goes in fear and jeopardy, and has to maintain a costly and
ugly machinery to get along at att. As for the people who indi
vidually suffer by these things, who shaU teU of their woes! Homes,
so catted, are continued in misery or finally broken up in shame.
Nearly all cases of desertion are traceable to this evil on the part of
husband or wife. Scarcely any instances occur of cruelty to children,
such as brings the offenders before the law, where drink is not found
to have deadened the parent's natural affection. The divorce courts
repeat the same monotonous story of drink-weakened moral fibre,
with the most disastrous results. And who is ignorant of the shames
and sorrows which relatives in agony seek to hide, and concerning
which decent folk keep a silence intended to be merciful, which,
without emerging into the glare of the courts, exist none the less reaUy
beneath the surface of society ? At one end of the scale Uttle children
by thousands die untimely, or survive only to bear the bUght of
their dram-poisoned nursing. At the other bright and clever natures,
once an honor and a pride to their friends, go down into the gutter.
These are the every-day experiences, not the unusual visitations, of
organized communities boasting of their civiUzation. I speak not
here of the state of things where crude humanity becomes the prey

5i5
of the drink-seUer in the purlieus of the docks, of the far-off quar
ries and mines, and the poor viUages of aboriginal races.
One more item in this already unparalleled "drink bill" must
be mentioned. There is a feature of modern Ufe which must perplex,
if it does not absolutely dismay, every student of human affairs.
We often speak hopefully, confidently, of progress, and believe
that ameUorative influences are slowly, but surely, raising the general
level of inteUigence the world over. But what about that dread
shadow on the path of the dominant races, — insanity ? The figures
seem to show unmistakably that this is a growing malady. If it is
reaUy increasing at the rate that the records of the asylums appear to
prove, if part of the apparent growth is not to be set down to more
careful observation and registration, then, indeed, the prospects of
mankind would seem almost desperate. But, whatever conclusion
we form as to that, we have testimony from aU sides, from Germany,
France, Belgium, and other European states, as weU as from the
different EngUsh-speaking nations that belt the globe, that alcohol
is one of the chief ascertainable causes of insanity. No one can
reaUy be surprised at such testimony who has at aU inteUigently
foUowed the course of modern investigation with regard to the struct
ure of the brain and the action of alcohol upon its dehcate tissues.
There is no longer room for doubt that, just as a clumsy finger and
thumb spoU the bloom on a peach, so the clutch of this drug worsens
every time the tender organ of mind. The damage may at first
be shght, and bounteous nature is often lavish in putting forth
remedial energy; but there comes an hour when, under incessant
injury, if sUght seeming, the peach's bloom is ruined. Formerly,
only the grosser forms of alcohoUc poisoning were much noticed; but
modem research, carried on in the laboratories of unprejudiced
scientists east and west, shows that even what are called "dietetic
doses" tend to the irretrievable injury of brain and nerves. WeU
might the great Edison say, in explanation of his abstinence from
alcohol, "I have a better use for my brains." But reaUy there is
no need for any one who opens his eyes and ears to run about in
search of the verdicts of savans. Who has not seen ample evidence,
before the scientists told us why, that the inhibition of alcohol at
once weakens the mind's self-control, just while it flatters the drinker
with an altogether mistaken notion of his own wit, wisdom, and

5i6 ¦
brittiance in general ? Long before the stage is reached when friends
grow anxious and apprehensive, we see around us people who are
otherwise sensible set free in talk, blabbing of their neighbor's
business, if not their own, and cajoled into bargains which they wiU
repent of to-morrow. Young feUows, usuaUy shrewd and gentle
manly enough, grow excited and loosed from the wholesome checks
of modesty and self-respect. Grave and reverend seniors, with
flushed face and roving eye, draw near to the bench and cap of
the fool. Girls grow giddy and perilously adventurous. In short,
here is the modern Circe's cup. And, when the poor victims have
drained it, their blood bears its baleful ingredient along their Ufe
tides with such deadly sureness that the next generation rises with
accusing finger to say, "Thus didst thou!" We have in London
special schools for "mentaUy defective" children, — those poor, dutt
pupils who would be utterly unable to keep up with the lessons of
average children, and who must be catered for separately. Official
inquiries into the family history of one hundred consecutive cases
of such children showed that in forty-two there was a clear history
of drunkenness on the part of one at least of the parents. In only
6 per cent, of normal children was there found to be a drunken
parent. Poverty, crime, immorality, ineffectiveness, insanity, disease, —
where shaU the awful indictment end? As to disease, let this one
eloquent fact suffice. The poor pubUcan himself (I do not say the
highly respectable shareholder in the brewery company, but the
man who froths the pot) is the surest victim of his own wares. The
returns of the Registrar-General show that this class of citizen dies
off far more quickly than any other, even those engaged in notoriously
"dangerous" trades. In fact, our British authorities officiaUy
declare the making and setting of intoxicants to be the "deadUest
and most dangerous of occupations." Talk about missions to the
poor savages! Is it not time that a mission were estabUshed to
rescue the wretched victims of so fearful a scourge?
Now I feel sure that on reviewing these and similar facts there
cannot be one inteUigent person whose mind is not fuUy convinced
as to the gravity of the problem and the urgency of solving it. Where
disagreement comes in is as regards the steps proposed to be taken.
Frankly, I confess myself one of those who would fight intoxicants

5^7
by aU honorable methods, and I would accept any ally who would
lessen the sphere of their influence. There has been hitherto too
much quarrelling in the face of the enemy. Undoubtedly there is
need for the most careful discrimination of conditions and the
most prudential calculation of the consequences of different courses
of action. But, when the house is burning, it is somewhat late to
discuss hydrostatics. Whoever brings but a bucket shall be welcome.
Many here to-day may have their own favorite lines of advance.
So long as we do advance at all, let us not too severely criticise one
another. In different countries and localities different methods are
appropriate. In some places pioneers of reform have to be content
to work very much alone and by moral suasion; but even in Russia,
where the chance of influencing legislation seems smaUest, the
prophet's voice is not raised in vain, as we see by the formation of
an abstaining society through the teachings of Tolstoy. In France,
on the other hand, we have seen the civic authorities in Paris pub
lishing and very widely disseminating a placard setting forth the
dangers of drink, the mistake of supposing that it imparts muscular
energy, and the fearful heritage of misery it bequeaths. This
placard has been copied in some communities in Great Britain, but
those strict economists who watch so unceasingly over the interests
of "the trade" have here and there secured a decision that the
printing and issuing of such material is ultra vires. In Belgium, one
notices, there has been a singular originality in the method adopted
in certain quarters. This hard-working Uttle country appears to
have a reputation for drunkenness which only my own country can
rival. But amongst reformers there the Socialist Party has appealed
to its supporters to abstain from alcohol for several reasons, the third
and last being that abstinence would improve their health, the second
that it would provide funds for pohtical propaganda, and the first
and foremost that it would cripple the government's finances. Well,
we remember how Saint Paul regarded that preaching of the gospel
which was not altogether from purest gospel motives. Whatever
the motive, let them but "preach Christ," even "of envy," and he
would rejoice.
Amongst the many attempts made in different countries, the
Scandinavian method of grappling with the evils of intemperance
stands out prominently. It has been much criticised as developing

5*8
a municipal interest in the continuance of the trade in mtoxicants,
but at any rate the evils in Scandinavia itself are far less in evidence
now than before the trade was taken over from private hands. The
number of recruits, for example, rejected as unfit for service, is
now far below what it used to be. And as to national fitness, not
for the war of violence, but for that competition which exists every
where, the words of the Prussian Count Douglas were surely wise
when he said, on introducing a temperance biU into the Prussian
Diet in 1902, "those countries where temperance was inculcated and
practised would ultimately secure the advantage. In particular"
(the quotation is from the Times) "he directed attention to the suc
cess of the temperance movement in the United States of America,
where there were ten miUions of abstainers." Reverting to the
question of co-operative method, attempts are being made in Eng
land, though on no very large scale, to get the trade into the hands
of trusts and companies who for Uttle or no profit wiU be content
to meet existing demands for drink, without fostering an exaggerated
business. I am afraid it will be long before any such methods will
become general. We are left to struggle as best we can, sociaUy
and poUtically, with that vast commercial mterest which every year
extends its hold upon general support through its Usts of shareholders
aU over the kingdom. It is estimated that something Uke five hun
dred miUion dollars are subscribed as stock in the various com
panies represented on our exchanges. This wide-spreading social
and financial power has great weight in both Houses of Parliament
and in local councils. It commands the services of the most dex
terous agents in seeking means to avoid restrictive laws. The motto
unblushingly put forth by the engineers of this party is, " Our trade,
our politics." With wistful eyes many of us look to this great famUy
of States in the west, and to our own colonies, where the enUghtened
principle of "local option," in one form or other, has been enforced.
We have seen enough benefit in the Uttle areas that exist even in our
land, where the drink is not forced upon a community, to wish that
the people generally might at least be permitted to say whether it
should be there or not.
I do not conceive, however, that my duty to-day is to discuss and
weigh the merits of any particular method. What I do plead for
is for your real and permanent interest in this vital problem of our

5^9
day, for your personal decision, and for co-operation all along the
Une. EarUer in this paper I spoke of abstinence, restriction, pro
hibition. It appears to me that this order is the sensible and prac
tical one. Some exceUent people, I know, speak of abstinence as
if it were an extreme measure. Large and, so far as I know, useful
societies exist, the members of which are aUowed to take a glass at
meals, and at no other time. Other people, the bulk of decent citi
zens, I suppose, do not even bind themselves to this, but take their
drink in "moderation," as they call it. Now I am sure that no one
in an assembly hke this would presume to dictate to another's con
science. Let each be fully persuaded. But how any man who has
ever seen with his own eyes the ruined humanity, the blighted homes,
the shattered health, the misery and shame of his feUow-creatures,
can any longer touch this accursed thing, I cannot understand.
Were it anything else that wrought so much evil on earth, if it did
not come with an insinuating tickle of the palate and a delusive
touch of flattery upon the nerves as it takes the reason prisoner,
there is no man but would exUe this pest forever from his home,
and, if possible, from the community. Is that pleasant taste, then,
reaUy worth enjoying in such company and at such a price? As
for taking pecuniary profit out of such a trade, what pity is
large enough, what horror deep enough, to cover such a tainted
transaction? Cain killed Abel, but at least he didn't do it for
money. We may talk about international unity and arbitration and the
triumph of the Church Universal and aU that; but let every man
be fully assured of this: there camnot be peace on earth, or sweet
rehgion ruling in our hearths and homes, tiU this "devU in solution"
has been exorcised from our midst. Abstain, and you set him at a
distance at once. "Others will not abstain"? Then restrict their
chances of being egged on to excess. Absolute prohibition is the
final happy goal, not, however, to be really successful till the mind
of the people runs abreast of the law, and that it shall do so is the
task of the churches specially to secure. We, in particular, are met
together as those who are striving toward the creation of a reUgious
life free alike from needless fears and baseless hopes, but grounded
firmly in the soUd rock of the soul's own experiences. Who, if not
we, should recognize that an inteUigent faith needs clear brains to

520
conceive it, that a conquering and world-redeeming practical reUgion
needs the soundest, healthiest men and women to carry it to victory?
We, of the hberal churches, are so far from seeing our work "done,"
as sometimes we hear, or even inertly say, that we are reaUy only
at the beginning of things. We are here at this time to knit a Uttle
closer the ties of understanding and consent between thinkers usuaUy
far scattered, to feel our common needs and partake of our common
inspirations. ShaU we separate without an understanding in respect
to this most practical, most pressing of aU social reforms? ShaU
we not go to our different spheres of labor resolved to do our duty
in this regard, if by any means we may save some ? It is ours es
peciaUy to educate our own young people in habits and principles
of perfect sobriety, to stimulate our feUow-worsbippers to more prac
tical zeal in this outstanding social work, and to raise our voice as
citizens against every encroachment by the reckless exploiters of
human weakness, while we endeavor to secure healthier conditions
of home hfe and occupation and more rational forms of recreation
for the people. Above aU, we have to appeal to the diviner element
in every heart, and to plead, not only in the name of human pity,
but of human honor, against so horrible a desecration of Ufe as the
use of mtoxicants involves.

521
After a few words from Rev. Charles Travers, of London, the
meeting was closed with the foUowing brief address from Rev. C. F.
Dole:—

GOOD WILL, BY REV. CHARLES F. DOLE.
I think in att these questions one's mind sways back and forth
between methods and schemes and plans, on the one hand, and on
the other hand to the question which underlies aU plans and aU
methods; namely, what sort of humanity have you? That second
thought, to which the pendulum is ever swinging back, must ever
swing back, has been with us in all the addresses this afternoon.
What is the essence of rehgion ? What is it that drives the wheels
of aU this machinery? What is it, to change the figure, that makes
the harmony among all the instruments, without which, no matter
how beautiful they are and costly, the music would be vain?
It is, in one word, good wiU, is it not? I like the word better
than love. We say, "Love our neighbor." That is a great con
tract. You cannot love everybody in the sense in which the word
is mainly used. You cannot compel yourself to love people, but
you can turn on your good wUl. You can turn on your good wiU to
anybody. H you are angry, you can turn around and turn on your
good will to the man against whom you attempted to strike out
and hurt him.
We conceive of the central power of the universe as sometimes
Love, but more deeply as WiU, and as Good WUl. We say that
the highest conception of the power that runs the universe is a wiU
managing aU things through inteUigence, and we say that religion
consists in the feeUng toward this mighty power of goodness, and
religion consists also in the acting in unison with this power of good
ness. This spirit of worship, the spirit of religion, is the spirit of good
wiU possessing us. We are at our highest in the mood of worship
when we simply give ourselves to let the good will of the universe pour
through us and do its work, and this combines, does it not, idealism
with concrete reality?
What is the good of aU the worship in aU the churches if it is mere
meditation on high things, if it is simply pleasurable emotion? But
suppose it sends us forth possessed with this good wiU, with the

522
emphasis on wUl, to do the work of the spirit* of the universe, then
it is something that makes us better. It is the measure forever of
aU our worship and aU our reUgion. As the man goes forth from
the church, not with the sense of enjoyment, not with the sense even
that he is God's chUd, but with a deep sense that he is here in this
world to do God's good wUl for his brothers, then the religion and the
worship have done him some good. And that appUes, does it not, to
aU these questions such as we have been touching upon this after
noon? It appUes to the question of labor and capital. The big
thing is to get the laborers (we are aU laborers) and the employers
(and we are aU in some sense employers) so possessed with
good wiU toward one another that this spirit of good wiU, when we
face each other with that Ught in our eyes, solves aU the questions.
On the liquor question the big thing is, What does the spirit of good
wiU bid us do ? And so with all the rest of them. And the great
prayer, I take it, is aU embraced in just these few words: "Thy
kingdom [that is, the rule of heart] come, thy wUl [goodwill] be
done."

523

DEPARTMENT OF ORIENTAL RELIGION.
Held at the Second Church in Boston, Wednesday evening, Sept.
2$) 1907. Hon. James M. Morton, Justice of the Supreme Judicial
Court, presiding.
Opening Anthem, sung by Chorus.
Devotional Service, conducted by Rabbi Charles Fleischer, of
Boston. Hymn, "God is my Strong Salvation."
Prayer.Let us adore the ever-Uving God and render praise unto Him who
spread out the heavens and estabUshed the earth, whose glory is
revealed in the heavens above, and whose greatness is manifest
throughout the world. He alone is our God. We bow our head
and bend our knee and maignify the King of kings, the Holy One,
the ever blest. May the time not be far, O God, when Thy name
shall be worshipped over all the world, when unbelief shaU disappear,
and error be no more. We fervently pray that the day may come
upon which all men shaU invoke Thy name, when corruption and
evil shaU give way to the purity of goodness, when superstition shaU
no longer enslave the minds nor idolatry blind the eyes, when aU
inhabitants of the earth shadl perceive that to Thee alone every knee
must bow and every tongue give homage. Oh, may aU created in
Thy image recognize that they are brethren, so that they, one in
spirit and one in feUowship, may be forever united before Thee.
Then shaU Thy kingdom be established on earth and the word of
Thy ancient seer be fulfiUed: "The Eternal shaU rule forever and
aye. On that day the Eternal shaU be one, and His name shall be
one." Amen.
Hymn, " Come, Kingdom of our God."

5 24
Judge Morton. — For many years a strong friendship has existed
between this country and Japan. It has been and is based, I be
Ueve, upon reciprocal good wiU and upon a mutual active sense of
justice. I am sure we aU hope that it will continue unbroken. But,
if anything should be needed to cement more strongly the friendship
which exists between the two countries, for myself I should be witting
to make them a deed of gift of the PhUippines, if they would take
them. [Laughter and applause.] Our Liberal Faith has found a
fertile soU, I believe, in Japan. The seed has not fatten on alto
gether stony ground, as is apt to be the case with alien religions.
Our doctrines have been received with a hospitality which we should
expect of a people so thoughtful and of such open minds. I have
the pleasure of presenting to you this evening Mr. Saichiro Kanda,
Secretary of the Japan Unitarian Association, who wiU speak to us
on Japan.

525

RELIGIOUS FORCES OF JAPAN.
BY SAICHIRO KANDA, SECRETARY OF THE JAPANESE UNITARIAN
ASSOCIATION, TOKYO, JAPAN.
Our way of thought in Japan may need some explanation, in order
to make you fully understand it, just as our language needs interpre
tation. Especially does our reUgious thought need to be explained.
It is difficult for me to express my idea satisfactorily, because of my
poor knowledge of your language. However, I wiU try to do
my best.
In the mind of the educated Japanese it is almost impossible to
think reUgion without morality. Therefore, the religious forces of
Japan cannot be measured simply by an exhibit of rituals and cere
monials. They must be found in the people's moral condition, as
displayed in their daUy Ufe. If there are working in Japan the forces
of piety, fraternity, nobiUty, self-sacrifice, patriotism, heroism, these
may surely be called our reUgious forces. Nay, they are our
rehgion. In other words, faith without works is not religion at aU
in Japan.
To us it is immoral to beUeve a doctrine which is ambiguous, self-
contradictory, not satisfactorily understood by our reason, or not in
harmony with our conscience. Because of these sentiments, our
religious ideal is rational and Unitarian. We desire a moral and
rational religion, and we find Unitarianism to be a religion of charac
ter and rationality.
Permit me now to give you a shght gUmpse at the history of these
facts. In the dawn of the new era of our empire, or soon after the time of
Commodore Perry's arrival, Protestant Christianity was brought to
our people in company with modem science. We welcomed the
science; but we looked at Christianity with suspicious eyes, because
we had had some iU traditions of this faith of the West. To be

526
called Christian is an honor in this country, but it is often the reverse
in Japan. So, naturally, we took a critical attitude when we faced
the Christian teachings. But now, having had a long experience in
contact with Christians, and having come to a good understanding
with each other, our people have perfect confidence in Christianity
and especiaUy in Protestantism. And also we are assured by our
Constitution perfect freedom in the exercise of religious faith.
But when we study what Christianity is we apply to it the methods
of science, the methods of free inquiry. Because, as I said before,
Christianity was brought to us in company with modern science.
We like to understand Christianity on a scientific basis. When you
know these facts, you wiU easily perceive that Japanese Christians
are essentially rational, liberal, and Unitarian, no matter to what
denomination they may belong. They are fighting against com
mon enemies in opposing utilitarianism, indifferentism, materialism,
mammonism, and, finaUy, the obsolete creeds which ignore liberty in
thought and freedom to worship as conscience directs.
In this state of society, Unitarianism was introduced to us by your
representatives, Rev. Arthur May Knapp, Rev. Clay MacCauley,
and Rev. William I. Lawrance. So you wiU not wonder Unitarian
views of faith were welcomed by the Japanese, and have been obtain
ing a strong footing among our educated and aspiring young men
and women.
Since Unitarianism was introduced into the Sunrise Empire, it
has contributed some new and powerful influences to its neighboring
faiths. On one hand, Unitarianism has aroused all our religionists
from their long sleep, and encouraged them to study Buddhism, as
weU as Christianity, by the scientific method. As one of the effects
of this contribution, there has arisen a new movement which is called
"The Association of New Buddhists." They claim that they them
selves are Buddhistic Unitarians, because they spring out of Bud
dhism historically, and are Unitarian in spirit. On the other hand,
we have contributed to our orthodox Christian friends a new Ught
in the higher criticism and historical study of the Bible and of their
creeds. As a natural effect of their study they are becoming broad
in their religious opinions. They no longer fight the Buddhists,
because they know that there are common enemies that Buddhists
as well as themselves must march against.

527
The most obvious fact of the friendly feeling among our religious
beUevers is, I am very glad to say, the organization of the Union of
Japanese Religionists.
About two years ago the prehminary meetings for the organization
of this Union were held in our Unity HaU in Tokyo. I am honored
in having been one of its projectors. When the Union was first
organized, we held a meeting in the haU of the Young Men's Chris
tian Association in Tokyo, and pubhc speeches were given in its
behatt. The members of the Union are among the most prominent per
sonages among Buddhists, Shintoists, and Christians. Their objects
are the same as those of your International Council. This Union
has an annual conference, besides its contingent meetings and fes
tivals. In the last year its members raised 15,000 yen, or $7,500, as
the contribution to the rebuUding and repairing of the nine Christian
churches which had been accidentaUy damaged and burned by the
mob that arose at the time when the Portsmouth negotiations were
made known to us. A large part of the money was the contribution
of the Buddhists and Shintoists. It is weU to help each other, and to
show sympathy in the disasters that come to our neighbor. I believe
this is the true Christian spirit.
As to our church work, let me say that we have one Unitarian
church in Tokyo. In this church we have two sermons every Sun
day morning, from 10 to 12, which are exclusively devoted to religious
and ethical subjects. In the evening we have also two lectures, from
7 to 9. We have about 750 names enroUed as members of our Tokyo
church. But most of them are not residents of the city. They come
from aU over the country. The majority of our church members are
graduates and undergraduates of our coUeges and universities.
When they are graduated they scatter in all directions over the
country in order to practise their professions. So our church in
Toyko is just like a coUege. In spring we send away our graduates,
and we receive in autumn Freshmen.
Besides this church there is another organization which is caUed the
"Unity Club," of which I am president. This club is serving as the
medium for connecting our church members with the world outside.
Most of the members of this club are young men and young women.
Recently they have been taking a most important part in our church

528
affairs. The club was organized some years ago, when Mr. Mac-
Cauley was in Tokyo, and afterward I reorganized it into its present
shape. It has three departments; namely, the reading department,
the musical training department, and the department of amusement,
The club has its regular meetings on every Sunday afternoon in our
Unity HaU. On the first Saturday evening of every month its mem
bers have a festival, in order to cultivate their social Ufe. At this
dinner party some of them are appointed by the officers of the reading
department to read papers or to give reviews of the books which they
have read during the previous month.
We have had also a monthly magazine as one of our organs since
1890, and I am one of the editorial staff. By means of this monthly
publication we are circulating our views among our scattered
members. Besides these organs we have another important agency, the
Post-office Mission, in connection with the publication department.
We are distributing Unitarian literature at home, just as you are dis
tributing it at 25 Beacon Street.
If I spoke exclusively of Unitarianism I am afraid that I should
make my statement too narrow. I wiU say that Christianity in its
best interpretation is being welcomed by our students, who are eager
to acquire the best thought of the twentieth century. But I want to
remind you emphatically that Christianity is being welcomed by our
new generations, not because of its profound systematic theology
which was developed in the past centuries, and not because of its
mysterious blending with the phUosophy of the ancient Greeks, but
because of the simple yet sound moral teachings of Jesus, which is
very natural and easy for our people to understand and apply. Our
people are born with rationalistic tendencies in religious matters.
They understand the pure Christianity of Jesus far better than a
compUcated theology.
The religion of our people, as I said at the beginning, is insepara
ble from moraUty. Therefore, it is impossible to introduce any re
Ugion to the Japanese only through the ears: it must be introduced
into the Japanese head and heart by the eyes as weU. A truly
virtuous man, one who is burning with religious zeal and is an illus
tration of what he preaches, — such a one wiU have a great influence
among our people. If such a leader were to come to us or arise

5 29
among us, we would be ready to acclaim him as a saviour. The
fields are ripe, we need husbandmen.
Ours is the Land of the Rising Sun. May it be the sun of a rea
sonable and true reUgion, of a pure morality, of a Christianity with
out priest or ritual, enthroned in men's souls, active in good works,
and held in the spirit of perfect Uberty!
Hymn, "O Star of Truth," by Minot J. Savage.
Judge Morton. — When America was still an undiscovered country
and when London was an unreclaimed marsh and Paris was a slum,
there were wise and holy men, saints and prophets, in the ancient
East, who had meditated profoundly upon the destiny of man, on
his relations to a Supreme Being. That ancient spirit still survives,
and there, as here, there are those who teach the doctrines of truth
and charity and benevolence, and the strengthening of bonds be
tween men of aU nations, persuasions, and creeds. With such,
wherever they are or whatever their race or creed, we are in spiritual
brotherhood. We have with us this evening several gentlemen from India whom
I shaU have the pleasure of presenting to you, and the first is Professor
Rau, of Calicut, India, who wiU speak to you on "The Ideals of the
Brahmo-Somaj."

53°

THE IDEALS OF THE BRAHMO-SOMAJ.
BY PROFESSOR G. SUBBA RAU, OF CALICUT, INDIA.
It is becoming fashionable in these days to exalt the real at the
expense of the ideal. We live in a real world, but we Uve for ideals, —
for an ideal world. The real appears and vanishes, the ideal abides.
The Christian world should never give up the ideal, for instance,
of a kingdom of heaven upon the earth, and yet that ideal is not
going to be realized in ten years or in ten centuries. Ideals grow
upon us. They are perfect, no doubt, jn the consciousness of God;
but they dawn upon us, they grow upon us, and they show them
selves more and more in the consciousness of men and of the human
race, and they show themselves in the Ufe that they Uve. And yet
as ideals they are eternal. You cannot create ideas; you can assim
ilate them; you cannot invent them. If so, what shaU I say of the
ideals of the Brahmo-Somaj ? Would you be surprised if I had noth
ing very surprising, nothing new, to present in the name of the ideals
of the Brahmo-Somaj ?
The Brahmo-Somaj is an organization which is comparatively
new. The phrase means "The Society of Worshippers of God,"
or, simply, "Theistic Society"; and it may be regarded as dating
from the year 1830, when its founder, the great Raja Ram Mohan
Roy, consecrated the first temple for its worship in Calcutta. It
is therefore comparatively a very modem movement, but the ideals
that it has been trying to hold up before the people and make living
in their lives, they are not modern, they are ancient. They are to be
seen in our ancient Uterature, and I would say they are to be seen
in aU the sacred literature of the world. The Brahmo-Somaj ex
ists for the purpose of seeing that those ideals are day by day realized
in the lives of the people of India. And, if I am to give you any
brief idea in a few words of the ideals of the Brahmo-Somaj, per
haps I could do no better than to take four aUiterative words, —
"Ught," "Uberty," "loyalty," "love."

53i
Light. I have read of the great German sage, Goethe, that he
died, crying, "Light, more light!" We in the Orient have been
students of the Light, have been worshippers of the Light from the
earliest times. Five thousand years ago, according to Occidental
scholars, while the world was in the twiUght of its history, while the
great Greek and Roman nations were yet unborn, the sages of India
were singing that glorious hymn which is being chanted to this day
by every Hindu worshipper in his daily worship. It may not be
very expressive to you, but it is fuU of expression to the people of
India who chant it day by day.
"O Thou shining One,
Creator of all things that are,
We meditate upon thy effulgent and saving gloiy.
Do thou, then, lighten our souls."
Yes, we have been worshippers of the Ught, and the Brahmo-
Somaj has only taken up the ancient position, and is holding up the
Ught. It stands for the Ught, and the Ught, mind you, comes not from
the east only, but from att quarters, and the Brahmo-Somaj recog
nizes this great fact. And so in our rehgious movement we recog
nize the prophets of all lands and the sacred books of aU countries.
We honor Jesus equally with Buddha. We honor Mohammed and
Zoroaster alike, and indifferently in our worship we use the Bha-
gavad Gita and the Koran and the Zend Avesta. And you wiU find
on the walls of many of our places of worship in India selections
taken from the sacred scriptures of the world.
Liberty. What is the land above all others which has been the
cradle of religions and the rehgious hfe of whose people has been
practicaUy the life total of those people ? India. And will you tell
me, shall I tell you, which is the land and which are the people in
which and among whom persecution in the name of religion has been
unknown? I witt just for a moment exclude the short periods under
certain unwise Mohammedan rulers. Excluding that period, India
has never known a reUgious persecution. Tolerance, liberty of
thought, has not only been tolerated, it has been encouraged. Three
thousand years ago we have records of religious congresses and par
liaments held in the courts of the princes of Northern India, and I
have regretted to find that in the proceedings there is no mention

532
of any delegates from Boston. And yet the meetings were held, there
is no doubt about it, in spite of the fact that the delegation was not
world-wide. Yes, liberty has been the great principle of reUgious
Ufe in India.
My next word is Loyalty. Liberty before the world, loyalty to
the Ught, loyalty to the Ught that I see in my soul. Loyalty has been
a great principle of our religious life, the principle which the Brahmo-
Somaj has taken up and is trying to make living in the Uves of the
people. Loyalty implies law, and law signifies something compeUing
loyalty. There is one word in current use among our people which expresses
this fact and this relation. That word is karma, deed. A great Ger
man scholar somewhere mentions an incident in the course of his
visit to India. He saw a man who was born blind. He asked him
to what he thought he owed the misfortune. The man cooUy
answered, "Why, it must be the result of some wicked deed that I
did in my past life." You may caU it superstition, you may caU it
fatattsm, you may caU it anything, but I tell you there is something
that is subhme in that spirit which recognizes that there is nothing
unjust, that the universe is justice, that, as we sow, so we reap, and
that, although we do not know exactly how or where, we have de
served what we have got. There is something in that. It does not
necessarily mean fataUsm. The most honored book of the Hindus,
the Bhagavad Gita, preaches that; and yet it preaches from cover
to cover the great doctrine that we must work, toil on, without regard
for consequences.
In one of the ancient Upanishads a profound sentiment, a pro
found sentiment of a dying man, was expressed. The dying man
says: —
"O my breath, return to the immortal air! O my body, be re
duced to ashes! But, my soul, remember, remember, remember,
thy deeds."
We obey the law, we are loyal to the law; but we recognize that it
is a law of love, not a retributive law, not a vengeful law that pun
ishes and damns to eternal torment, but a law that punishes for the
sake of chastening and improving and uplifting. It is a law of love,
a law that is the expression of the wiU of a loving father and mother.
And so I come to the last word, — Love.

533
Western scholars have studied a great deal of our philosophy,
but there is one thing that, on the whole, they have not been able
to appreciate, and that is the genuine, the real religious life of India.
It is represented by that word love, by the word Bhakti or Prema,
which means devotion or love. That represents the essence of the
reUgious Ufe of the people of India.
There are three different kinds or methods of culture which are
prominently seen in our reUgious life, — the path of knowledge, the
path of love and devotion, and the path of works of service. The
Brahmo-Somaj takes up aU these, wants to harmonize them, wants
to blend them together, but lends its emphasis specially to love,
to devotion, because that can kindle and strengthen knowledge and
work. We are not satisfied with the foUage of knowledge. We want to
see the fair blossoms of love and devotion. And we are not satis
fied even with that. We want at last the glorious fruit of conse
crated and devoted service.
These four words, then, "Ught," hberty," "loyalty," and "love,"
may be taken as representing in some way the ideals which have been
ours and which the Brahmo-Somaj is endeavoring to make living in
the Uves of the people of India.
The work is great. 300,000,000 people, and here is a small organ
ization seventy-five years old which aims at doing the grand work
of uplifting a people who are in the condition which perhaps you are
somewhat able to appreciate. We have enlisted in the Brahmo-
Somaj the finest inteUect of the land, the noblest hearts, the most
consecrated and self-denying wiUs. And yet, if the work was to de
pend only upon the members of this organization of the Brahmo-
Somaj, much of it would remain undone. I am glad to say that the
ideals of the Brahmo-Somaj are not the exclusive property now of
the Brahmo-Somaj. They never were, and they have been more and
more popularized. They are in the air. There are scores of asso
ciations and thousands of individuals who are working along these
lines, and after the ideals for which the Brahmo-Somaj has stood
for seventy years and more. And thus the work speeds on. You
wiU not be surprised that the work is stUl great. Only think, every
member of the Brahmo-Somaj is a devoted missionary and min
ister. We have very few churches of the Brahmo-Somaj, very few

534
special ministers set apart, very few who are paid for the work of
preaching. Every one is a minister and a missionary. And in those
few cases where there are men who are maintained and paid in
order that they may live weU, they get just a subsistence aUowance
in due accordance with the ideals of ancient India of the religious Ufe.
Yes, aU of us are working like that. And yet in a land which is in
habited by 300,000,0000 people who are ground down by the double
curse of poverty and ignorance, who have the disadvantage of a
foreign rule which aims to exploit the country poUticaUy and eco-
nomicatty at a time when the country is in a great industrial depres
sion, when legislation continually is brought in for the purpose of
putting down our industries, our manufactures, in a country where
the State maintains no public schools and where education to the
poor is a luxury beyond their reach, in a country where there are the
difficulties of many languages and many customs, in a country where
bad sanitation and poverty conspire together to bring about the
annual scourge of plague which carries off miUions of people some
times in the course of the year, — in such a country as that, with all
its political, social, educational, and reUgious problems, do you won
der that those who have the ideals of the Brahmo-Somaj find that
they have work to do aU the days of the year? Yes, and they cheer
fully do it, and the great comfort is that they are not left alone. The
Brahmo-Somaj need not boast and does not boast that it is alone in
the field. It represents great ideals, but those ideals are in pos
session of the people, and many who are not members of the Brahmo-
Somaj are stiU working exactly for the same ideas. This morning
I met two gentlemen, countrymen of mine. They were brought up
as Christians, and I am a heathen; and, conversing with them, I
found that after all there was no difference between us, my ideals and
my aspirations were theirs, and that we could work together hand to
hand and shoulder to shoulder for the common good. One of them,
and both of them perhaps, are going to address you. Another
gentleman perhaps will address you, too, who professes the reUgion
of the Prophet, and yet whose words will perhaps reveal no differ
ence in ideals from mine.
And so, friends, we work on, work on and hope, because in a world
that is ordained by God, so long as we are working for ideals that are
pure, ideals that are eternal, we may be sure of success. I have

535
detained you long; but may I tell you that I am an optimist? In
spite of all troubles ahead, in spite of aU dangers and difficulties be
setting us at every step that we take, I always feel cheery. It may
be a foohsh optimism, but it is an optimism that I cling to with aU
my heart. And I love to dream; and shall I teU you that one of my
dreams is that some day, not very far off, India, my ancient land,
wiU take an honored, a respected, and a self-respecting place
among the nations of the world; and that my countrymen, suffering
no more from oppression's wrongs or from the proud man's con
tumely, wfll Uve together in amity and peace, and witt clarify more
and more the Ught which is the law of love, and will reflect more and
more, day by day, upon their radiant brows the glorious image of
God? Judge Morton. — I have the pleasure of presenting to you Mr.
S. L. Joshi, M.A., of Bombay, who will speak to us on " ReUgious
Opportunities in India."

536

RELIGIOUS OPPORTUNITIES IN INDIA.
BY S. L. JOSHI, OF BOMBAY.
My friend, Mr. Rau, has already presented to you the subject of
religion in India, and it, therefore, may be weU for me to draw your at
tention to the same subject, first of all, from a historic point of view,
in order that you may be able to appreciate the present perspective.
In the whole history of Uterature there is no subject so fascinating
as to trace the course of religious development through the history
of India. In the earliest Hinduism we have furnished to us the
philosophic background of religion, and then, as we go through cen
turies to further development, we notice Buddhism appearing on
the scene, first as a protestant revolt against priestcraft, and finaUy
as a system of religion which has given to India its best ethical code.
From the days of Buddhism on to the times when the conquering
Mohammedans poured into India, a great rehgious change pre
sents itself to our view. And the great contribution that Moham
medanism, in spite of its many weaknesses, has made to the relig
ious development of India, was the supreme emphasis which it laid
on the unity of the Godhead. And so we find that "through the
ages one increasing purpose runs," and I hope that aU of us beUeve
that God works through human history everywhere, and that in
India, also, God has been preparing the ground for his kingdom by
making each religious thought and each nation a contribution to it.
In the days of the decline of Mohammedanism, or rather of the Mo
hammedan political power in India, we find that there was a general
confusion of religious thought, and yet out of the embers of religious
•confusion there rose up great religious prophets and teachers with
sublime and inspiring messages which they brought to the varied
races of India. It was just about this time also that we noticed a
contact of India with the nations of Europe. It is admitted that first

537
of all this contact with Europe was primarily a commercial contact-
Nevertheless, through commerce we were brought into close touch
with the principles of western civilization, and in the struggle for
political supremacy which foUowed among the different nations of
Europe we find England surviving and ultimately holding sway in
India. Those of us who know the story of Christianity in India and
the contribution it has made for the building up of the kingdom of
God may not probably have heard the different aspects of Chris
tianity in India. Before speaking of the great work that has beer*
achieved by the different Christian agencies that are working ir*
India, I should hke to point out to you some of the weak points that
are responsible for the non-achievement of results that might other
wise have been attained.
First and foremost we have this difficulty: that Christianity has
been associated in India with the name of a political power, — a po
litical power which has not always commended itself to the people
of India as a Christian nation; and so in that respect the cause of
Christianity as such has suffered.
Another reason why Christianity has not appealed more effec
tively to the most intelUgent people in India is that Christianity has
appeared on the scene not in its united form, but as a house divided
against itseh. Just as we have in India our caste systems and our
various sectional differences among the Hindus, and we have among
us the Mohammedans, so Christianity also comes to us with its varied
garbs of reUgious interpretation and religious thought. This divi
sion has been a source of great weakness to the growth of the Chris
tian reUgion in India. Moreover, according to the present condi
tions there is another source of weakness, and that is that an ecclesi
astical department is maintained by the British government in India
at the cost of the Hindu tax-payer who has no faith in Christianity.
I simply refer to this, not as a poUtical grievance, but because of its
ethical values. And you must remember that the leaders of relig
ious thought in India look upon all political and sociological ques
tions from the purely ethical point of view. It is, therefore, from the
ethical point of view that we refer to these political problems in rela
tion to Christianity.
With regard to the achievements of Christian missions in India,
while I have pointed out some of the weaknesses, it would be unfair

538
to leave the story half told. The whole story of Christian missions
in India reads like a fable. At the beginning of the nineteenth
century we notice a group of devoted men and women working against
great obstacles for an ideal in which they heartily beUeved. Dur
ing the course of a hundred years we notice that movement rising
from a smaU beginning until at last it covers almost the whole country.
And, while it may be that many of us differ one from the other in re
gard to the dogmatic basis of the various sectarian differences of
Christianity, there is no doubt that the ultimate value of Christian
missions in India wiU be measured not by statistics, but by the actual
rendering of service to the needs of humanity. It is only by that
standard that we can gain ultimately the true value of a reUgion, and
with this test I am pretty certain that aU of you wiU agree with me
that Christian missions in spite of aU their weaknesses have been a
source of great blessing to India. Consider the subject of foreign
missions in India from the purely utilitarian point of view, if I may
use that term. We notice that, consciously or unconsciously, the
Christian missionary in India was working hand in hand with the
progress of general events. For instance, when the great Scotch
man, Dr. Guss, comes to India and discovers that the opportunity
had come in the development of India for the introduction of the
English language and of EngUsh methods of education, we see that
with statesmanlike genius and prophetic insight he worked night and
day with the object of interesting his feUow-countrymen in the work
of starting English schools and coUeges in India. And the ground
that he prepared in England and Scotland for that work was ulti
mately cultivated also by the efforts of Lord Macaulay, and the re
sult was that we had the great Indian University system established
there. Take, again, the case of medical missions. There was a great need
of modern methods of medicine felt in India, and the missionary was
the first to discover that women trained as medical missionaries could
render the most efficient service along that line. And so we have a
large number of devoted women coming over into India from America
and from England and from Germany to render this much-needed
service. But during the nineteenth century a greater revolution has
taken place than this revolution in the realm of reUgion or of edu
cation. It is greater because it has affected the material happiness

539
of the largest number of people in the Orient. You have not aU for
gotten the time when the steam-engine was invented, and how the
invention of the steam engine ultimately affected the different methods
of industry in England as weU as on the continent of Europe and in
America. You also remember the story of the labor riots, how large
masses of the laboring classes were in revolt against the introduction
of machinery, and against the introduction of methods that were
likely to subvert their methods of earning a Uving. This same in
dustrial revolution, which was not welcomed heartily by the labor
ing classes of the Western nations, has been carried with the expan
sion of the British flag to the Orient. And there in India we have the
industrial revolution presented to us in a conflict more deadly than
was ever presented on the battlefield in human history. When it
is remembered that within the last twenty-five years more than 35,-
000,000 people have died in my country for want of bread, you wiU
realize the enormous gravity of the situation and the large extent to
which it affects the people of India.
This whole subject of famines in India is at bottom an economic
problem, and is indicative of the keenness of the industrial struggle
that has come into the country and has created a field for human
service the hke of which was never known in history before. And
you and I who are interested in the buUding up of the kingdom of
God are bound to consider this much-needed field of human ser
vice. There is no service so important as this one presented in
India to-day, where men and women have been practicaUy deprived
of their methods of earning a living, have turned in their hope
lessness to agriculture just to eke out a Uving, until at last the
land is overrun with men who by the primitive methods of agri
culture cannot get enough return, and then we have those periodic
famines of which you hear so much. Of course, it is easy to
have announced by an official person a great famine in India,
and then to raise subscriptions to feed the starving people. But it
is much more important to study the whole situation from a purely
economic point of view, and to remove the causes which bring
about this periodical famine. And it is to the consideration of
these great problems that I take this opportunity of inviting your
attention. It seems to me that there is no country in the world to-day which

54°
offers such a fine field for human service as India in its present in
dustrial trouble. This trouble of which I have spoken, however im
portant it may be, has also its poUtical and other phases aUied to it,
into which it is not possible to enter here to-night, but I can only say
this, that it is to my mind the greatest field of human service. I am
reminded of the time when Nehemiah was in the city of Jerusalem
trying to rebuild the waUs of that city, and he discovered that it was
an immense task; yet he called the people together, and they ulti
mately decided upon a very simple scheme. And Nehemiah said,
" Let every man build that portion of the wall which is next to his
own door." That hits the nail on the head. Every one of us has
an individual duty in the building of the kingdom of heaven. If
we really claim to be followers of the humble Nazarene and to direct
our lives by the great immortal principles which are laid down in the
Sermon on the Mount, then it is our duty as Christian men and
women to study the problems which are vitaUy affecting the ma
terial interests of enormous masses of the population in the Orient,
and to do the needful thing in rendering distress less hurtful and in
promoting the material prosperity of those countries. If there is
opportunity for service wanted by those who are interested in the
buUding up of the kingdom of heaven in this world, I say again that
India offers the most splendid opportunity. Apart from the indus
trial problem take our social problem. A great deal of work lies
before us along that line. Our women have to be educated and up
lifted, our lower caste people have to be uplifted. The question of
education also is a very supreme question of the moment. After
one hundred and fifty years of British influence in India it is not at aU
pleasant to know that out of every one hundred people there are only
eight people who are able to read and write even their own lan
guage. And where we are confronted by an iUiterate mass of men and
women it is not an easy task to instil into their minds ideas of prog
ress and of adjustment to the new economic life that has come into
the country. Take the question of sanitation, the want of which
is responsible for decimation of millions of people, because the peo
ple have not had time and opportunity to study modern methods of
sanitation. There is another field for human service. Men and
women in this country who are witting to sacrifice themselves and
their lives for the service of humanity have in India a splendid chance

54i
where by their enthusiasm and self-sacrificing service they can help
to build the kingdom of God.
Judge Morton. — I have the pleasure of presenting to you Mr.
BarakatuUah, of the Mohammedan faith, who will address us on
"LiberaUsm in India."

542

LIBERAL MOHAMMEDANISM IN INDIA.
BY M. BARAKATULLAH, OF BHOPAL.
For nineteen centuries you have been praying, "Thy kingdom
come," and to-day I realize that the beginning of that kingdom of
God has aheady set in, for I represent a religion which has been least
understood and most misrepresented in Western lands. In fact,
the religion of Islam, which is commonly caUed the Mohammedan
reUgion, was like the Ishmaelites, whose hand was against everybody
and everybody's hand was against them. But to-day I have the great
pleasure to address an audience of Christian people as a Mohamme
dan. The religion founded by the Prophet Mohammed is reaUy
caUed Islam. Islam means "resignation to the will of God alone,
and not to any other witt." Now how to know the wiU of God?
We believe that the power behind the appearances is a constant mind
which has been working through aU the universe with a design,
therefore this whole universe is nothing but the manifestation of the
wiU of God. Man stands as a higher manifestation of the wiU of
the Deity because man possesses wiU, accompanied with rational con
science, and the superman, or the perfect man, is the highest mani
festation of the wUl of the Deity. A perfect man is a Unk between
the infinite and the finite. Therefore, the superman, or the perfect
man, is himself the embodiment of the wiU of God. His word is
the word of God, and his will is the will of God. And, therefore,
in Islam we have five articles of faith which wiU explain to you the
meaning of the will of God, and how it is obeyed by the followers
of the Prophet of Arabia.
The first article of the faith in Islam is the belief in God, who is
one and eternal, and who exists by himself and sustains the whole
universe. The second article is the beUef in the angels; that is to say, pure
spirits which are agencies for good, and help humanity in its up-

543
ward march spirituaUy. This means, in other words, that this uni
verse is not only the visible part alone, but there is another part which
is called the unseen, the spiritual world. Some people might say that
there is no spiritual world, and it is through our imagination alone
that we beUeve that there is a soul and a spiritual world.
Here I should Uke to explain myself to you through a parable
which is given by a Persian poet called Jalaludeen. He says that
a Uttle chUd in a room was informed that outside there was a great
universe in which there were the sun, the moon, the stars, and the
earth with its continents, oceans, mountains, and gardens, the mineral
kingdom, vegetable kingdom, animal kingdom, and man. And the
chUd, having not seen it with his five senses, would deny the exist
ence of such a thing. So the inspired man says : "This is the likeness
of the people who only depend upon that world which is sensible
and which is perceived through their senses. They deny the exist
ence of the spiritual world."
The third article of our faith is the belief in the revealed Book.
Revelation is one: it produces the same effect in aU minds and all
climes. According to the Islamic faith the revealed books of all
reUgions are true in their origin, and a man cannot be a Mohammedan
without believing in aU the revealed books. But how can one distin
guish the revealed book from the non-revealed? The character
istic of the revealed word is that it imparts spiritual life, and in spite
of aU resistance prevails. Just to give you an instance from the
Bible, Jesus says, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word
shaU not pass away"; that is to say, the revealed word is destined
to prevail.
The fourth article of faith is the belief in all the prophets. We
make no limitation, we make no distinction, among the prophets of
God. They are all one because spiritually they belong to the same
realm, to the same region. The Spirit of God speaks to them, and that
Spirit is one. Therefore, he who believes in the Prophet Moham
med, also believes in aU prophets. Indeed, the Koran says, "There
is no country where God has not sent a prophet." Therefore, all
these reUgions, the great religions of the world, were revealed relig
ions. But why should we require so many prophets ? In this world
you will find that there is day and there is night. The time comes
when materialistic night prevails. The majority of the people will

544
become materialistic. They have no regard for higher things. They
believe that the enjoyments of this world alone are the realities. But
at such a time it is necessary that the sun of spirituaUty shaU rise
again, and it is the rule that, whenever a new prophet is bom, that is
the daybreak of spirituality. When a prophet comes, he unites the
scattered, he removes animosities, he makes strangers as brothers
and sisters. So, according to our beUef , all the prophets are one.
These prophets have their peculiarities on the physical plane, they
adopt different methods in producing the same effect, and the result
is that every prophet gives a help to humanity in its march towards
the spiritual. On the physical plane the prophets are men like our
selves, but on the spiritual plane they are very high. In fact, even
on the physical plane their bodies are so fine and so vibrate on the
spiritual plane that they can become a link between the spiritual
world and the material world.
The fifth article of faith is the faith in the last day, or what we would
caU in the Western language the advent of the millennium, or the
kingdom of God on earth. This is the last article of the faith of
Islam. Now how this kingdom of God wiU be realized is given
by the same poet in the form of a parable. The poet says that there
were four men gathered together: one was a Greek, another was a
Persian, a third man was a Turk, and the fourth was an Arab. Unto
these four men some one gave a coin. The Arab rose and said that
he would like to buy ineb with that coin. The Persian protested and
said that he would like to buy ozum with it. The Turk said, No, I
would like to buy angoor with that coin. The Greek, in turn, rose
and protested, and said that he should buy staphite with it. Then,
the poet says, a man comes who knows aU these four languages, and
takes the coin from their hand and buys a basket of grapes and
places it before them, and they are satisfied. So all these differences
that exist in this world will continue, but, when the kingdom of God
will be reaUzed, it wiU be realized in this way, that the misunderstand
ings wiU be removed, and we will find that we are one, brothers and
sisters. Now you may always have heard that Islam is synonymous with
warfare, but that is not the tenet of the Prophet. It is a hard place
only to defend one's self; and so you will find among all the followers
of religion that people have deviated from the right faith, even so did

545
the foUowers of the Prophet. For their transgressions you cannot
blame their rehgion.
There are other points which are also brought against the teach
ings of the Prophet. For example, they say that Islam puts a pre
mium upon polygamy. But, if the scholars were to be set to study
the writings of the Prophet, they would realize that Islam teaches
monogamy. A reformer tries to reform a custom graduaUy, and he
appeals to human conscience. There is a tradition of the Prophet
in which the Prophet says that a man having two wives, if he were
to incUne to one of them more than the other, he wiU rise on the day
of judgment with half of his body Ufeless. That means that one
should have one wife. By treating these points, I wanted to caU to*
your attention that we have hved in separation for centuries, but, as
the kingdom of God is drawing near and is about to be established,
we wiU see that these differences will disappear and we will aU be
come as brothers and sisters.
Judge Morton. — I cannot suffer this meeting to close without ex
pressing to the gentlemen to whom we have listened our grateful
appreciation of their interesting and eloquent addresses, nor without
expressing the wish that, as they travel homeward, a kind Providence
wiU attend them and bring them in safety to their journey's end.
We wUl close the service by singing the Hymn "Forward into
Light." After the singing of the hymn, the benediction was pronounced by
Rev. Thomas Van Ness, minister of the Second Church, as foUows: —
Now may the spirit of love, the spirit of truth, the Eternal Spirit
of God, be and abide with us aU and speak to our hearts of His
everlasting peace. Amen.

546

DEPARTMENT OF WOMAN'S WORK.
Held under the auspices of the National Alliance of Unitarian
and Other Liberal Christian Women, at Channing and Ford Halls,
Wednesday, September 25, at 3.30 p.m.
As at other meetings of the week, the attendance at this session
was overwhelming, and Channing Hall, advertised as the place of
meeting, could only accommodate an overflow, the main audience
being transferred to a larger hall in the vicinity. Special seats were
held for foreign guests, and every foot of standing room was eagerly
sought by Alliance members. The speakers were chiefly the women
who had come as delegates from other countries. Miss Emma C.
Low, president of the National Alliance, presided, and with her
on the platform were grouped the venerable Mrs. Julia Ward Howe,
of Boston, Mrs. Judith W. Andrews, the first president of the AUi-
ance, Mrs. S. E. Hooper, so long the stanch bulwark of this society,
Miss Lilian F. Clarke, a well-known power in the Post-office Mis
sion, Lady Bowring, of Liverpool, England, Miss Mary E. Rich
mond from Wellington, New Zealand, Miss D. Van Eck, of Holland,
Rev. Miss Gertrude von Petzold, of Leicester, our only woman
minister in England, and officers of the Attiance. In her opening
remarks Miss Low outUned and explained the work of the Alliance,
its beginnings and its accomplishments, and the special functions
of the different departments. Emphasis was laid on what the Atti
ance had done for Unitarian women in strengthening their faith and
in spreading a wider knowledge of it abroad. The work of the Alli
ance in the South was given a prominent place.
Miss Van Eck, of Holland, was then introduced.

547

THE RELIGIOUS WORK OF LIBERAL DUTCH
WOMEN, HOLLAND.
BY MISS DAATJE VAN ECK, LEIDEN.
The Dutch Postal Mission Committee and the Sunday-school
(van den Nederlandsche Protestantenbond), our league of Liberals,
whom I have the honor to represent, send you their greetings. We
were very much pleased indeed to receive your invitation, and I
hope our work wUl profit a great deal by my visit to America.
The blessing to feel that we are one, notwithstanding the difference
in character, talents, and country, the deUght to feel that we are aU
of one famUy, — to look into your friendly faces and hear your gener
ous welcome, — fills my heart with joy.
I suppose it wiU interest you to hear something of the religious
work of Uberal women in HoUand, so I wish to divide my subject
into three parts, — Sunday school, women teachers of reUgion, and
Postal Mission work. I witt mention only our social reUgious district
nursing and Toynbee work, our institutions for fallen women and
neglected chUdren. Ladies are not often found in committees, but
you can find them everywhere at work for the little ones and the
poor. The Dutch woman is a hard worker, convinced that the
highest interest of the people proceed from the development of the
religious life. Although we are a very critical people, our women
are more reUgious than theological, and find their particular task
in practical rehgious work.
Our Sunday-school is quite independent of the church, and unites
the children of Remonstrant, Baptist, Lutheran, and Liberal
Dutch Reformed parents, Sunday after Sunday. Our official head
is the Protestantenbond Sunday-school Committee; its president is
the chairman of the biennial meetings, and the secretary is always
ready to help the lonely sisters. This committee manages the
central Ubrary for teachers, and publishes a calendar and pictures
which are distributed to the children. The first Dutch Sunday-

548
school was opened in 1805, but not until i860 was the liberal Sunday-
school established as it is at present. Here women take a foremost
place, and religious instruction is given to 35,000 children, in 238
schools, by more than 1,000 teachers, mostly young ladies. In the
viUages the minister has often to conduct the Sunday-school with
his wife and daughters, while in the towns it is generally in the hands
of ladies only.
We hold our Sunday-schools in the school-houses, where we
gather the children from seven to twelve years. We pray and sing
with them, and tell them simple stories of chUdren as they are or
ought to be, lessons from nature, flowers, and animals, the sun and
stars, fairy-tales and biographies, and last, but not least, the best
stories of the Bible fit for children. Though we never fear truth,
we must not forget that we have first to teU our children of God, our
Father in heaven, before we teach them the mysteries of science or
ethics. The parents are regularly visited, and we have a festival at Christ
mas, with a tree or stereopticon.
Every week or fortnight we have our Sunday-school teachers'
meeting, one of the teachers writes on the subject for the next Sun
day, and afterward we have a discussion. We work very methodi
cally, using a list of subjects which forms a course of six years' work.
In Leyden, where I am the president, we have 20 to 25 teachers
and about 500 children. We have libraries for pupils, and our special
Sunday-school holiday home for weak children.
In our government schools no Scripture lesson is taught, as parents
wish to be free. Many a mother, without forgetting the happy ex
ceptions, does not know how to talk to her little ones about the best
and highest. If you have some gift of teUing, if you love little chU
dren, if you feel with all your heart that the gospel of love and faith
is the best thing in the whole world you can give them, then you wiU
be able to overcome the difficulties, which are, above all, not to be
uninteresting and not to spoil young, tender hearts.
God forgive us our trespasses! Are not the influences in the first
years of our life the strongest of aU ? After the chUdren leave the
Sunday-school at twelve years, they receive religious instruction from
the minister until they are eighteen or nineteen years of age, when
they are confirmed.

549
Although we have no women ministers, there are a few women
studying theology at our universities, but they axe not admitted as a
minister in any church in HoUand except in the Baptizer community
(Mennonites). This exclusion is, however, but a question of time.
There are, however, women teachers who give religious lessons to
children and young people over twelve years, sometimes to assist
the minister and sometimes independently appointed by the Protes
tantenbond. Our mission house in Leyden was erected by Miss
EmUie Knappert, a lady teacher who ranks first among Unitarian
women workers. The principal here is Miss SneUen, another
teacher who gives all her time and strength to this work. Miss
Mossel, of Amsterdam, gives us our exceUent Sunday-school periodi
cal, Vrij en Vroom. The teachers have to pass an examination by
the Protestantenbond. They have to learn two foreign languages,
French and Enghsh or German, knowledge of the Bible, history
of Christianity in HoUand, our creed, and ethics and philosophy. It
is paid service, which is not the case with Postal Mission and Sun
day-school work. Most of our Unitarians stiU belong to the Dutch
Reformed Church; and, as the majority in this church is orthodox,
we are continually engaged in a terribly bitter struggle. We
ladies look after the chUdren and visit the families, but the
teachers also do the work of the minister in orthodox communi
ties and in lonely places. They are aUowed to preach to children
and young people, and also in the hall of the Protestantenbond
and in Rev. Mr. Hugenhottz's Free Congregation.
We in Leyden owe much to Professor Oort. I have preached my
sermons all over the country, and given evening lectures in the inter
est of reUgion and peace, on the "Postal Mission," "Education and
Peace," "War is against our Christian Principles."
Our Postal Mission work came to us straight from our English
friends, and to them from Miss SaUy Ellis, our mutual foremother.
God bless her! You see we are all of one famfly. We appreciate
very much the gift Mr. Wendte sent us last year, by which we saw
that you acknowledge your grandchUd. There were many among
us who doubted the wisdom of Postal Mission work among our
people, as the Dutch are rather reserved. However, in October,
1895, we had a meeting in Leyden, and the work was created, the
chUd was bom. Three ladies, myself included, adopted the child.

55°
We always called our work our daughter, — not a bad name at all, be
cause it expresses very well its relation to our lives. Those first
months when we started the enterprise I look back upon with deUght.
Does it interest you to know our method of work ? We advertise
in different papers: "What Free Christians believe. Whoever
wishes to read about this can apply to one of the foUowing ad
dresses," etc. How delighted we were at the first requests! How
eagerly the letters were read and studied! We looked forward to
every post. We did not wait tiU we were asked, "How many?"
but from the opposite side of the canal the number was called out.
The letters came in great numbers, — five, ten, twenty every week.
We were very glad; but it was almost too much for the inexpe
rienced foster-mothers, and, however great their joy, they could not
help complaining of the prosperous growth of their daughter, as
in August one complains of the warmth of the sun, however dearly
beloved. We could hardly keep pace with her, and she outgrew aU
her clothes; that is to say, there were not books enough to meet the
demand. Happily, the Protestantenbond suppUed our wants, and
in two years the workers had increased to six, two men and four
women. Our work is not divided into districts, but people wishing
our literature can apply to the nearest worker at Leyden or Amster
dam or in any other part of the country. The books and pamphlets
are sent by parcel post and may be kept one month, when they are
returned and sent out again. Our hbrary contains over 700 books.
Religious books and sermons are most desired, and I send out over
1,000 of them yearly. The Postal Mission Committee has despatched
over 35,000 books and pamphlets, which means 11,664 parcels of
literature. Our books find their way aU over our country and into
Belgium and to America.
In 1901 the London Central Postal Mission Committee sent us a
cordial invitation to attend the Mission meeting connected with
the First International Congress. I returned to my own country and
my work, feeling myself a part, though a very small one, of the great
world work for religion, for liberty, and for peace. I have asked
myself, with much earnestness, What is wanted to keep our work
up to the high level on which it stands ? I am convinced that we
who are in this service must live a true, full, deep life, concerned
in aU the religious, ethical, and social questions that move society.

55i
I know by experience how much our readers appreciate and desire
our own strong convictions, expressed with a warm sympathy for
their struggles and faUings. What we wish is to be a help in form
ing character. This means that our aim is not, and never should be,
to make Unitarians, but to inspire those who appeal to us with a
living faith and a sound conviction. We feel the greatness of our
task and our own feebleness to meet it. But we cannot help doing
what we can in simplicity and faith, ever striving for the blessing
which comes from working with others for the things eternal.
Conscious of the greatness and hohness of our task, let us take the
shoes from off our feet, knowing that we stand on holy ground.
We are dealing with the inner life, the soul of man, which is the
holy of hohes; and, because of this, we wiU never, never submit to
sectarianism, but, as God gives us strength and wisdom, we will
ever stand for freedom in reUgion. And may He bless us!
Mrs. R. H. Davis, National Corresponding Secretary of the
Women's National Alliance, being asked to outline its work in the
Post-office Mission, explained how the foundation was laid by Miss
SaUy Ellis in Cincinnati. She was then a parishioner of Rev. C. W.
Wendte, and began by answering letters sent to him. Mrs. Davis
also paid a tribute to Mrs. Brooke Herford, one of the early workers
in this field. Last year the national committee received a report of
265,560 tracts sent out.
Rev. Miss Gertrude von Petzold, pastor of the Free Christian
(Unitarian) Church of Leicester, England, followed with an able and
earnest address on "The Service of Woman in the Early Christian
Church." After an introduction the speaker dwelt first upon the
enfranchisement of woman, as a result of the Christian religion.
A comprehensive summary was made of the r&le of woman in the
ancient societies of Greece and Rome and Judea. St. Paul's rab
binical views were discussed at some length, and contrasted with
the gentle sympathy, tender reverence, and perfect naturalness and
simplicity of his Master, Jesus Christ. The women of the New
Testament were pictured, especiaUy Mary, "last at the cross and
first at the grave." The religious functions performed by the women
in the apostolic and post-apostolic times were described, with the
later restrictions upon their activity which were thought necessary.

552
The stronger the Christian priesthood developed, the more jealous
they were of the influence and work of woman in the Church. The
early Church put women on the same spiritual level with men, but
asceticism and priestcraft reduced them to a quasi-bondage, silenced
their prophecy, and decried their service. Let the Church of the
twentieth century return to them their right to prophesy and min
ister. The speaker concluded with an earnest plea for woman in
the ministry.
Lady Bowring from England was then introduced by Miss Low,
and briefly responded with a message of warm affection from our
"English cousins" across the sea and a word of appreciation of the
remarkable courtesies extended the visiting delegates.
Lady Bowring was followed by Miss Mary E. Richmond of New
Zealand. Miss Richmond expressed her astonishment at seeing so
many Unitarian women together. She then gave a description of
the two youthful Unitarian churches in Wellington and Auckland
and the present outlook. "A free religion fits a free people." "The
world," said Miss Richmond, "wiU be better when women know
what they want and ask for it plainly." The meeting was closed
by Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, the audience rising in her honor. Mrs.
Howe likened the conference to the great concourse at the building
of the Temple of Babel, and used this effective figure in hoping
that the great tower of liberal thought now building by the differ
ent nations would be one of strength and purpose.
At the close of the meeting, tea was served.
The overflow meeting in Channing HaU was presided over by
Miss CaroUne S. Atherton, and addressed by Miss Von Petzold,
Miss Van Eck, and others.

553

DEPARTMENT OF NEW AMERICANS.
The Problem of Foreign Immigration.
Held in Ford Hall, Tuesday afternoon, Sept. 24, 1907, Rev.
Edward Everett Hale, D.D., presiding.
|fDr. Hale.— I have had the great pleasure and the great honor
of being asked to preside at this meeting. This is counted by me
by far the most important gathering of the week. It is the one
gathering which prophesies that we can do something and that
we know that we can do something, and that we are not satisfied
by good talk or good seed. That I take to be the motto of free
and Uberal reUgion.
I had hoped that the ladies and gentlemen from abroad who have
come here would interest themselves, and I know they wiU largely,
in the conditions of their own countrymen who have already come
here. The questions that they will want to ask are such questions
as can hardly be put in a pubUc meeting. I have therefore requested
my friends at the different North End missions to prepare a little
statement of a few points of interest in the Uves of new Americans
which can be studied within twenty mUes of the city of Boston. I
have copies of this httle leaflet here. They are not for circulation
among Americans born, who know aU about these things: they
are for circulation among Italians and Bohemians and Germans
and everybody else who does not know the difference between Black
stone Street and Park Street.
The great question that arises before us here is, as we go down
to the pier and see these people land, Who is going to take care of
them? Well, you say, the Church of Christ is going to take care
of them; and that is true. I am not going to say anything satirical.
I am not going to say anything bitter. It is perfectly true that the
Christianity of this land takes care of them. We have established

554
here the Young Travellers' Aid Society, which maintains two or
three missionaries at the different piers for the purpose of meeting
the women who may arrive and may be exposed to tempta
tions from the agents of evil whom they encounter. The Young
Women's Christian Association has a messenger doing the same
work in the same way for the women, and one of the ladies who
represents that Association is present here, and will be glad after
the meeting to enter into conversation with anybody who cares for
that. I will say that our friends the Presbyterians and our friends the
Baptists have awakened to this necessity, and they are working
their home missionaries as well as they can in the different lines.
I had the honor to be mixed up myself in a way which gratifies
me extremely with the little Waldensian Church. I wrote a book
once which brought in some Waldensians, and they have done
me the favor to translate that book into the Italian language,
and it has circulated in that country. I am, I might say, a sort
of bishop to the Waldensians in America. When I teU you that
there are sixteen churches in the vaUeys of the Alps which take
the name of Waldo, the founder of the body of Waldenses, that
those sixteen churches maintain between two hundred and three
hundred missions in different parts of the world, that they main
tain a series of schools in Italy so good, so well conducted, that
people send their children to them when they wiU not send them
to the government schools, I give some idea, which I wish the
American churches might take to heart and imitate, of what is pos
sible for a church which is wide-awake and in earnest.
Our work, as I have said, is on this side, and I cannot but hope
that before we adjourn we may have established those personal re
lations between people here who are interested in the immigrants
from abroad and our friends on the other side of the water. We
witt tell you what we want of them, and they shall tell us what they
want of us. You can hear me any day, but you cannot hear Mr.
Jozan any day; and he has arrived now, and I am going to ask him
to speak to you on any subject that he likes, so it has a connection
with the welfare of these people who come to us from abroad. Mr.
Jozan is kind enough to speak in English.

555

REV. N. JOZAN, OF BUDAPEST.

I speak on a subject that is very near and dear to our hearts. As
far as we are Christians, as far as we are members of the Christian
famfly of men, we cannot help being interested in the goings and
doings of those people who belong to our own community. I might
just teU you, in the way of statistics, that in the last twenty or thirty
years there have come into America about two miUions of Hunga
rian emigrants. I suppose that most of them have been actuated
by a desire to better their own condition, to get a means of living,
to get better pay for the work they do under circumstances that are
sometimes unusuad, working deep down in the mines, working in
factories, and thereby very often exposing their lives to imminent
danger. There are about two milhon Hungarians already settled
in the mining districts of Pennsylvania, and Ohio and throughout
the whole land. There may be some farmers among them as weU.
And I feel greatly indebted to you, and especiaUy to the Unitarian
Association, for this opportunity. I shaU have, after this confer
ence is over, a speciad commission to visit some of these colonies,
and to get them into touch with the Association, at least with the
local minister, and find a way of bringing them into my own com
munity, — that is, those who are Unitarians in faith, — and see whether
they are happy in their settlement in America, and if they have
come to stop here for good. And the best advice that I will give
them wfll certainly be that, if they once make up their minds to look
for better conditions than they can get at home in their native land,
the best plan to adopt for them would be to stay here and naturalize
themselves on this soil which is the embodiment of freedom, of
Uberty, of truth, and that native power in man that is upheld by
faith, hope and love.
I might admit that some of our people come over here only — I
would not say merely — for gain, but that if they want to clear off
their debts, or if they want to buy a few acres of land at home, they
find it their best plan to come over to America and earn it. Some of
them do that. I do not think it is quite to the purpose, and it is
far from the principles that we hold and cherish in our hearts. I
might teU you that the Unitarian colonists have not been cared for
up to this time, because there are not many of them and they are so

556
far scattered. There are about six hundred souls in the districts
that I mentioned before, and I suppose there would be members of
their families joining them, so there would be about one thousand
Unitarian Hungarians settled in the United States. But there are
hundreds of thousands belonging to other reUgious bodies, and these
are, I am aware, weU cared for, inasmuch as the Calvinist churches
have had settled congregations and pastors to administer to their
needs from the beginning. These Calvinist churches and Lutheran
churches have had the pleasure of enjoying the help and support
of the Presbyterian Board, which is a factor in this country. Latterly,
I am told, some of the congregations that have enjoyed so far
the help and support of the Presbyterian Board have formed
themselves as a separate Hungarian district under home man
agement, and I know that there is a great contention arising
owing to this fact. But for my own part — I cannot say that I have
much experience on this subject, because I am just beginning to find
my way to our people — it seems to me that, if we could get the
American Unitarian Association, and the sympathy of your re
ligious liberals directed towards these new Americans, as you caU
them, it would be indeed the prayer and aspiration of my heart, and
the hearts of aU my countrymen, to see them happy and well situated
in this land of liberty, and to see that their rehgious needs are cared
for, and that their social standing is not lowered, but lifted up to the
high standards after which, as Americans, you aspire.
Dr. Hale. — The public by and large knows practicaUy nothing
about immigration. Many a man lives day after day without know
ing how much the population of the country is enlarged. The
figures of the statistics show that in the year 1906 1,300,000 persons
arrived here from Europe. They show at the same time that 400,000
persons of European birth went back from America to Europe.
That brings up a very curious question, why they came and
why they went back; and that is one of the questions which I can
not help hoping we may be helped in solving by the presence of
friends who are with us to-day. I am going to ask Mr. Andrd, of
Florence, one of our Italian friends, to address us on this subject.
(Before Mr. Andr6 began speaking, Mrs. JuUa Ward Howe came
upon the platform and was received with applause.)

557
Dr. Hale.— I do not need to introduce Mrs. Howe to any audience
in Boston, or to any audience who are met in aid of any people who
are seeking for liberty. [Applause.]

REV. L. E. TONY ANDRE, D.D., OF FLORENCE, ITALY.
This section of the Liberal Congress puts itself the question, how
to render aid to the emigrants of European origin who have lately
settled in the United States of America.
The majority of the emigrants whom you now receive in your coun
try are of Italian origin, and principaUy from the south of Italy.
What is lacking to these Italians in order to put themselves on your
level? When we shaU have answered this question, it will be easier
to render aid to them.
Their greatest need, in the first place, is sufficient instruction.
On the boat which I took to come to New York were numerous emi
grants who embarked at Naples, and I saw one of them who did not
know how to sign the custom-house declaration which your authori
ties demand of passengers. All that he knew how to do was to make
a cross. Many others were doubtless in a similar condition.
Not that the ItaUans of the south are ignorant by nature: they are,
on the contrary, susceptible of learning quickly and well. I should
compare them to a virgin forest: the sofl is fertile, but it must be
enriched. In Italy, especially in the southern districts, the schools
and teachers are wanting. What wonder that many of the young
men can neither read nor write! The military service supplies in
part this want of instruction. The recruits who cannot read or
write receive lessons; but the women and the young men of less than
twenty-one years of age are not reached by this system.
The first thing to do, then, is to instruct the emigrants. Their
ignorance exposes them to be the victims of certain of their compa
triots who win their confidence and shamefuUy abuse it. My atten
tion has been caUed among others to an abuse which has for emigrants
bad consequences. Unscrupulous compatriots who pose as small
bankers receive the savings of the workingmen and either use them
up or lose them, or carry them off. It may be said, in passing, that it
would be an exceUent step to establish Italian savings-banks; that is
to say, banks in which the Italian language is spoken.

558
This is not all. Not only are the Italian emigrants who come
among you lacking in instmction, but they have need of completing
their education. Accustomed at home to submit themselves, to be
guided (for Cathohc education is characterized by submission and
not by individual initiative), when they arrive among you, where aU
citizens are accustomed to control and guide themselves in a spirit of
practical liberty and out of respect for the law, they are bewildered
and act as if lost. They are like young runaway colts, and it happens
that, on the one hand, they abuse the Uberty which they find, making
bad use of it, and, on the other hand, that they aUow themselves to be
directed by unscrupulous persons, particularly by politicians. The
women, above aU, need to learn to use the privUeges accorded to their
sex in America, — privileges which do not exist in Europe, especiaUy
not in Italy, where the woman is dependent upon the man.
This work of education cannot be done in a day. How undertake
it? It is not for me to advise you. Better than I you know what can
be done in this cause. The Italian is not a difficult subject, and you
will find in him a thankful one. He adapts himself readUy to circum
stances and to the new surroundings in which he is called to Uve.
Then he has good qualities: he is a workman, he is active, he is
sober, he is grateful. He does not resemble certain children whom I
have known, who are overwhelmed with kindnesses and never return
thanks. The Italian has an open heart, and, if one does him a kind
ness, he knows how to see it and recognize it. Oh, I know, he is
reproached for making use too readUy of the knife. It is a reUc of
ancient custom. Formerly it was not easy to obtain justice in Italy,
and every one was compelled to execute it for himself. But little by
Uttle the use of the knife is tending to disappear, and the emigrants
who come among you wiU free themselves from it still more quickly.
It is sufficient that they be convinced of the incorruptibility and fair
ness of the judges and of the support of good laws.
But our International Congress is reUgious, and is more concerned
with the religious question. The liberals who are concerned for the
emigrant wish not only to aid them materially, but also spirituaUy,
for they understand that there cannot be true happiness for man
without worship and without religious knowledge.
On this side the task is great and, I believe, difficult. The ItaUan
proletariat is iU-prepared for reUgious liberaUsm. For a long time

559
it has been under the domination of the priest. It does not search
for reUgious truth: it contents itself with accepting the catechism
which has been taught it, and which often it does not understand.
Its reUgion is made up of form, and, when it has fulfilled the form
prescribed by the Church, it believes itself in harmony with heaven.
Permit me, in this connection, to teU you a story.
A Calabrian brigand, having learned that a rich traveller would
pass by a solitary road, resolved to attack and rob him; but as in this
attack he feared that he might be killed, and not wishing to go to
hell or to purgatory, he went to the cure* of a neighboring vUlage, placed
a knife at his throat, and compelled him to give him a plenary abso
lution for his past sins, as well as those which he might yet commit in
attacking a traveller. Now it happened that the pohce captured the
brigand at the moment when he attempted to assassinate the traveller.
Condemned by human justice, he protested. The thing appeared
incomprehensible to him from the moment that he had in his pocket
an anticipatory absolution, and beheved that he was in harmony with
heaven! I repeat, with men so ill prepared the task is not easy, and all the
more that as soon as they have disembarked the emigrants are drawn
into the CathoUc churches existing in the United States, and, con-
sequendy, kept in the current of ideas in which they have lived.
A good thing to undertake to enlighten these men would be, I
think, to give them to read the New Testament. There exists an
exceUent ItaUan translation of the Gospels and of the Acts, pub
lished in Italy by the Cathohcs with the consent of the ecclesiastical
authority. This could be distributed to them. If they have not a
general knowledge of the gospel history, they wiU not understand the
Liberal tracts which it wiU next be necessary to distribute to them.
If the ItaUans are ill prepared to receive Liberal Protestantism,
I believe, nevertheless, that it is this phase of religious thought which
they wiU understand the more quickly and which they will accept
the most wittingly. Many immigrants are anti-clerical, detesting the
priest and rejecting rehgion because a militant socialism has prompted
them to fear and detest authority. The Religious Liberalism which
is made of individual respect and of sincerity, as well as of truth, can
not but present to them rehgious thought in a friendly aspect.
I have noted some points of the problem. It is not for me to give

560
their solutions. Perhaps you have already undertaken aU that I
have suggested. Your good works are so numerous that I have been
astonished by them. Your charity has known how to penetrate
everywhere and to do good to the emigrants. You have only to con
tinue in the way which you have aheady begun.
Dr. Hale. — I am sure that you have gained new sympathy for
the difficulties of these poor Italians when they are brought before a
court or any such matter.
I will say something now as to the extreme difficulty of the prob
lem in hand. Up to this time the people who met our friends at
the gates have been rather sporadic. The only Christian body,
from the pope of Rome down to the Salvation Army, which has a
permanent mission are our friends of the Young Women's Chris
tian Association, who are trying to take care of girls, and the Mor
mon Church. The Mormon Church, whenever I have been at a
landing, had its man there in a long linen duster — you know him —
to receive the Mormons. The other people who meet them are
people who come because they — weU, they have an axe to grind,
and the person who arrives may be sent to some part of the country
for which he or she is the least suited. A SicUian orange girl may
be sent to cut ice in Minnesota and a Norwegian with a ski on his
back may be sent to Florida to pick oranges. There is nothing to
prevent that: that is occurring all the time. Under the new admin
istration which has been determined upon at Washington, agents are
to be stationed at every one of the large ports who are in communi
cation through Mr. Powderly's office with the governors of the forty-
five States, with the different labor bureaus of those States, and with
the farmers and planters and other such people. A sufficient force
of agents is to be at each landing-place to meet the man at the very
beginning, and, before he gets switched off, send him to some place
for which he is suited, the great effort being that the immigrants
shall not be clustered together in cities, as they are now far too much,
but that each one of the forty-five States may have the advantage
of this wave of human life which comes in upon us. I doubt if it
is generally known in such an audience as this how few drops of
the wave of immigration really strike west of the Mississippi River,
and the effort which is to be made is in that direction. Persons who

56i
are sincerely interested in the subject may write to Washington to
the Department of the Interior for the last reports of Mr. Sargent
and our friend Mr. BUlings.
Mr. Holden is so kind as to say that he will himself describe the
position of the thousand Italians in whom he is personally inter
ested in the town of Milford in New Hampshire, and I have asked
him to take a few minutes for that purpose.

REV. FRANCIS WILDER HOLDEN.
I find myself here to tell something of what I know, and perhaps
more that I know just a little about. The town of Milford, N.H.,
has somewhere in the vicinity of one thousand Italians. Most of
these might be catted Italians from Northern Italy. There are a few
from Southern Italy, and they have nothing whatever to do with each
other. The northern Italian caUs the southern Italian a dago, does
not speak of him in any better terms than some of us have been
accustomed to speak of those who are wiUing to come and dig our
ditches and lay pipes for our sewers and our water. Nevertheless, we
have those two classes. The northern Italian is one that has struck for
Uberty. The southern ItaUan does not care so much for Uberty: he
does not care so much to educate his children. I have not come in
contact very much with the southern Italians, but I have come in con
tact with some of the northern Italians. I want to teU you my intro
duction to those people, which was somewhat picturesque. One of my
American people died. He was a stone-cutter. We have many stone
cutters in Milford. The stone-cutters' union is very strong. This
American citizen had no goodplace from which a burial service could be
conducted, and the undertaker came to me, and asked if I would
conduct the service and where it could be held. I said, "I will
conduct the service, and you may have it in the Unitarian church."
The hour was set for Sunday afternoon. I walked down toward the
church, and I heard music. Soon I saw a large body of men, two
hundred and fifty or more, marching along the street, led by the best
band in New Hampshire, the Italian band of Milford. They led
that body of people to the church, where they took their seats, and
I conducted the burial services and laid away one of their fellow
stone-cutters. From that day to this, whenever I meet those people

562
or wherever I meet them, though I cannot talk with the Italians,
they always lift their hats and bow, — a pecuUar recognition.
Now, if Dr. Hale should come there to speak and it should be
announced that he would conduct a religious service in the Uni
tarian church or in any church, I do not believe one of those ItaUans
would be there. I wiU tell you why. Their thought of the Church
is of some institution that takes away their freedom. The north
ern Italian has struck for freedom, and nothing else wiU satisfy him.
Let me give you a Uttle experience of the Baptist minister, who
thought he would do something for those people. He appointed a
religious service in the school-house in the section of the town where
they live. They would not come into that buUding because it was
a reUgious service. They gathered around the outside of the build
ing, but from a rehgious standpoint he could do nothing whatever
with them, simply because they had no use for religion if it was to
destroy their freedom.
Now let me teU you of another instance, an experience of this same
minister. There was a death in one of these families. They had
absolutely rejected the Catholic Church. They are Catholics. The
women do not know what to do unless they can have some form of
Catholicism or of the church where they can see it. They called
upon the Baptist minister to bury one of their children. And, as he
told me that experience, conducting a Protestant service under
Catholic conditions, as he entered the room where the chUd lay, he
found that candles were burning at the head and the foot of the
casket. They knew nothing but their own form of religion. But
their husbands, the men who had struck for Uberty, would not per
mit or would not ask the priest to come to them. The Episcopal
clergyman is caUed upon more often than any other to conduct these
services, probably because the form is more nearly what they have
been accustomed to.
I believe to-day that, if we had a Unitarian minister who could
come to Milford and speak to them in the Italian language, teUing
them of our faith, that an Italian church could be estabUshed there.
We cannot bring them into one of our churches. They wiU not prob
ably affiliate with us in that way: they do not want to. They would
rather be by themselves, they would rather have their own part of
the town; but they are good citizens. Those Italians from North-

563
ern Italy are becoming American citizens just as soon as it is pos
sible for them. Their children are in the pubUc schools: they are
ta the high school. Recently I attended one of the school exer
cises in which an ItaUan took part in speaking, and his selection was
a surprise to me, for he brought in the thought that Christ was the
son of Joseph. So that idea appealed to them in some way.
You want to know if those Italians are capable of taking care of
themselves. Mr. Chairman, they are perfectly able. The Italians
in that town are business men. And, when I say "business men,"
I mean that they are able to set another feUow to work at a profit.
That is what many of us cannot do. The Italians there are owners
of quarries; they are owners of stone sheds. They do something
else besides selling peanuts: they are owners of business plants,
and are doing good work. They want their children educated.
And, when they know of a reUgion that wiU give them larger liberty,
they will be reckoned among those who are religious, who have
faith in God and man. That is what I say of the Italians in the
town where I am. Give us a Unitarian who can teach them, speak
to them in the ItaUan language, and they wfll listen.
Dr. Hale. — We are so fortunate that I am able to introduce to
you one of the most distinguished representatives of the scholars
of the city of Prague, Professor Masaryk from that city. We have
asked him to speak to us of the Slavonian-Bohemian representations
in America, the number of whose representatives is much larger
than this audience supposes.
PROFESSOR T. G. MASARYK, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PRAGUE.
I am to speak of the Slavonians, of whom there are about
4,000,000 Uving in your country. I am to speak more especiaUy of
the Bohemians. I have no right to speak in their name. I wiU
communicate some observations I made in this country recently,
and twice before when I was here. I would not dare to discuss
the whole problem of immigration. I wiU give you just a few of
my own observations.
I remember that, when I first came to America, on the boat I saw
a little girl. She had her address checked on her breast. She

564
could not speak with anybody, — not English, of course. I had the
impression of a living box or trunk being checked and sent to America.
That is the first impression I had of the immigration problem.
And afterwards, when I came here, for instance, to Pittsburg or
AUegheny, and observed the life of the miners, I saw again living
trunks and boxes which are used for the industry of your great
country. A man cannot speak with his feUow-citizens; he cannot
speak with his own children. It is touching to see how among our
Slavonians and Bohemians very often the family is broken up simply
because nobody is left to take care of the chUdren. The father and
mother are in the mines : the children live on the street, pick up
the English language, forget their own. The father and mother
cannot speak English, and so they cannot converse, father and chUd.
I saw this very often, not only in Pittsburg, but in New York, Chicago,
everywhere. And so I see that the problem is, of course, that the
people coming here should as soon as possible learn EngUsh. But
that is not enough, to know English, even if they speak it very weU.
It is not a question of language only, but of citizenship communion,
of spiritual communion. For these people learn EngUsh as they
can, — they learn it in the public schools, they pick it up on the streets,
and so on; but they are not citizens, they are not Americans, and they
cannot be, because they are out of spiritual and civic communion
with you. They do not communicate, and they cannot. I often
am told by Americans, "There is a kind of clan instinct among
these Slavonians: they gather where they wiU not be assimUated
with us." Of course, if you would say assimilation only by lan
guage, that is not difficult. What I mean is the assimilation of cult
ure and of spiritual life, and that is wanting. I often hear from
clergymen and men who care for religion, "Your Bohemians are
free thinkers; they are hostile to religion; they are atheists." It
is true that very many of them are free thinkers,- and perhaps
atheists, — I cannot tell, — but I know these free thinkers and atheists
long for spiritual life. They have nobody to give it to them except
ing the Roman Church. Catholicism is spreading, of course, here
in the United States; and it soon wiU be, and I suppose it is aheady,
a great problem of this country. The Roman Church meets these
people. A Bohemian and a Slavonian will be more carefully cared
for than he is in his own country. But there is a minority of the

565
people, perhaps half of them, who dislike every sort of ecclesiastical
and reUgious life, simply because in Austria, where they come from,
they know only the Roman CathoUc Church, the Church of the State,
and they hate the State Church. If you would meet them on then-
own ground and of course in their own language, you witt see that
these "atheists" wttl be very good — I won't say Christians, but re
Ugious men; and I am sure, if Jesus were to come again, he would
go to these atheists, to these people who do not care anything for
reUgion because they are cast out of spiritual communion, and be
cause they have no opportunity of hearing and seeing what true
religion is.
And so I wish that they could meet you, and that you would meet
them. I think they are ripe for this meeting. I came here Sunday,
and was engaged for the meetings here, but was invited by my coun
trymen to speak. Before I came, they wrote me to speak on the
poUtical and social situation of Bohemia and of Austria. When I
came to speak to them, I saw that they would like better to hear
something of — as they styled it — philosophy and reUgion. And
these simple workingmen and atheists desired that I would speak
on the aim of life and on the problems of religion and phUosophy.
They could not express clearly what they wanted, but I saw it was
their hunger and thirst for spiritual life. That is my impression, and,
as I would say once more, I only wish the Unitarians could and
would meet these my poor, unfortunate people.
Dr. Hale. — It is not the first time in history that Christendom has
needed a voice from Bohemia to awake it from the dead, and I dare
say we may get such a summons again and again and again.
As we have been speaking of Slavonians, let me teU a single point
which happened here a few years ago, when we had our first impor
tation of Russian Jews, the first time any had landed in Boston.
From the Hebrew Charitable Society we got hints of the first value
as to the care of these poor people who had been kicked out of Russia.
I think there arrived 40,000 Russian Jews in Boston, where we were not
used to them, did not understand them, and the very skilful arrange
ments of the Hebrew societies took care of them. A year later,
in speaking at a large pubhc meeting, — I asked the gentlemen of the
press to make note of what I said, — I said that I did not believe that

566
in that one year one of those Russian Jews had been known in any
poorhouse or house of correction or other place of detention in
Massachusetts, and that I would be obliged to any person who would
give me the name of any such individual. Again and again I re
peated that challenge in public, and we did not hear of a single per
son from that immigration who in a year's time had been any weight
on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or on the town. I repeat
that chaUenge now, and wUl say that we have been very largely in
debted to our friends from Russia for the persons whom they have
sent here. The children, as our children know, are taking then-
places in the pubUc schools with those who study hardest and
achieve the most, and I do not want any person to think we are
neglecting these problems. I have the pleasure of introducing to
you now one who comes to us from Minnesota, and is the presi
dent of the Norwegian Unitarian Association, Rev. Mr. Norman.

REV. AMADEUS HALVDON NORMAN, OF HANSKA, MINN.
You aire trying an experiment, friends, which has never been tried
since history began. Instead of keeping this beautiful continent,
this almost paradise-like district, to yourselves and shutting your
gates to suffering humanity outside, you have most magnanimously
opened the gates and permitted the oppressed poor from aU lands,
belonging to aU peoples, to come to your shores and make their
homes among you. A million of such are landing on your shores
every year and being distributed through the various parts of this
great land. It is the most wonderful experiment that has ever been
undertaken. And you need all the acquired culture, all the acquired
understanding of human nature, in order to solve the great and
mighty problems that this opening of the gates wiU involve. The
founders of this country were deep thinkers. They laid the
foundations deep and strong for the mightiest people, I beUeve, that
this world has ever seen. It has been fashionable in certain quarters
during these last few years to belittle the work of these men, to be
little the maxims laid down in the immortal Declaration of Inde
pendence. But, in spite of all that may be said to the contrary, I
beUeve that the substance of these maxims is everlastingly true, and
that you and I, that aU men are created to be free and independent sons

567
and daughters of the Uving God; that it is the duty of the strong to
help the weak; that ultimately the salvation, the continuance of the
strong himself, depends on his willingness to help his weaker and
more unfortunate brothers. No work can be greater than this. No
work is nobler, no work can be more important. And no people on
this earth has yet entered into such ventures with the whole-hearted
ness that you friends of New England have done.
Our mission as Liberal Christians, I take it, is a twofold one. We
are, in the first place, to try and do what we can to help to develop
a better class of men and women, who wiU Uve better, purer, and
nobler Uves. We are, in the second place, to try to help to perfect
the principles of true Uberty by helping to develop a better class of
citizenship. A few of us " New Americans" in the West have begun
to think that, as we have left our poUtical parties behind us on
the other side of the ocean and are trying to find our ways into
the poUtical parties of our adopted Fatherland, so we wiU try
to find our plaices as weU as we can in the religious and moral
forces of this country. We wUl try to merge as fast and as speedily
as we can in aU the forces that are working for the advancement
of the highest and best life in this our adopted Fatherland.
This work is greatly needed. In my State, Minnesota, for instance,
we have 2,000 Lutheran churches. We are not without churches,
but these churches are but a Uttle removed from the old Catholicism.
It would seem UI in me to stamd here before you and talk to you
about people who are not here to heair me, and consequently who
are not in a position to answer me. But I will just iUustrate the
need of a sound view of life amd of reUgion among our people by an
illustration, and wiU let that speak for itself.
A year ago one of the greatest Lutheran denominations held its
annual meeting in Duluth, Minn. A resolution was proposed to
the convention, a convention of something like 2,000 representa
tives, deploring the loss to the denomination of two ministers
during the past year, without stating the cause. Some independent
minister in the audience inquired. He wanted to have them set
forth in that resolution the reasons why the denominations deplored
the loss of these two men, but that was squelched. Now what were
the facts in this case? The facts were these: that one of these men,
a very fine man, had graduated from their school, from their college

568
in the West, and after that he had sojourned in New England, had
spent a year, I think, at Yale CoUege, and had been somewhat
tainted by the peculiar views that prevaU at Yale, — not very serious,
we would think, but for them it was very important indeed. This
man was dismissed in disgrace from the denomination. The other
man, also a minister, had left his famUy, his poor wife with several
chUdren, and gone where no people knew where he was, and had
done other things that it would be a disgrace to mention in an audi
ence Uke this. But these two men were placed in the same position
from this ecclesiastical point of view.
Friends, there are many here to speak to you, and I know that my
time will soon be up. But I want to say to you that you have under
taken a great work amongst the New Americans of the West, a very
important work, both reUgiously and socially. It may have the
greatest influence in moulding the future of that great and steadUy
growing region of our country. Of course, the results so far may
seem to you very meagre, and they are meagre, — no one knows that
better than myself; and I would wish very much to be able to be
here to give you a much better report of my Uttle stewardship.
But you must remember, friends, that great thoughts are slow in
fruition. It takes time for them to be rooted deeply. It is no easy
task to win a considerable number of men and women from the
old views and the old life to the new view and the new life that
is dawning on us. And one of the greatest difficulties that we have
to face is to find the right men to lead in this movement. The situa
tion is very compUcated and very difficult. I do not beUeve that
any set of men since the early stages of the Reformation has ever
had to face such problems as the modern man, and especiaUy the
modern minister, has to face. It is comparatively easy for a man to
get his head out from the old dogmas, to be liberated from the old
creeds, the old inteUectual hindrainces; but it is quite a different
matter to become so thoroughly grounded in the ideals of the new
life and the new thought as to be able to stand for it, and to speak
to his men with power in life as weU as in word. Here is our great
est difficulty. But with your great magnanimity, your great gene
rosity in sustaining us and advising us in every possible way, I
assure you that we will go forward step by step as earnestly, as sin
cerely, as we can, and give what we are, what we have, to advance

569
our beautiful, our deep, our broad common reUgion among our
new countrymen in the Western States. I thank you.
Dr. Hale.— Since I came into the hall, I have been informed
that we have here a gentleman who, I hope, will say a word to us
upon the distribution of the great immigration. The great problem
at this moment is that the stream of immigration may not be confined
into five cities, but that it be scattered among the forty-five States.
This gentleman I shall ask to speak. I do not know that he will,
but I hope he will. After his address Mrs. Howe is so kind as to say
that she wfll say something on the subject to which she has given her
life. [Applause.] Is Senator Hinds, of Mississippi, stiU present?
If so, I wiU ask him to come to the platform and say something to
us about the necessities of the South and West in receiving their
share of the great immigration. Senator Hinds represents Hinds
County in the Senate of Mississippi.
SENATOR HINDS, OF MISSISSIPPI.
Mr. Chairman, — None of us can claim true Americanship unless
we have Indian blood, and, your humble servant's father being a
Moor and his mother part Indian, therefore I can claim upon this
platform American blood. And under those auspices I am glad to
have the chance to talk to this Liberal Congress. I was traveUing
in Japan when this movement held its first meeting in England. I
am satisfied that under Unitarian auspices it wiU be a success, be
cause I am glad to say upon this platform that not one of the Unita
rian churches has followed the despoUers who drew the color line
in reUgious bodies. And whenever they do, whenever any
religious party or any State or government, will draw a line against
its constituents, it is not worthy of the respect of the American
people. I know that this movement is going to be a success, and I
hope that it wfll take great hold in the Southland, because you may
remember you have an American constituency in the Southland
who in the next census will number nearly 15,000,000, whom you
do not know of. You must not forget that these American-bred
brown and yellow men were born among you of American ancestry
for two hundred years back, and are to-day the best friend the white

57©
man has. They guarded your sisters in the Southland when the
men of the South were fighting to enslave them, and were always
true. Do not follow the newspaper reports and magazine writers,
and think that the negroes are aU bad. You do not find an educated
black man or a brown man, or a colored man with good education
and good training, in any American house of correction. We
want to get those people with us. They are part of you, and wttl
be among you, and wiU help you in both war and peace, unless
you disorganize them by your treatment. I am thankful to be
among you, and I hope that at the next liberal meeting you hold
you wiU have a delegation and a representation of the black,
brown, and yeUow people from all parts of the country.
Dr. Hale. — Now, as I said, I need never introduce Mrs. Howe
to any audience in the civiUzed world.

MRS. JULIA WARD HOWE.
I am just up from a residence of many weeks in the country, and
came with some inconvenience and fatigue, but the attraction of
this great meeting made it impossible for me to stay away, and I
am very glad that I came here, for I feel so at home in it. I feel that
it has the real atmosphere of a human family, and therefore we are
all at home.
I have long wished that we might find a reUgious basis which
should greatly extend the sympathy of the different Christian denom
inations. I must have a word about that, because it is a subject so
near my heart. I do not suppose that we shall attain it in this con
vention or perhaps in some others, but it is a great object, — it is a
great object. Just as all people are agreed that honesty is important
and so many other things upon which there is no question, so I wish
that it may be that there shall be no question among civUized peoples
whether they are religious or not, because reUgion is a prime neces
sity of the human character.
I want to say a little word about the special subject of this meet
ing this afternoon. Quite a number of years ago I was one of a
number of ladies who went aU over the country every year, holding

57i
a congress of women, at which we tried to present and discuss mat
ters that seemed very important for human society everywhere.
At one of these I tried very hard to have a thorough representation
of the alien races in America. I found it very difficult to get any
available knowledge about the subject. I wanted to find out how
the Germans were Uving, how far they became a part of American
society, how far they resisted and held back. I wanted to know
the same thing about the Poles and Hungarians and about the
ItaUans. WeU, here in Boston we know a good deal about the Ital
ians, because there have been various associations devised especially
to aid the immigrants, and I was once an officer in one of these, but
we were Protestants, and it seemed better to many to allow the
CathoUc Church to take care of these people. I was not consulted
in this. I should not have been of this opinion, but the care of the
immigrants passed into their hands. But I am very much inter
ested and enlightened by what has been said here about the apti
tude of these foreign races for a rational system of religion. Of
course, our CathoUc friends, who have many exceUent points, too
much insist that what is not Catholic is irreUgious. I hope that a
great many of them have learned quite the contrary from living
among us, but that is a great difficulty in reaching the Latin popu
lations. They are so possessed with this idea that, when they give
up the CathoUc Church, they think that they give up religion alto
gether. Now, if there is any religion that ought to help those people,
it is the Unitarian reUgion. We are bound to do it. I am much in
terested to hear of Unitarian Uterature being published in ItaUan. I
remember quite awhUe ago I was much surprised to find that to South
America the Methodists send a great many zealous missionaries,
who are taught to speak Spanish fluently. I think that we Unitarians
also must go in for a gift of tongues: we must leam these different
languages, and we must see that this good literature, this uplifting,
convincing Uterature which recognizes the human values in all races,
diverse, but sacred and deep and solid, — it is our business, I think,
that this should be widely given and used. And particularly, seeing
so many women here, — I am sure at least a score of women's
clubs are represented here, I should advise them, — I used to call
myself once a mother of clubs, but my family now is quite beyond
my control,— I should recommend the study of this subject. It is

572
a very pressing need and deeply interesting, and I think the women's
clubs could take it up to great advantage. [Applause.]
Dr. Hale. — I have been so fortunate as to secure to speak to us
this evening Mr. Bloomfield, who is, I had almost said, the pope
of the North End, — I don't know how he wiU like that. He wttl
address you on the condition of affairs there.
MR. MEYER BLOOMFIELD, CIVIC SERVICE HOUSE, BOSTON.
In the name of my people, I must express a tribute of respect to
Professor Masaryk, because to many of us who have followed Rus
sian affairs closely his name stands out as one of the great moral
leaders in that part of Europe at the present time. I should Uke in
two minutes to dweU on two or three points very appropriate to a
conference of this sort, which are the result of eighteen years of life
on the East Side of New York and seven years in the North End of
Boston. If this company here were the legislative body that Dr. Hale
prays over during the winter in Washington, I think our first biU
would be that no immigrant with chUdren to bring up should be
allowed to Uve in a city of over 10,000 population during at least
the waiting period of naturalization. The most serious problem of
a foreign quarter is the most serious problem of the whole city. The
people come into an atmosphere of irreverence. The big city spells
irreverence, and this is destructive of most of the traditions that
the people of aU nationalities bring with them, — traditions which no
customs inspection or official inspection could possibly detect, yet
the greatest moral wealth of the immigrant who comes to our shores.
Now, therefore, aU our efforts must be made in a sense as substi
tutes, as counter-irritants to this irreverence, and that is the explana
tion of a great deal of social work.
Let me point out this general truth, — as I think it is, — that no social
work, no mission work, no effort at what we caU betterment in a
crowded quarter, is at all worth while unless it reaUzes that the
economic daily deeds of the people are just as much a reUgious ques
tion as the catechism. We are shooting in the air unless we see
the connection between tenement conditions and the spiritual Ufe.
And let us at once make up our minds that no fine church has any

573
right to exist in a big city, when human beings are forced to live in
tenements. The great aim of all our effort is not to reform people
as though they need us to reform them, but it is to make reformers
of them, bcause they have the capacity for leadership, if we once
stir them right.
The city of Boston, through certain consecrated men and women
like Charles F. Dole, Miss Vida Scudder of Wellesley, and others,
is about to pubUsh through the Boston School Board a book which
is now in press and which I wish to call to your attention. It wiU
help us everywhere. It is called " A Civic Reader for the New
American." The object of it is to replace the "See the Cat" book,
with which we insult the inteUigence of the immigrant in the night
schools, with the language of the environment, with the language
of civic duty. And to my mind it is just as sound pedagogy to teach
the emigrant "See the ash-barrel" as it is "See the Constitution" —
which even lawyers camnot understand. So this new book, I think,
is a step in the right direction, and I was informed that a prominent
association of this city would have it translated into Italian as a civic
document. This book, through its chapters on the health laws and
the streets and the back yards, wttl soon show the people of our
crowded quarter that, if they only know their rights and insist upon
them, the so-called slums, which are the result always of slum city
governments, may disappear, and we shall be in a better condition
when people of the crowded districts wttl co-operate with you, weU
wishers and friends of a better life.
Dr. Hale. — I think every one in the audience wttl see that, if we
do not know about the relations which the native-born American
of three centuries has to the new-comer of the last five years, it is
our own fault, and not theirs. I visited myself one September day
the Hancock-Cushman School at the North End, where there were
306 girls who had been admitted into that school within a month.
Of the 306 girls there was not one who could speak the English lan
guage. They were aU the population, observe, of that district who
were entitled to come to school, and there was not in that district a
girl between five and fifteen who could speak the English language
when she came there. There was not in that school a Scotch girl
nor a French girl nor an Irish girl nor a Welsh girl. I was told that

574
there was one French girl there, — yes, Mairie was a French girl, and
Mairie was sent up to speak to me. It turned out that Marie came
from Italy, and that her father had stopped in Paris for a year with
his family, and that was the reason that a French girl was there.
But with the exception of that one "French girl" there was not in
the school of 306 girls one person from the west of Europe. Italy was
the first country. The next most largely represented was Russia, the
next largest was Germany. There was a very respectable number
of Arabs, a number of Syrians, whose native language was that of
Jesus Christ ; but there was only one girl from Western Europe. Now
it is our business to teach those girls and their mothers and their
fathers to become American citizens. I am disappointed that we
have not here a gentleman from New York to teU us of the magnifi
cent arrangements in the city of New York in this regard. It is
the habit of New York, — I don't believe there is a city in the world
which has given more attention to such matters, — the gentleman who
has charge of the evening lectures in New York arranges that every
evening from the 1st of October to the ist of June, from the Bronx
on the north around to Staten Island and Brooklyn on the south, there
shaU be free lectures on the duties of American citizens on these
very matters of which Mr. Bloomfield has been speaking to you.
These lecture-rooms are crowded with the New Americans who
want to learn their duties, and every step which we shaU take
here in Boston or in Eastern Massachusetts in that regard wttl be
seconded and helped.
I think I wiU say that our meeting has come to an end, as far as
the president is concerned. The longer you stop to talk with each
other about the matter, the better; and, as I have said before, in the
presence of Mr. Hubbard, of Miss Alice Higgins, and of other per
sons who know about it, you will have an opportunity to find out
what you do not now know. I thank you for your attendance at the
meeting. The crowded assembly slowly dispersed.

575

RECEPTION TO FOREIGN DELEGATES AT THE HOTEL
SOMERSET ON MONDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 23,
AT EIGHT O'CLOCK.
The spacious and beautiful hall and anterooms of the Hotel
Somerset were fitted with a large company of foreign and American
delegates on Monday evening. Only a stormy evening prevented
a crowded attendance which would have been beyond the capacity
of the haU and uncomfortable for those present. In view of this
possibUity an overflow reception at Channing HaU, in the Unitarian
Building, had been somewhat hastily arranged for, which yet proved
to be a most enjoyable occasion. Quite a large company attended
this second reception, which, after a social hour, was caUed to order
by Rev. L. H. Buckshorn, of Concord, N.H., and addressed by Sir
WiUiam Bowring, Fred. Maddison, M.P., Rev. W. G. Tarrant, and
others of England, and by Rev. Samuel M. Crothers, D.D.,
of Cambridge, whUe a male quartette interpunctuated the
speaking with cheerful and melodious songs. Later refreshments
were served.
In the mean time the laurger gathering of delegates in Hotel Somerset
spent a deUghtful hour in conversation and in listening to the music
of the Bostonia Women's Orchestra, consisting of fourteen lady
performers, under the leadership of Mrs. BeUe Y. Renfrew, while
the picturesque costumes of the Oriental delegates, and the toilettes
of the ladies, relieved the sombre dress-coats and preacher's garb of
the sterner sex. Governor Guild, of Massachusetts, President and
Mrs. S. A. Eliot, gave an informal welcome to the new-comers, until
at near nine o'clock those present were caUed to order by the ushers,
who consisted of the foUowing members of the Channing Club:
Percy A. Atherton, J. RusseU Abbott, A. L. Coburn, W. H. Cobum,
Frank T. Fay, Parker B. Field, George B. Fox, Henry A. Gordon,
Courtenay Guild, Walter M. Hatch, Henry F. Howe, Henry S. King,
A. W. Moors, Henry C. Noble, Augustus S. Nye, Edward Orchard,

576
Charles O. Richardson, Everett W. Stone, Dr. E. C. Wylie, Arthur B.
Porter, Walter H. Bowker, Frederick W. Porter. Mr. J. S. Beatiey
kindly took charge of the musical part of the program. The Chair
man of the Local Committee and President of the Congress, Rev.
S. A. Eliot, D.D., first took the word.

REV. SAMUEL A. ELIOT, D.D.
My Friends, — It is a great pleasure to me and to the lady I have
the honor to love to greet you here to-night. But I shall not detain
you with any speech. My text I can find in the Book of Ecclesi-
asticus: "When thou art chosen to be master of a feast, lift not
thy voice up; be among them as one that knoweth and holdeth his
tongue." [Laughter.]
I shall pause only to present to you one who can more adequately
and effectively welcome you. We who are the fortunate dweUers in
the oldest and most prosperous democracy in the New World honor
the governor of this Commonwealth, with his force of character, his
disinterested courage, his untiring, pubUc-spirited zeal. And, when
I have used those phrases, I have simply described a representative
Unitarian ["Hear, hear," and applause], one of a long Une of gov
ernors of Massachusetts who have owned their allegiance to spiritual
freedom. I have the honor of presenting to you our beloved com
rade and fellow-worker, Curtis Guild, Jr., Governor of the Common
wealth of Massachusetts. [Applause; "Hail to the Chief" played
by the orchestra.] CURTIS GUILD, JR., GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS.
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, — Such an introduction, so
far beyond my deserts, leaves me almost in the position of the fortu
nate lover in Shakespeare's comedy, who, having attained his desire,
was struck dumb. On being asked if he had no words in which he
could express his happiness, he repUed, " SUence is the perfectest
herald of joy." [Laughter.]
But I have a duty to perform to-night, — a duty which is also a
pleasure and a privflege, — of extending to this gathering from the
four quarters of the earth for the uplift of religion and citizenship

577
and moraUty the heartiest welcome from the Governor of Massa
chusetts. And where, indeed, should such a gathering be more
welcome than in the Commonwealth of Horace Mann, of Emerson,
and of Channing? It has been our pleasure this year, the year of
an American international exposition, to entertain in the Common
wealth many distinguished guests from many lands, and among our
cosmopoUtan people — for we are drawn from aU the races — we trust
that here in Massachusetts there is not one of you who will not feel
that he is not in a foreign country, but thoroughly at home. [" Hear,
hear!" applause.]
There can be nothing more promising of the fulfilment of the
splendid prophecy of our British cousin across the sea, the great
laureate, who spoke of " the Parliament of man, the Federation of
the world," than the constant repetition nowadays of these inter
national conventions. And, surely, the day of that miUennium has
almost dawned, though Tennyson never Uved to see it, when the
nations of the earth that first began to gather together in a common
cause beneath the red cross of mercy have learned to gather together
under the white cross of universal peace. [" Hear, hear ! " applause.]
And in that spirit I trust you witt regard yourselves at home, and accept
a hearty welcome. I trust, too, that in these deUberations upon
liberal reUgion we shall dweU not so much on the adjective, but
on the noun; not so much on the liberality of our religion, but on
our reUgion itself; not so much as to what a Unitarian does not
believe, but more emphaticaUy as to what a Unitarian does believe.
[Applause.] No nation from the beginning of the world has ever been success
ful, has ever achieved a noble end, which has cut loose its ties from
religion. When the Greek tragedian put into the mouth of his
actress, "By Zeus — if there is such a person," the republic that
Pericles had honored wais ripe for its faU. When the Roman augurs
smiled as they met each other across the altar, the republic was ready
for its Caesar. And, when the temples of religion gave way for the
actress and the worship of the so-caUed Goddess of Reason, the
thriving French republic, which haid risen on the rights of man,
became the red terror that was to threaten the peace of aU the world.
And so I trust that we shaU emphasize more particularly the noun
rather than the adjective.

578
It has been the fortune of Massachusetts in the past, — let us trust
it may be her good fortune in the present, — and you know one good-
natured English satirist has said of us Yankees that we never can
make a speech without praising ourselves or our country [laughter],—
it has been the good fortune of Massachusetts to furnish perhaps
rather more than her share to the literary and educational side of
the development of the great American republic. It was my good
fortune a few months ago to stand by the side of the governor of
New York at the dedication of twelve tablets in the Temple of Fame
in the University of New York on those beautiful heights above the
Hudson, Of the twelve representative Americans to whom those
bronze tablets were dedicated, five came from other States, seven
came from the single Commonwealth of Massachusetts. [Applause.]
Not a single one of those seven names was the name of a great soldier;
not a single one of those seven names was the name of a great admiral.
Only one of those seven names was the name of a great statesman.
Six of the seven names were of those who had earned international
laurels as poets, as scientists, as educators; as promoters not of the
material, but of the ideal, of the lofty thought which makes a nation
not rich, but great in the truest sense of greatness. [Applause.] By
the promotion of such ideals, by the inspiration of an honest and
sincere reUgion and the respect for every other man's sincere con
victions in religion, does any country go forward and can we hope
to make the "Parliament of man, the Federation of the world," an
accomplished fact. For, when man once learns to lose his respect
for the Fatherhood of God, his respect for the brotherhood of man
grows lesser and lesser. And if we can but keep true to our ideals,
keep true to the lofty thought of aU the nations and aU the ages
that have led men upward and onward, we shall realize that progress
of which Emerson spoke: "When the cannon is aimed by ideas,
when men of religious convictions are behind it, when men die for
what they live for, and the main-spring which works daUy urges
them to hazard all, then the cannon echoes this conception with the
voice of a man, and the rifle seconds the cannon and the fowUng-
piece the rifle, and the women make the cartridges, and aU shoot at
one mark; then gods join in the conflict, then poets are bom, and
the better code of laws at last proclaims the victory." [Applause.]

579
President Eliot.— It has been a peculiar privilege to welcome here
so large and distinguished a delegation from Great Britain and
Ireland. And it is on such occasions as this that for us Americans
the word of the poet is fulfiUed, and
Our English blood its rights reclaims;
In vain the sea its barriers rears,
Our pride is fed on England's fame;
Ours are her triumphs and her tears,
And ours her length of glorious years.
I am going to ask for a few words of greeting from the leader of the
EngUsh delegation, the President of the British and Foreign Uni
tarian Association, Sir WiUiam Bowring. [Applause; "God save
the King!" played by the orchestra; display of the British flag.]
SIR WILLIAM BOWRING, BART.
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, — I have the honor, sir, as
you have said, to represent the British and Foreign Unitarian As
sociation. The aims and the objects of the British and Foreign
Unitarian Association are precisely the same as those of your Ameri
can Unitarian Association, and I think you wiU aU agree that those
aims and those objects are worthy of both institutions. We, the
British and Foreign Unitarian Association, can claim a more ex
tended sphere, very large as your sphere is, but we have a larger
population, and we have a larger territory to look after, and we have
a great and noble work to do. But, sir, we are here as aliens, yet we
almost smile at the idea of being foreigners. ["Hear, hear!"] We
hear our own language spoken, we hear our own ideals, if I might
caU it so, idealized, and we are very much and very happily at home.
We have received a bounteous welcome, and we have met many,
many dear friends.
Boston is a historic city, so far as we are concerned. It has taught
our country many great lessons. You wiU all remember an incident
in the tea trade that happened in Boston. That, ladies and gentle
men, Ughted a flame the effects of which were not confined to your
country ["Hear, hear!"], but was one of the greatest blessings that
ever was conferred on Great Britain. Great Britain is the great
colonizing country of the world. But for Boston it would not have

58o
taken on those duties in the way it has done. And I would like to
caU to your recollection the latest example of the briUiancy,— I
am eulogistic, you see, — the briUiancy of British colonization. You
will all have read of the fearful and horrible war which was con
ducted in South Africa, and I and many with me were in danger for
opposing that war and thinking it unjust and unrighteous. ["Hear,
hear ! " applause.] The latest example of the lesson that was taught
us by you in Boston is that we met our late enemies and we gave them
constitutional government and self-rule. [Applause.] And, sir,
that was a noble thing for Great Britain to do. I do not know
whether you have heard it in your country, but there is an incident
which seems to me very touching. Recently an enormous diamond
was found in South Africa, the biggest diamond in the world. The
premier of the Transvaal government is General Botha, one of the
most brilliant generals that conducted the war against Great Britain.
He conceived the idea that the Transvaal government should pur
chase that diamond and give it to the King of England, to be placed
in England's crown. Now, Mr. President, in my opinion the action
of giving to the Transvaal and the Orange Free State responsible
government was a more brilUant ornament in the crown of Great
Britain than even the biggest diamond in the world. [Applause.]
Mr. President, this is the third Congress that I have been privi
leged to attend. I think I have had the pleasure of meeting you at
two previously. The one was in the historic country of HoUand
with an ancient history, a picturesque people, and a picturesque
country. We had very fine experiences there. We beUeve that that
conference did a vast amount of good. The next conference was held
in Geneva. I always look upon Geneva as the Mecca of Middle
Age religious freedom. We had a very good time, as your Presi
dent knows, in Geneva. But a very singular circumstance hap
pened there. One of our sessions was held in the very room that was
occupied by the delegates who were to arbitrate on, I think, the first
great international arbitration that has occurred in the world. That
was the arbitration between the United States and Great Britain in
reference to the "Alabama " claims. That was an action on the part
of these two great States which was creditable to both. It is past
history now, but the record of that arbitration lives on in the history
of the world. ["Hear, hear!"]

^ 581
Now this conference comes to the modern Mecca of religious
freedom. We come to Boston, the historic city of Boston, the home
of Channing, the home of Theodore Parker, Emerson, and many
other men and women of saintly Uves who have departed from us,
but who, in my country and in aU Europe, are household words to
all of us. Mr. President, there are Uving men that we worship also.
I was present last night at one of the vastest and grandest meetings
that I have had the pleasure, — and I am not inexperienced in attend
ing pubhc meetings, — that I ever had the opportunity of attending.
And, sir, I listened to the words of the Right Rev. Dr. Hale. You
wttl notice I caU him Right Reverend. He may not think it is ex
actly the proper title, because, you know, our right reverends have
been obstructionists to reform for centuries. [Great laughter and ap
plause.] And what a meetmg it was last night! It was an inspir
ing meeting, a meeting that I am sure wiU do a vast amount of good
to our cause and to Uberal reUgion. I do not think there is another
city in the whole world where you could produce so large an au
dience composed of free reUgious thinkers as we had last evening.
And then we had another remarkable man there. We had — and
I was deUghted to hear him: I have read a good deal about him —
Dr. Booker Washington on the great problem, — and I think you aU
admit it is a great problem, which wiU take aU the statesmanship
and all the sympathy that you can bring to bear upon it. I hope
we that listened to him aU put up a devout prayer that he and his
coUeagues may long Uve to solve the most difficult problem that is
before you. I think, Mr. President, that he is weU named. He is
catted Washington. Now I remember there was another Washing
ton who was caUed the Father of his Country. Now is it not pos
sible that this man may Uve in history as the father of his race?
[Applause.] I have occupied too much of your time, and I have not at aU com
menced the subject that I ought to have commenced at the very first.
I am here as a delegate from Great Britain, and I have many com
panions here. We are deUghted with our visit. ["Hear, hear!"]
I venture to say that this visit to Boston wttl live in our memories
as long as we are permitted to live. We thank you most heartily
for your kind reception. We thank you, and we admire you, we ad
mire you exceedingly, for the magnificent way in which you have

582
organized these various events that have done so much to make us
happy and comfortable. We thank you from the bottom of our
hearts, and we shaU never forget our visit to Boston. [Applause.]
At this point in the meeting Rev. Charles W. Wendte, General
Secretary of the International Council, took charge of the intro
ductions. Rev. C. W. Wendte. — Ladies and Gentlemen, — The Congress in
whose social interest we are met this evening has these distinguishing
marks, — it is a congress of religious liberals, with a strong emphasis
on the word religious, and it is international and interdenominational
in character. Our gathering to-night is participated in by the repre
sentatives of fifteen or twenty nationalities and some thirty church
fellowships. Many of our delegates have come long distances and
made no small sacrifice to attend this conference of the friends of
religious freedom and enlightenment. We bid them a hearty wel
come, one and all. It would have been a great pleasure to us to have
taken them severally by the hand and formed their personal acquaint
ance, but, since this is manifestly impossible in so large and crowded
an assembly, we must content ourselves with a general introduction
and a few brief responses from our fellow-delegates from abroad.
The delegation from Great Britain, numbering some 120 per
sons, has aheady been presented to you. Let us turn to the Conti
nental nations of Europe.
There is no country to which liberal and progressive reUgion is
under such profound obligations as to Germany. It is sufficient
to mention only the naimes of Lessing, Kant, Goethe, Schleiermacher,
Strauss, Rothe, and Schenkel to remind you how great and uni
versal is our indebtedness to the scholarship, philosophy, and science
of Germany.
The New England Transcendentalism, which had its chief seat
here in Boston, and so profoundly influenced and liberalized Ameri
can religion, was derived in very large degree from German sources.
We are honored in having with us this evening distinguished
representatives of German culture and piety, who at its universities
and in its pulpits keep up its traditions of genuine scholarship,
freedom of investigation, and a fearless utterance of the truth.

5«3
I take especial pleasure in introducing to you this evening Professor
Otto Pfleiderer, of the University of Berlin, the phttosophic his
torian of religion, the warm friend of our Congress, the honored
teacher and helper of those who in aU lands labor to increase the
knowledge, purify the content, and enlarge the boundaries of true
reUgion. Also his feUow-worker for religious truth and liberty,
Professor Martin Rade, of the theological faculty of the University
of Marburg, the editor as weU of Die Christliche Welt, — The Chris
tian World, — the Uberal reUgious journal of largest circulation in
Germany. Our new-gained friend unites in himself the thorough
and conscientious scholarship of the German university teacher
with those gifts of popular expression and the organization of lib
eral sentiment which make his labors peculiarly helpful to our
cause in the land of Luther.
FinaUy, I present to you the Rev. Dr. Max Fischer, pastor of
St. Mark's Church in Berhn, who represents to us the Uberal sen
timent in the German pulpit, and has himself been the brave ex
ponent of modern ideas and the victim of ecclesiastical persecu
tion. He brings us the greetings of our sister-organization, the
German Protestantenverein, and an invitation from the religious
Uberals of his native country to hold our next Congress on Ger
man sott.
Professor Pfleiderer wiU kindly respond for his countrymen.
[Applause; "Die Wacht am Rhein" by the band; and a display of
the German colors.]
Professor Pfleiderer, in the course of an extended address in Ger
man, expressed the acknowledgments and greetings of the German
delegates present. He spoke briefly of the state of religious liberalism
in Germany, which would form the subject of special papers before
the Congress. He dwelt next upon the services which the German
critical and historic sciences had rendered to reUgious philosophy.
The transcendental teachings of a Lessing, Kant, Fichte, Schleier
macher, Hegel, were primary sources of the transcendental phi
losophy of New England, whose greatest expositor was Ralph Waldo
Emerson. Professor Pfleiderer stated that during his present visit to
the United States he had acquainted himself more fuUy with the
writings of this eminent thinker and the school to which he be-

584
longed. He had been greatly impressed by his power of spiritual
insight and inteUectual abiUty. In rapid outlines the speaker
sketched the main teachings of Emerson, and declared that they
were identical with those of the most advanced and scientific think
ing of idealistic German philosophers to-day, and, moreover, in
his opinion, were the conceptions and beliefs which would, in the
main, characterize the absolute and ultimate reUgion of mankind.
[Applause.] Rev. C. W. Wendte. — In these days, as so often in history,
the eyes of all lovers of human liberty and progress throughout
the world are fixed with admiration and sympathy upon France,
engaged in a splendid struggle to uphold the paramount interests
of civtt and religious liberty, free education and national soU-
darity against a pretentious hierarchy and a mediaeval theology which
is no longer adequate to the spiritual needs of enlightened men
or the moral welfare of the people. Here in Boston, especially,
we cherish an affectionate interest in our sister repubUc across the
sea, our ancient atty in the establishment of repubUcan institutions
on this side of the Atlantic. One of the proudest days in the history
of Boston was the visit of General LaFayette to this city on the
17th of June, 1825, to assist in laying the corner-stone of the Bunker
HiU monument. His repeated visits to Boston axe commemorated
by the name LaFayette Matt, borne by one of the principal walks
of our historic city park, the Common.
We are fortunate in counting among the delegates to our Congress
several leading representatives of the pubhc spirit and religious
enlightenment of our sister nation.
Permit me to introduce to you Professor Bonet-Maury, of the
University of Paris, eminent as a scholar and divine, and so beloved
by his fellow-members in the Congress that, as one has said, we
welcome Professor Bonet-Maury in a manner con amore. He brings
us the greetings of his church, the Church of the Huguenots in
France, whose heroic testimony to the gospel of Jesus and devotion
to the Protestant cause are among the most splendid chapters in
Christian history.
Also Professor Jean Reville, of the CoUege of France, author and
editor, the distinguished son of an even more distinguished father,

585
whose united services to liberal Protestantism have made them
justly beloved and honored aimong us.
And, finally, let me present to you one in whom we do not know
whether to admire most his inteUectual gifts or his personal courage
and devotion to tmth, Abbe- A. Houtin, the ardent lover of his
own Church, the Roman CathoUc, which he desires to see once
more the inspirer and leader of universal Christendom, and in
whose higher interest he desires to address our Congress.
Professor Reville wiU kindly respond for his nation. [Applause;
band, "Le Marseillaise"; and display of the tri-color.]
Professor ReviUe, who spoke in French, said: "I bring the greetings
of my French friends and co-reUgionists to the Congress and to the
reUgious Uberals of America. The latter are known to them, even if
they are not able to meet them at this Congress in Boston, — known to
them through their works, their zeal for the cause of Uberal religion.
Our honored President, Dr. EUot, is known to us personally through
his presence at our Congress at Amsterdam. We have learned to
appreciate in him a splendid type of a free but reUgious thinker and
man; also our Secretairy, Rev. C. W. Wendte, who has reaUy been
the soul of these Congresses, and to whom the international brother
hood of reUgious Uberals is immensely indebted
In France there exists a sincere friendship for America, for we know
how much the world owes to America for the cause of freedom and
democracy. We are favored in having in Paris, throughout the year,
the visits of a great many Americans, who enjoy our capital and who
bring your country nearer to us.
It is a curious thing, from an historical point of view, to see a son
of the Huguenots, Uke myself, greeting in this great International
Congress of ReUgious Liberals the descendants of the Pilgrims and
the Puritans. It is truly encouraging for Uberal Christians to note
how the cause of Uberty is ever gaining new adherents throughout
the civilized world. Such encouragement we need, since we are
stiU a 'Uttle flock' in aU countries."
Professor ReviUe closed with a fervent appeal for faithfulness to
the high and holy cause which had. been committed to them and
undiminished hope in its increasing victory. He referred to the
words just spoken by his ExceUency the Governor, — that the Con-

586
gress should place the emphasis on the religiousness of its Uberty
even more than on the liberality of its religion. So only could we
contribute in our respective countries, and aU over the world, to
the extension of tmth, the practice of justice, and the diffusion of
high moral and religious ideals.
Rev. Charles. W. Wendte. — In no country have the principles
and aims of our Congress been more generously espoused or found
more devoted friends and alUes than in Holland, the ancient seat
of civil and religious liberty. As the scene, in these latter days, of
the epoch-making labors of a Kuenen, Scholten, Tiele, and Oort
in Biblical and theological science, it was only natural that our
second Congress should be held in Amsterdam, where we were
received with a hospitality of mind and heart which will ever be
one of our most treasured memories. To-day the sons of the Puri
tans, who once found shelter and kindness among the free and tol
erant Dutch people, welcome to this ancient and Puritan city, now
the stronghold of religious liberty in the United States, the represent
atives of the liberal churches of Holland. One title at least we have
to their interest and regard, — that Boston was the home of the great
historian of the Dutch Republic, John Lothrop Motley, in whose
glowing pages the hardy virtues, the love of liberty, and the deep
religiousness of the inhabitants of the Netherlands have been for
ever immortalized to English-speaking peoples.
I have the honor of introducing to you Professor Dr. H. U. Mey
boom, an eminent scholar and teacher of the University of Groningen;
Professor H. Y. Groenewegen, the successor of the gifted Tiele at the
ancient University of Leiden; the Rev. P. H. Hugenholtz, of Am
sterdam, to whom the success of our second Congress was in such
great degree owing; the Rev. F. C. Fleischer, another true friend
of our cause, a philanthropist and a leader in the Mennonite Church
of his country; Mr. R. L. Worst, of Dutch Guiana; and, finally,
Miss Van Eyck, of the Dutch Postal Mission.
I will call on Professor Meyboom to respond. [Applause; band,
, Dutch national air; and display of the Dutch standard.]

587

PROFESSOR MEYBOOM.

Ladies and Gentlemen, — As it is laid upon me to bring you the
greetings of all the congenial spirits among my compatriots, I have to
beg your pardon for many mistakes, perhaps, in my English, and at
all events for my bad pronunciation. I am really fearing that you
wfll not understand me. I camnot but hope that, as our Dutch prov
erb says, good understanders need only half-words, and, moreover,
that your charity wttl endure many sins.
Years ago, having to perform a task of the same kind at Hamburg,
I prided myself and ventured to say to the Germans that, if they had
any notion of the liberties we Dutchmen enjoyed and the spiritual
progress we made, they would see my face as it had been the face of
an angel. Now, being a messenger in America, the noise of your rail-
ways and the height of your sky-scrapers would take me down a
peg or two. [Laughter.] But your own Rev. Mr. Sunderland en
courages me by proclaiming the Netherlands the country that more
than any other, and before any other land, achieved well all kinds
of Uberty. At least, he leads me into the temptation to apply an
other expression of ours: I am too polite to contradict you. ReaUy,
we have a glorious history and a most promising present. We are
the people of the eighty years' war and of the Remonstrance. And
now we have our Protestantenbond and our Free community. I
dare say we are perhaps the only people who expeUed, theoretically
at least, the CathoUc leaven from our ideal of the Church, the conditio
sine qua non of the future flock under one shepherd.
As a representative of a great part of my country, of all the mem
bers of Mennonite and Arminian fraternities, of the Protestanten
bond and Free communities, of the liberal part of our Dutch Reformed
National and our Lutheran churches, I give homage to the liberal
thinkers and workers meeting at this Religious Congress. I give
homage to America, the first to conceive the idea of an interna
tional exchange of Uberal thoughts and feeling. I give homage to
Boston, offering hospitality to so many delegates from all countries.
I am sure of your success. The spirit of Channing and Parker,
hovering over us, warrants it. Vers le cazur de VAmerique are di
rected the tender ties and the aspirations of all our Congress mem
bers. On the other hand, le caur de I'Amerique is beating toward all

588
of us. A higher unity unites us. No oppressive fetters shall bind
us. We shaU be as in Abraham's bosom, and then we wiU return
to our own countries, and set forth the propaganda of the — not
American or Dutch, but only humanitarian way of Uberal thinking
and working, of free reUgious feeling and Uving! [Applause.]
Rev. C. W. Wendte. — The name of Switzerland awakens visions
of scenic beauty and grandeur, traditions of freedom, virtue, and
heroism which inspire and quicken humanity forever.
In the literary and scientific annals of Boston it is Unked with de-
Ughtful memories of the genius and geniality of Louis Agassiz, most
gifted of students of nature and most lovable of men. For many
years he was an honored teacher at Harvard University. Those
of us who were privileged to hear him lecture remember that he had
no love for the new theory of Mr. Darwin, which, in his somewhat
imperfect English, he persisted in calling "the d^vel-opment of
species"; but I am sure his spirit rejoices with ours to-night in this
spectacle of religious development and international fraternity.
Permit me to introduce to you his feUow-countrymen and dele
gates to our Congress, the Rev. G. Schoenholzer, pastor of one of
the largest churches in Zurich, and for many years president of the
Swiss Verein fuer freies Christentum; Rev. L. Ragaz, minister at the
cathedral in Basel; Rev. L. E. T. Andre, pastor of the Swiss-Itattan
church in Florence, Italy, in whose cemetery the sacred dust of
Theodore Parker and Mrs. Browning reposes; Rev. E. Rochat, a
pastor of Geneva, secretary of our third Congress in Geneva two
years ago; and last, but not least, Professor E. Montet, dean of the
Theological Faculty of the University of Geneva, the honored presi
dent of that Congress, whose success was largely due to his personal
exertion and influence.
Professor Montet wiU reply for our sister repubUc. [Applause;
band, Swiss national air; and display of the national colors of
Switzerland.] Professor Montet said that he spoke as a representative of the
Uberal Protestantism of Switzerland, as well as the president of the
last International Congress at Geneva in 1905.
As representing the liberal Christians of Switzerland, he was the

589
bearer to the Congress at Boston of the greetings of the Swiss Asso
ciation for a Free Christianity, — an association extended over aU of
Switzerland, and which included several thousand members. He
bore also the greetings of the Uberal pastors of the National Protes
tant Church, Geneva, and the Uberal professors of the Theological
Faculty of the University of Geneva. There is at Geneva only one
great church, the National Protestant, in which aU tendencies of
thought (Uberal and orthodox) are represented and Uve together
fraternaUy. In the same way in the Theological Faculty, a faculty
under the State, the two tendencies are represented. The Protest
ants of Switzerland are very well satisfied with this order of things,
and love their National Church and their National Theological
Faculty. As president of the last Congress, Professor Montet, after having
reviewed briefly the work accomphshed by the International Council,
described the fruits of the Congress at Geneva, more particularly in
that city itself.
In Geneva, as in Switzerland, as everywhere, religious liberaUsm
is in a minority, but exercises a considerable influence. This influ
ence has sensibly grown since the last Congress, and the liberal spirit
permeates the entire National Church and aU religious circles. This
liberal spirit especiaUy displays itself in the project of erecting a
splendid monument of John Calvin and the Reformation in the name
of aU Protestants who trace their derivation to his school of religious
thought. It was the Uberal Protestants who were the initiators of this project,
and they have united with them all the Protestants of Calvinistic
origin. In order to succeed in the erection of this monument, it is
necessary that aU Protestants display a spirit large, liberal, and
generous. M. Montet concluded with an eloquent passage in which
he wished the Boston Congress aU the success which so noteworthy
a gathering deserved.
Rev. C. W. Wendte. — We are particularly gratified to welcome
at our Congress the representatives of Scandinavian nations.
From Denmark has come to us Mr. Theo. Berg, of Copen
hagen, a faithful fellow-worker for pure religion and perfect liberty;
from Sweden, Professor O. E. Ltndberg of Gothenburg, a writer

59°
and speaker whose strong, brave words in behalf of Uberal reUgion
aure carried far and wide in his native country. To them we unite in
our introduction Professor T. G. Masaryk, of the University of
Prague, the champion of human rights, the defender of the pro
scribed Jews, the leader of the Bohemian people into national inde
pendence, higher culture, and a religion of chairacter, freedom, and
faith. [Applause; band; Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Austrian
national colors displayed.]
Professor Masaryk, who was to respond, proved to be absent.
Rev. C. W. Wendte. — Far to the East, among the wild Car
pathians, in the picturesque province of Transylvania, dweU the
brave and talented Szekler race. Here and in other parts of Hun
gary, for more than three hundred years, there have maintained
themselves, often against fearful oppression, a body of churches
Unitarian in faith, composed 95 per cent, of farmers and trades
people, simple-hearted, laborious, and devout. We greet with
brotherly affection their sole representative among us, Rev. Nicolas
Jozan, pastor of a flourishing church at Budapest and a bearer of
Ught and sweetness wherever he goes. His presence reawakens
old-time memories of the visit to Boston of his gifted feUow country
man, Louis Kossuth, whose eloquent appeals for poUtical and re
Ugious liberty kindled within the breasts of our citizens responsive
sentiments of admiration and sympathy.
The hour is now so late that I can only ask Mr. Jozan to bow
his acknowledgments. [Great applause; band; and display of the
emblem of Hungarian Nationalists.]
Rev. C. W. Wendte. — The peoples and religions of the Orient,
also, are represented at our gathering, and warmly welcomed as our
brothers in the spirit. From them we are to learn anew of our in
debtedness to the ancient faiths and philosophies of the East, and
how in its latest development they are being wedded with the prac
tical wisdom and power over nature of our twentieth-century civili
zation. I present to you Professor Gokura Subba Rau, Mr. B.M.
Sehanavis, Mr. S. L. Joshi, Mr. Barakatullah, of the Mohammedan
faith, all of India; Mr. S. C.K.RuTNAM,of Ceylon; and, finally,our
delegates from the Land of the Rising Sun, Rev. Saichiro Kanda,

59i
of Tokio, and a number of his friends and compatriots, Sakusuke
Momikura, K. Kanokogi, M. Kanda, M. Watanabe, and others
whose names I wiU not venture upon.
I wiU ask Professor Rutnam, of Ceylon, to respond for his fellow-
delegates from the Orient. [Applause; band, Japanese national air;
and flag.]

PROFESSOR S. C. K. RUTNAM, OF CEYLON.
I have been told to be very brief, and so I must desire your close
attention to the greetings from the friends of India and Ceylon.
If there is one thought that my countrymen would wish me to
convey to you to-night, it is this, — that, while passing through a great
crisis in the history of India, we are wondering if the people of
the West can be just. The tmth about India is indeed a
great question; but what is truth? One of your leading men has
said, "Truth is the matching of thought to reality," and I do not
profess, ladies and gentlemen, to teU you something of the truth of
India. But this is certain: we have begun to believe in the father
hood of God, and, as such, we reahze that we belong to the same
brotherhood. If there is one force to-day that is helping us to move
forward in spite of forces which seem to be very powerful, it is this
recognition that the Supreme Father is on our side, and our struggles
for Uberty and freedom have seriously begun. Never before in the
history of India, never before in the history of Ceylon, have the peo
ple seriously aisked this question, and I am thankful that, when I
return to my own country, I shaU take with me the expression of this
assembly that they are men and women who fully sympathize with
us, who recognize the thought of the common family of the human
race. To my mind, to those who are actuated by larger patriotism,
there is no thought more uphfting, more ennobling, more exhilarating
than this thought of the brotherhood of the human race. [Applause.]
The straggles of this country for liberty which began in Boston
fully one hundred and fifty years ago, I fear, are beginning to be re
peated in India. And, if there is any country to which we could
legitimately and rightly look for sympathy, it is to Boston and to
this gathering here. We pray that your sympathy may be with us,
that your hearty, cordial advice may be given to us, so that we, too,

592
may march on in the path of progress and liberty which this country
so well represents. [Applause.]
Rev. C. W. Wendte. — There are other countries and faiths we
should like to have heard from this evening, but time wiU not permit.
We can only greet and welcome them aU in the freedom of the spirit
and the bond of brotherhood.
The large aissembly now partook of refreshments, and engaged in
animated conversation or listened to the music of the orchestra until
a late hour.

593

THE BANQUET.
The banquet tendered the Congress delegates from foreign coun
tries by the Unitarian (laymen's) Club of Boston took place on
Thursday evening, September 26, in the Banquet Room of the
Hotel Somerset, and was an affair of unusual briUiancy and spirit.
Tables had been set for some five hundred guests, one at the upper
end being reserved for the speakers. The beauty of the room itself,
the lustre from hundreds of electric lights, the toilettes of the ladies,
the music from the orchestra, the hum of cheerful conversation,
the enjoyment of the dinner, the wise and witty addresses, and the
general elation over the success of the Congress which had just con
cluded its sessions combined to make it a happy ending to the stren
uous days which had preceded. Rev. Dr. Samuel M. Crothers,
who presided, by his genial and humorous introductions added much
to the pleasure of the occasion, which witt long be remembered by
aU who participated. The speakers were H. Bowring Lawford,
president of the London Laymen's Club, Miss Mary E. Richmond,
of New Zealand, Professor O. E. Lindberg, of Sweden, Frederick
Maddison,M.P.,of England, Rev. Abraham Rihbany, of Toledo, and
Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, of Chicago. A full report of their ad
dresses may be found in the Christian Register of Oct. 10, 1907.
Lack of space prevents their inclusion in this volume. It was much
regretted that from want of time the addresses expected from Rev. Dr.
Frank O. Hall, of New York, Professor F. G. Peabody, D.D., of
Harvard, and others, remained unspoken.
A feature of the banquet which was especially noted and com
mended by the European guests was the entire absence of wine or
other alcoholic beverages at the tables.
The committee of the Unitarian Club who had charge of the
arrangements were Dr. Walter Channing, Mr. Charles E. BirtweU,
secretary, and Dr. Francis H. Brown, treasurer of the club.

594

EXCURSION AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS.

WEST NEWTON AND CAMBRIDGE.
One of the most enjoyable and profitable features of the Inter
national Congress were the excursions to places of interest in the
neighborhood of Boston and the proceedings which took place at
these reunions. These excursions were cairefuUy planned, and
were in charge of Mr. Percy A. Atherton, of Boston, who had at
tended the Congresses at Amsterdam and Geneva as a delegate. It
is to his able and devoted service, and the aid rendered him by
committees and volunteer workers in each locality visited, that the
successful conduct of these visits to New England shrines is to be
attributed. The committee was made up of Percy A. Atherton,
chairman, Lyman K. Clark, Prescott Keyes, Paul S. Phalen, WiUiam
S. Kyle, Edgar H. Nichols, Walter Winsor, WiUiaim Brewster, and
Horace Hildreth, each of whom took charge of a special department
of the work or acted as chairman of the larger local committees.
To give the names and properly divide the praise among the hun
dreds of men and women who labored in each town — West Newton,
Cambridge, Concord, Plymouth, Hingham, Fairhaven, etc. — for the
reception and comfort of our guests would be an impossible task.
The committee can only return to them as a whole its profound
thanks for their efficient and generous services. The entire success
which attended their endeavors and the enjoyment and delight of
their visitors from abroad and at home must be their reward.
The excursions were inaugurated by a visit on Sunday afternoon,
September 22, to the beautiful, newly erected Unitarian church in
West Newton. Under Mr. Lyman Clark's direction over 100
foreign delegates were taken in automobiles, many of which were
kindly loaned by their owners for the occasion, through Beacon

595
Street, the Parkway to Jamaica Pond, Brookline, and WeUesley,
where the cottege grounds and the Hunnewett Estate were visited
en route to the West Newton church. Here a warm welcome by
pastor and people and a social cup of tea awaited the party. The
return was made by Commonwealth Avenue through the Newtons,
Brighton, and BrookUne, a number of the delegates making a brief
caU at the residence of the Secretary of the Congress, Rev. C. W.
Wendte. The Congress held its last session on Thursday, September 26,
in Cambridge, by invitation of the Harvard University authorities.
This called for a large display of hospitalities, which were cheerfully
and generously extended. Special electrics were ran from the
subway at intervals direct to Sanders Theatre. At the conclusion
of the session, under the leadership of Mr. Edgar H. Nichols, and
with Rev. Dr. Crothers's hearty co-operation, the members of the
First Pairish (Unitarian) served a series of lunches in the commodious
Parish House to aU American delegates who wore the Congress
badge, several hundred in number. The university authorities
entertained some 200 of the foreign and invited guests at the Harvard
Union. The latter wais a very happy occasion. Brief speeches were
made, the President of the University and his son, President of
the Congress, were cheered, and bowed their acknowledgments.
Later in the afternoon various pairties of sight-seers, directed by
students and other guides, were taken on a tour of inspection of the
university buildings and coUections. Some visited the graves of
Channing, Longfellow, Philtips Brooks, and other heroes of the
spirit, in the adjacent Mt. Auburn Cemetery. The Cambridge
Day concluded with a largely attended social reunion and tea at the
home of the President of the Congress, Rev. S. A. Ehot, D.D., on
Reservoir Street.

596

THE EXCURSION TO CONCORD.
On Monday afternoon the foreign guests went by invitation on a
special train to Concord. In spite of the heavy rain-storm which
had set in, quite a large company had assembled at the station.
One writes: "The persistent rain covered the car windows with so
much moisture that little could be seen of the region they were
passing through. Some one of the local committee announced when
Walden Pond came into view, and immediately there was a general
rubbing of mist off the windows, to get a watery and uncertain
glimpse as the train sped by. It was trying to have but one
chance to visit Concord, and that in a steady rain, but every one
said, ' Better so than never,' and good-naturedly made the best of
it. So, too, did the good people of Concord, who came with their
carriages, open or covered, to show their historic and literary land
marks. There was Miss Emerson herself, with an open vehicle,
taking her quota of guests the rounds, as well as opening to aU the
Emerson home. The road was from the station up the main
street, past the Thoreau house, thence to the Minute-man and the
cemetery, where each group, as it arrived, alighted and, putting up
umbreUas, walked up a knoll to view the Sleepy Hollow graves.
It was a suggestive sight to see this Uttle company, gathered from
many lands, grouped about the last resting-places of America's
most noted noveUst, her hermit sage, while a turbaned native of
India, bending forward eagerly, regardless of the rain, copied the
inscription from the gravestone of her faimous seer.
" Regaining their carriages, the delegates were carried in the other
direction past the last Alcott home and Hawthorne's 'Wayside,'
then to the Emerson home, the lower floor of which was kindly
opened to them.
"The next stop was at the rebuUt First Parish Meeting-house.
In its ample parlors an open fire gave an attractive welcome, while
tea and cake, served at a number of small tables, broke the company
into groups not too large for sociabiUty. After a pleasant half-hour
the kindly drivers returned the party to the station, where, with
sunshine within, if not without, and packages of souvenir postal
cards, they set their faces Bostonward."

597

EXCURSIONS TO PLYMOUTH, HINGHAM,
AND FATRHAVEN.
The excursions of Friday and Saturday, September 27 and 28, to
Plymouth, Hingham, and Fairhaven, were among the most dehght
ful features of the Congress, affording opportunities for the delegates
from abroad to meet the American members sociaUy, both on the
train and during the visits to the places of interest. Several hun
dred members took part in the excursion to Plymouth, but the
company visiting Fairhaven was necessarily Umited to about 125,
the limit being fixed by the number that could be entertained at
lunch in the Parish House of the Memorial Church. Both trips
were of great interest to the visitors from abroad, that of Friday
taking them to the point which of all others seemed most interesting
to those coming from Europe, — Plymouth Rock, the symbol of
reUgious Uberty in America. The day's trip gave them the oppor
tunity of seeing two typical New England villages and an ancient
church which embodied the best taste and skill of the old New
England Congregational parishes, while the Fairhaven journey
showed them one of the highest reaUzations of art and architecture
in the modern American church. Here, too, they examined with
much interest the other pubUc buildings, and gathered new ideas of
American institutions and customs.
The railroad and other arrangements were in the hands of the
Committee on Excursions, and were most admirably managed, both
trips being carried out with scarcely a minute's delay in any partic
ular. On the morning of September 27, at Plymouth, Hon. W. S. Kyle,
Mr. WiUiam Brewster, Hon. Arthur Lord, and other members of
the First Parish Church met the visitors at the station. Special
cars carried them to the First Parish Church, where the exercises
were to be held. The visitors read with much interest the inscrip
tions on this church, and many were surprised to learn that the
church founded by the Pilgrims is now of the Unitarian faith. Rev.
Samuel A. Eliot, D.D., opened the exercises in the First Parish

598
Church by reading the Psalm, "We have heard with our ears, 0
God, our fathers have told us," etc., after which the audience sang
the foUowing: —
ORIGINAL HYMN.
Tune, "Duke Street."
BY C. W. WENDTE.
From lands afar, with eager quest,
We gather, at the soul's behest,
Where once the Pilgrim Fathers trod,
To seek the city of our God.
Four-square with truth that city lies,
Its shining walls toward Heaven arise,
And its foundations, strong and sure,
In righteousness and faith endure.
O city, dreamed by ancient seer,
Our faithfulness must bring thee near;
Our toil and sorrow, hope and prayer,
Alone can lift thy walls in air.
Yet not to us, to Him the praise,
Whose strength sustains and guides our ways,
Till all the earth with awe shall own
The Master-builder, God alone.
President S. A. Eliot. — A word of greeting wiU be spoken to you by
an honored member of this parish, the president of the Pilgrim
Society, the Hon. Arthur Lord.
HON. ARTHUR LORD.
It is now nearly three centuries since there gathered on this hill
side the "Mayflower " company of English men and women, "hope
in each heart and prayer on every lip," and
" Here, their God adoring,
They stood in open air.
When breaking day they greeted,
And, when its close was calm,
The leafless woods repeated
The music of their psalm."

599
They had left their EngUsh church and their English homes for
conscience' sake; but laborious years in an alien land had not
weaned them from loyalty to the Crown nor alienated their affec
tions from the England of their youth. In the peaceful city of Ley
den, in the shadow of its great university, they had found civil Ub
erty and reUgious toleration, but they longed for the sight of the
EngUsh flag, the sound of the English tongue, the influence of Eng
lish institutions, and a well-ordered liberty and religious freedom
under an EngUsh king. To the New World, then, their thoughts
turned; of its unknown shores the old men dream dreams and the
young men see visions.
The town which they founded, the church which they planted
in the wUderness, extends to-day its cordial greeting to the Uberals
of the present time, delegates from the land which bore them, delegates
from the land which welcomed and cherished them, delegates also
from the shores of still more distant seas. In their name, and espe
ciaUy in the name of that First Church whose continuous ministry
and unbroken records unite the present with the past, I bid you
welcome, and thrice welcome, to the Rock the Pilgrim feet first
trod, to the hfll where sleep in unmarked graves their early dead,
to the streets where stood their rude dweUings, to the history, the
traditions, and the memories of Plymouth and the PUgrims.
For a moment the noises of the busy Ufe of the present fade
away, and from out the sttence upon the attentive ear and listening
mind there fall the echoes of the hymns and prayers of that Pilgrim
company whose heroic souls, inspired by an indomitable courage,
a lofty hope, and a triumphant faith, famine and pestilence, danger
and death, could not dismay.
The first in that great stream of EngUsh immigration which marked
the first half of the seventeenth century to effect a permanent set
tlement upon New England shores, they differed radically not only
in their form of civil government from that company of English
men which thirteen years before had sailed between the Virginia
capes, and whose settlement at Jamestown was the foundation settle
ment of the United States, but also in their reUgious polity and
spirit. Calvinists in creed, in communion with the French and
Dutch Reformed churches of their day, under a religious leader
terrible to the Arminians, in organization CongregationaUst, their

6oo
eyes were turned to the new Ught yet to come as they hstened for
the new truths yet to break forth out of His holy word.
Upon the stately gate of the great World's Exposition at Chicago
was inscribed the impressive line, — "Toleration in ReUgion the
Best Fruit of the Last Four Centuries." It was America's verdict
of the value of the gift to humanity which those centuries brought.
From yonder painted window gleams the message of to-day, that
that best gift of aU the centuries was the "fruit of PUgrim sowing."
j| There is a singular appropriateness in this great gathering of
liberals of aU lands, pausing for a day in the work of a great and
important congress to pay their tribute to the memory of those exiles
here, the Liberals of their age, who bewailed, as Robinson said, the
state and condition of the Lutherans who could not be drawn beyond
what Luther saw, of the Calvinists stuck where Calvin left them, and
who recognized and beUeved that even to those famous shining Ughts
God had not yet revealed His whole wiU.
You have visited and will visit the homes where Uved, the scenes
where labored, the graves where rest, the great Liberal preachers,
poets, and teachers of the later generations. I do not underestimate
their labors or their services, but we may weU beUeve that the first
foundation or plantation of the religious freedom which they taught
is of more noble dignity and merit than all that followeth. Here they
studied union, and not division, and found in the simple covenant
inscribed on these watts an enduring bond of fellowship, which em
braced all those who, differing in non-essentials, could find within
its Uberal fold an ample Uberty.
This cardinal principle of toleration was their legacy to New
England, and when for a time in other colonies reUgious leaders
taught, as did Mather, that "Antichrist hath not a more probable
way to advance his Kingdom of Darkness than by a toleration of
all religions," and civU governors held with Dudley it to be the duty
of men of God in courts and churches "to watch
O'er such as do a toleration hatch,
Lest that ill egg bring forth a cockatrice
To poison all with heresee and vice,"
the candle lighted here stiU gleamed through the darkness and gloom;

OOI
and on the broad foundations of which they laid the corner-stone
the later generations have buUt their temples consecrated to a worship
which permits the broadest Uberty and concedes the widest freedom
of thought.
The story of their Uves and labors, of their persecutions in England,
of their freedom in the peaceful city of Leyden, of the stormy voyage
of the "Mayflower," adventurer of a forlorn hope, of the scattered
remnant gathered on the wind-swept shores beneath a wintry sky
around the unmarked graves, of the signing of the Compact, the Magna
Chartaof their civU Uberties, of the departure of the "Mayflower,"
leaving behind all the exiles, the Uving and the dead, the story of the
humane treaty with the Indian, which secured by gift or purchase,
and not by conquest, these fields they and their descendants were to
till, and of the peace aind prosperity of the later days, need not be
repeated here. It speaiks from the pictured canvas, it Uves in ora
tion and song and printed page, it is engraved deep in the hearts
of a grateful people. Here free popular government found its first
advocates and its first example. Here communism received its
earUest and fairest test, and its pernicious doctrines their conclusive
answer, as the experience of those "godly and sober men," in the
words of Bradford, " well evinced the vanity of that conceit of Plato's
and other ancients, applauded by some of later times."
Here the right, the use, the service, of individual property, found
its earliest champions, whose strong and clear convictions, based
on their hard-earned experience, are embodied in our written con
stitution, and conserve the security and progress of a well-ordered
commonwealth. But to-day we remember and cherish, as the foremost of aU their
great achievements, as the bright, consummate flower of the Pil
grims' spirit and purpose and labors, that great principle of religious
toleration, their dream your hope, their aspiration your endeavor,
their teachings your beUef, their faith the supreme reality whose
dawn you dimly see, "of many races one people, of many creeds one
faith, of many bended knees one famUy of God."
The President.— In behalf of the members of the Congress,
I thank you for your cordial greeting and for the hospitaUty of the
First Parish of Plymouth. We make grateful acknowledgment of

6o2
the courtesy which permits us to pay tribute at this dearest shrine
of aU the New World.
I know that to many minds the early history of this America
of ours seems dry and unromantic; there is no mist of distance to
soften the harsh outline; there is no mirage of tradition to lift the
events and characters into picturesque beauty. The transplanting
of a people breaks the succession of history. The land seems lack
ing in the elements that appeal to the imagination. Instead of the
ghtter of chivalry, for instance, here we have nothing but the home
spun of these Puritan peasants. Instead of cathedrals and castles
on which time has laid the hand of benediction we have but such a
rude meeting-house ais you wiU see this afternoon at Hingham. It
seems a story plebeian and prosaic. The Puritan and PUgrim
played on a stage which has no background. He aUures us by no
pride of birth or pomp of display, but just by clean-grained human
usefulness and "brave old wisdom of sincerity."
How then is it — how is it that out of that hard sott, out of the
sterile rocks of the New England thought and conscience, there
have sprung flowers of inspiration whose beauty and fragrance the
world celebrates? What is it in this Pilgrim heritage outwardly
so bare and so cold that makes it intrinsicaUy so poetic ? There is
no poetry in the mere struggle of our forefathers here for existence
or in the mean poverty that marked the outward Ufe of early New
England. Our Pilgrim fathers were often pinched for food; they
suffered in a bitter climate; they lived in isolation. We think Ughtly
of these things because we cannot help imagining that they knew
that they were founding a mighty nation; but that knowledge was
denied them. "Generations of them sank into nameless graves
without any vision of the day when their descendants should rise
up and caU them blessed." There is but little poetry or inspiration
in the measure of their outward success. Judged by their own
desires, these PUgrims failed: they attempted the impossible, and
they would hardly recognize or approve the harvest that has sprung
from the seed of their sowing.
Why, then, do we celebrate them? Wisely has it been said
that " it is not merely because in danger or in failure they were
stout-hearted. Many a freebooter, many a soldier of fortune, has
been that. It was because they were stout-hearted for an ideal."

603
Whenever and wherever men and women devote themselves not to
material, but to ideal ends, there the world's heroes are bom, and
bom to be remembered and to become the inspiration of noble
daring. The worth of nations is weighed in scales more delicate
than the balance of trade. "On the map," said LoweU, "you
can cover Athens with a pin-point and Judea with a finger-tip,
yet in those insignificant places the impulses were given which have
not ceased to direct civiUzation."
The glory of a State is not in the number of bushels of wheat it
raises or the tons of coal it mines or the miles of railroad track it
lays, but in the type of character that it produces, in the standard
of inteUigence it upholds, in the best personality it develops. It
is when a nation catches sight of an ideal of character, when it
arouses itself amd adapts its institutions to the development of free
manhood in its citizens, that it begins to write history, and the world
begins to read it and to draw inspiration from it. Believe me, when
every man among us, beyond his home affections, beyond his
every-day concerns, feels the pressure of those invisible ideals that
aUured our forefathers hither, then is he their worthy descendant
and the true son of the mother of a mighty race.
My friends, this meeting-house stands nearly upon the site of
the original meeting-house of the Pilgrim Fathers. Behind us rises
the Burial Httl, before us is the sea. Between stretches the street
on either side of which were hned the humble dwellings of the orig
inal planters of this town. That street is named Leyden Street,
for the town which in Holland cherished these Pilgrims. It is pe-
cuUarly appropriate, therefore, that at this meeting we should have
a word from the delegate from HoUand. He witt teU us not only
of these connections and associations which we cherish, but of that
measure of reUgious freedom which the Pilgrim Fathers found and
left in HoUand. Professor Groenewegen, of Leyden. [Applause.]
Professor H. Y. Groenewegen.— If there is any place in America
where American people can feel their relation to old HoUand, it must
be Plymouth, the spot where the Pilgrim Fathers landed when they
started from my fatherland. And, if there is any place in HoUand
where the American people feel their relation to your country, it

604
must be dear old Leyden. Just next the building where I nearly
every day have to give my professorial lectures is the beauti
ful old place where lived and died John Robinson. And right op
posite there is a fine old church with a beautiful bronze memorial
tablet for John Robinson, who is buried there. And it wais at that
very time, my friends, when the Pilgrim Fathers started from Hol
land, that Holland, too, had its martyrs for the sake of religion and
freedom. These were the Remonstrants.
(Professor Groenewegen here read a paper on the Remonstrants,
which is given elsewhere.)
The President. — As you go out of the church, you wttl read the
tablet in the vestibule whereon is written the covenant of this ancient
parish, — a covenant which has been in force since the Fathers landed
on this strand and under which this church still Uves. Too many
of us imagine that the founders of New England were given only to a
rigid and ruthless bigotry. The fact is that this is not an excep
tional case. The First Church in Boston, the First Church in
Salem, and many another were estabUshed with a covenant so broad,
so generous, so what we caU nowadays liberal, as to make it per
fectly possible for the present Unitarian Churches to maintain those
original covenants. No one can put his finger upon the spot or
upon the time when this church or many another of the ancient
Puritan churches of Massachusetts became Unitarian. It was a
natural, an inevitable evolution.
The hymn, "Gone are those great and good," was sung to the
tune "America," after which the benediction was pronounced by
the President.
After a half-hour spent on Burial HiU, cars were taken for the
Pilgrim Monument, with the heroic statue of "Faith" surmount
ing it. Returning by electrics to Town Square, the guests were
escorted to the Universahst church, where lunch was served. The
blessing was asked by Rev. Algernon S. Crapsey, of Rochester, N.Y.
After the luncheon a procession was formed to visit Plymouth
Rock. The canopy enclosing it was open for the occasion, so that
the visitors rested their feet upon the rock trodden by the PU-

605

grims. Led by the Enghsh delegation, the company joined in
singing the doxology, after which they proceeded to Pilgrim Hall,
where the many relics of the Pilgrims were viewed with interest.

exercises at hingham.
Soon after 3 p.m. the train was taken for Hingham. Here the
bells of the town meeting-houses rang a cheerful welcome to the
visitors. On arrivad the company were met by members of the
local churches and escorted to the First Parish Meeting-house,
where the foUowing words of welcome were spoken by Mr. Francis
H. Lincoln, treasurer of the American Unitarian Association: —
Friends, we welcome you all to Hingham. From the home of
the Pilgrim we welcome you to the home of the Puritan. For
within a few moments, when you crossed the Une of which the south-
em boundary of Hingham is a part, you passed from the original
limits of the Plymouth Colony into those of the Massachusetts Bay
Colony. As a descendant of the Puritans who came from Nor
folk in Old England, and settled in this town, as a member of this
parish in the seven generations of those who have worshipped
within its fold from the beginning, as a citizen of this town and a
native of this town, I bid you aU a hearty welcome. It is fitting
that a congress of reUgious Uberals should come to this place, — a
place where independence of thought and action have always been
one of the chief characteristics. The first minister of this town, the
Rev. Peter Hobart, in the early part of the seventeenth century, was
prohibited from preaching a sermon in Boston by the magistrates at
the marriage of one of his flock, because, as they alleged, he was a
bold man and would speak his mind. Ebenezer Gay, who served
this parish sixty-nine years as its minister, in the middle of the eigh
teenth century dared to preach more Uberal doctrines than. they
were accustomed to in the churches of that day, and by his influence
created such an impression through this section that you find to-day
the old First Parishes along our coast from here to Plymouth and
beyond are Unitarian. To those who come from old countries, we
seem new: to those who come from other parts of our own country
we seem old. Yet old and new are but relative expressions of the

6o6
passage of time, a dot on eternity. And, old or new, we welcome
you all as members of one great family of the children of God. [Ap
plause.] "From hand to hand the greeting flows,
From eye to eye the signals run,
From heart to heart the bright hope flows,
The seekers of the tight are one."
Rev. Louis C. Cornish, minister of the church, next uttered a
welcome on behalf of the parish.
You have been welcomed to the town. It is my privilege, as
minister of the parish, in the ten minutes at our disposal, to tell you
very briefly its history, and to welcome you most cordially to our
meeting-house, the oldest place of public worship now in use in the
United States.
The meeting-house tells its own story, the simple history of viUage
Ufe, of quiet growth, of two hundred and twenty-five years of con
tinuous public worship. To our feUow-countrymen it is venerable
with the memories of all of our national and most of our colonial life.
It has been the silent witness to almost the whole of our American
history. To our foreign friends it must look very modern. To them
it is the building of recent days. It brings no memory of mediaeval
times, no associations of ancient grandeur, of kings and prelates, of
churchly pageants, memories which enrich many of the liberal
churches in older lands. Yet to our friends from over the sea and
to our own countrymen alike it bespeaks a sturdy independence. It
is the visible sign of a democracy in things religious in the midst of
a political democracy. And it reminds us of that larger feUowship
of free churches wherein it holds an honored place. It is this story
of independence in religion that I am to teU you in the few moments
given us this afternoon.
Our New England settlements, as we all remember, were the
expression of the Puritan movement. In England it caused the
Civil Wars and estabhshed the Commonwealth. In America it
brought to Plymouth and Salem and Boston, Scituate, and Barn
stable and Hingham, settlements of independent people. Certain
independent folk in Hingham, England, selling their possessions at

607
great sacrifice, came over the ocean in 1633 to the shores of our little
harbor. Not far from Boston, and on the traU that then led through
the forest to Plymouth, the site was convenient, and their numbers
increased. In 1635 they formed themselves into a parish and town,
which they caUed Hingham after their English home. They settled
Peter Hobart, a feUow-townsman from Hingham, England, as their
minister, a young graduate of Magdalene CoUege, Cambridge. They
built a wooden meeting-house near the site of this building, which
they protected with a palisade against possible Indian attack. Here
for nearly fifty years the town gathered not only for public worship,
but for every possible concern. The parish and town, or town and
parish, were one and the same. The town was responsible for the
minister's salary. Births and deaths and marriages mingle in the
early records indiscriminately with the transfers of land and the
usual affairs of a community. Town and parish were identical.
This was in Peter Hobart's ministry. In 1678 Mr. Norton became
minister, and in 168 1 this meeting-house was built. There was a
long controversy over its location, the governor of the colony finally
interfering to settle the dispute. Upon the tablet before you are the
names of the parish ministers. Mr. Hobart is the only one who did
not officiate in this building. You will notice that from the begin
ning of the parish in 1635 down to 1886, a period of two hundred and
fifty years, there were but six ministers. The present minister is
the tenth to hold the office.
The Calvinism of the early settlers never was formulated into
binding articles of faith. From the first this parish was an inde
pendent congregation, and the present parish and its sister churches
so have remained. The independence of the early days merged
imperceptibly into the Unitarian movement. There is no trace upon
our parish records of the Unitarian-Trinitarian controversy. All
our Hingham parishes gave their allegiance naturally to the Uni
tarian denomination.
Until well into the middle of the century just past the three Hing
ham Unitarian Congregational churches remained the only churches
in the community. That undisturbed dominion of our independent
churches here in this township, which existed unbroken well into the
middle of the century just past, has been ever since in a process
of subdivision, due to many reasons, social, racial, and economic.

6o8
The Universalists buUt their church in 1824, — a rebuke to the gloom
which then overhung our faith. New-comers have settled in the
town, and have brought with them their own way of worshipping the
Father- of all. The. churches of Baptists, Methodists, Trinitarian
Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and Roman Catholics, have now
their honored place in the life of the community. But our liberal
churches find themselves in ever-nearer feUowship with these newer
churches. We believe in aU modesty that we have helped create
the harmony that reigns among us. There is no church in the town
ship that does not give generous recognition to the labors of its
neighbor and wish it God-speed in its work and worship. In the
midst of these shifting modern conditions our liberal churches hold
fast to their ancient independence, not unprofitable stewards, we
hope, of our great heritage. We look forward to that larger faith
for aU mankind, that truer definition, that broader spirit, of which
this Council is at once the sign and prophecy.
At the conclusion of the exercises the delegates from abroad were
escorted to the ancient residence, now the home of Mr. and Mrs.
Cornish, where tea was served. The American visitors were at
the same time entertained by the ladies of the parish in the Parish
House. Opportunity was afforded aU to visit the New North
Church, which was also open for the inspection of visitors. At
5.45 p.m. the train was taken for Boston.

6oo

EXCURSION TO FAIRHAVEN.
Theexcursion to Fairhaven left the South Station by special train at
nine o'clock Saturday morning, September 28, and reached Fairhaven
about 10.30 a.m. The visitors were received at the Fairhaven Sta
tion by Mr. Walter P. Winsor, representing the Excursion Committee
and the members of the Local Committee, and proceeded at once to
the church, the chimes of which were playing. The Local Committee
of Arrangements consisted of the following gentlemen: Edward G.
Tattman, J. C. Tripp, Herman H. Hathaway, Levi M. Snow, John
H. Stetson, A. B. Kimball, Josiah Pettee, Jr., and Harry Bisbee.
The committee wais assisted by a large number of the ladies of the
church and by many of the young people, who acted as ushers and as
guides. Services were held in the church, at which musical selections were
rendered by the choir, consisting of Mrs. Edna A. Purdy, Miss
Mabel Melville, H. Laimbert Murphy, and Willard Bowdoin; Martin
B. Paull, organist
The opening devotional service was conducted by the minister of
the church, Rev. Frank A. Phalen, after which the congregation
joined in singing Whittier's hymn, " Oh, sometimes gleams upon
our sight."
Prayer was offered by Rev. W. B. Geohegan, of New Bedford.
Rev. F. A. Phalen gave the following address of welcome: —
The honor and pleasure has devolved upon me as the minister
of this church, representing its people, to give you a word of wel
come on this to us and, we trust, to you, auspicious and inspir
ing occasion. There are many things in my heart that I would
Uke to say to you, but they have aheady been weU said in Boston and
in other places where you have been welcomed. This town of ours,
to which we welcome you to-day, is one of the oldest towns in the
country. We have the honor of tracing its foundation to one of the
men who came over in the "Mayflower," one of the original Pilgrims,
John Cook by name, who settled in this vicinity in 1645, and who

6io
died here about 1680. If you have time to-day, among other interest
ing objects which you may see is a boulder marking the grave of
that Pilgrim. So we have a certain pride in our origin, and in the
character of people this town has produced in the past and still pro
duces to-day.
We are proud of our town, we are proud and grateful for the buUd-
ings, religious, civic, educational, which dot the town, and which are
the gems to which we invite your attention. But we are especially
proud of the beautiful temple in which we are gathered at this mo
ment. From many lands, with many and various ideas, and by dif
ferent pathways, worshipping the one God and Father of all, this
church, as you may have observed as you entered this south portal, is
a cathedral in the truest sense, for we have on each side of that
large south portal, cut in stone, a symbol of the apostle Saint Peter
and also of Saint Paul. So we stand for the broadest catholicity
and sympathy of spirit; for aU that was beautiful and rich in the
symbolism, in the architecture, in the music, of the old CathoUc
Church, and for aU that is true and beautiful and good in these
modern days. And I Uke to think that those two statues are sym
bolical of our catholicity. Then, as you pass out through the cor
ridor, you will see upon the wall a statement of the faith for which
this church stands, and I will repeat it. It is familiar to those of you
who belong to our America, but may not be so famiUar to those who
come from abroad: —
"We believe in the fatherhood of God;
The brotherhood of man;
The leadership of Jesus;
Salvation by character;
The progress of mankind, onward and upward forever."
I said we were proud and grateful, those of us who minister in this
pulpit and those who worship in the pews, that we have this atmos
phere of inspiration and beauty from week to week entering solemnly
into our lives. And I think we have this pride and this gratefulness
in no selfish spirit, for we desire to share it with all who come to
us, from whatever land or from whatever part of the world. But we
are also proud of the spirit of affection, of gratitude, of interest in
the town, in the man, the benefactor, the friend, the far-reaching,

6n
thoughtful personality, looking to the future, who, out of his affection
and gratitude to his mother, buUt this miracle of beauty out of stone.
And to-day, as we welcome you here and as we together share this
service, we want you to remember, as you go back to your homes, that
there is this spirit in the American Unitarian laymen to-day in this
country to do what has been done here, not only for this parish, but
for att, and for the great unborn future.
President S. A. Eliot. — We thank you for your welcome.
We are grateful that the hospitality of this parish permits us to
gather in this beautiful house of God and to visit together this
characteristic New England viUage. It is, however, a New England
town which ittustrates for us how the somewhat austere simplicity of
our Puritan origins may blossom into beauty. The Uberality and
filial devotion of one of the sons of the town has made it beautiful.
You wttl visit the school where the educational life of the town receives
that haUowing touch. Behind us is a fine and weU-equipped library
that serves the inteUectual life of the community. The civic life is
nobly housed in a handsome town house. The social hfe is upbuilt
here by a pleasant and attractive inn and by rooms for the fraternal
orders. And the spiritual Ufe is deepened by the atmosphere and
influence of this church.
It does us good to meet here, because I think too many of us are in
danger of letting our work grow sometimes too mechanical and
commonplace and forgetting the deeper and higher inspirations that
might be ours. We must not, friends, rank the virtue of common
sense above the virtue of imagination. Of course, you and I are
honest folk, and we do not propose to equivocate. Fact is fact, and
poetry is poetry. But I submit that facts need sometimes to be en
shrined in symbolism. We need to see the dramatic side of this high
adventure of ours. We need to have the cares and perplexities and
monotonies of our every-day duties lifted into a realm where they
can be irradiated with beauty.
Comparatively few ReUgious Liberals need to be exhorted to just
calculation and clear reasoning and upright doing; but do not many
of us need freer imagination and more of generous impulse, more of
reverence and of devotion? Christianity is sometimes taken to be
primarily a matter of belief, of our inteUectual assent to somebody's

6l2
authoritative thinking, or, again, we are apt to say that Christianity
is primarily a Ufe, that it consists in our private virtue and our
public-spirited devotion. But somehow those definitions have
always seemed to me inadequate. Christianity certainly needs
and contains certain deep convictions: without them it would be
invertebrate. It certainly includes good works: without them
it would be but a shaUow sentimentalism. But, when you and I
analyze what we caU our religion down to the bottom, do we not
discover that fundamentally it is an emotion, and our faith and
our works are just the flowers that spring from that root? Chris
tianity, to my mind, is partly an affair of the head, of clear,
thorough thinking; partly an affair of the hands, of strong, helpful
doing; but down at the bottom, for most of us, it is an affair of
the heart, of deep, tender feeling. And so I love to come into
the atmosphere of a church like this, where reverence is natural,
where cheerfulness is prevalent, where aU the appointments for
worship are as perfect as good taste can make them.
I have sometimes thought that the best parts of religion are the
parts that express themselves naturaUy in music. If you have ever
thought of it, our controversial arguments are not singable, whereas
our trust and reverence and aspiration turn naturaUy to music
for adequate expression. It is hard luck for a choir if it has to
sing the Thirty-nine Articles or for a composer if he has to set
the Athanasian Creed to music. These things are not singable.
But the Psalms and the sayings of Jesus are essentiaUy lyrical, and
are probably best understood by us when they are musicatty inter
preted. I have always Uked a story of Cardinal Newman. He
was once, you remember, chaUenged by a vigorous sceptic to pub
licly debate the reality of religion, and Newman answered that the
chaUenger might have all the time allotted to the argument, and to
prove the reality of religion he would only ask leave to play an air
of Schubert's on his violin. It witt not do to press the point too far,
but we need to reassure ourselves that religion is a matter of the
heart rather than the head. We must beware lest we try to sub
stitute Ught for heat in these things. The noblest inteUect is that
which is shot through with passion. Reason has got to be lifted on
the shoulders of some deep and true emotion before its light can
enlighten a weary and distressed humanity.

613
I am not a bit afraid that we shall get any too great detachment
from earth if we trust ourselves more to the wings of the spirit.
We are all earth-bom, and we look down a good deal more natu
raUy than we look up. Our common sense is in no danger in a Liberal
church. What we rather have to fear is the loss of spiritual passion,
the congeahng of ardor, the loss of poetic fancy. We have to fear
that we shall let the charm of lovely wonder die out of our minds
and hearts, and finaUy imagine that we can fathom the unfathom
able. Let us just be rational enough to acknowledge that religion
has not only got to speak clearly to our minds and commend itself
to our sense of moral obUgation, it has also got to give us something
for the heart to love and for the soul to worship.
I rejoice, then, that we come here into the atmosphere and influ
ence of a house where there may be given to us, and to those who
for generations alter shall worship here, the spiritual insight that
knows that the things that aire seen are temporal and that the things
that are not seen axe eternal.
I am going to aisk a few of our friends who have endeared them
selves to us during the meetings of the week to say at this closing
meeting a few words of greeting and farewell. First, I am going
to turn to Wales: we have not heard as yet from that principality.
May I present to you the Rev. J. Tyssul Davis, a Welshman by
birth, now of Chatham, England?

REV. J. TYSSUL DAVIS, OF CHATHAM, ENGLAND.
Amongst the closing impressions which we are to gather into our
nest of pleasant thoughts, we are singularly fortunate in having
the vision of this beautiful temple to carry home with us and to
inspire us to do something in our own country to further the union
of art with religious expression. An Englishman was standing
before the great Taj Mahal in India, and, as he saw that beautiful
structure in aU its splendor in the moonlight, he said to himself,
"How beautiful must she have been who has inspired so beautiful
a memorial!" And perhaps in the future pilgrims wiU come to
this church, and will say also, when they remember that it is a

614
memorial to a woman, "How beautiful must she have been to
kindle such filial devotion in her son!"
It has been a revelation to me, and I am sure to many of you, to
find such beautiful churches in America, the home of Puritanism.
We have a few beautiful churches in England and Wales, but many
have already expressed the thought that we have nothing equal in
magnificence to this. There we still suffer from the Protestant
reaction against Catholicism, and we still remember that, with all
its offices, Protestantism helped us to ignore the fact that art was
the handmaid of reUgion. Protestantism raised into predominance
over all the other senses the sense of the hearing of the Word. And
now we are beginning to realize that the Word became flesh in order
that men should behold His glory, full of grace and of tmth. I
come from a little county in England where very little has been done
in the way of showing the grace and tmth of the Word made flesh.
There in our bare and rude temples among the hills of Wales we
have one form of artistic expression, — we have the service of song,
and I have never elsewhere heard anything to equal that. But we
still very largely need the other side of the artistic expression, that
which shows to the eye the grace and beauty of the Word made
flesh. What a pity it is that in that mistranslation of one of the
appellations of our Master He should be called merely "the Good
Shepherd"! You remember that He is "the Shepherd beautiful."
And we are kindled and inspired by that to believe that His ser
vice should also be, and the temple where we adore His name should
also be, beautiful. The comparison has often been made of our own
age with the mediaeval ages and with the great period of Greek won
ders, and we are told that, whereas in the old days the great Greeks
were content to dweU themselves in rude wooden huts as long as they
had the Parthenon to look out upon, we to-day demand that we
shall dwell ourselves in the Parthenon, and we are content that the
wooden huts shall be assembled together and made into the house
of God. We are beginning to be alive to that reproach. We are be
ginning to feel that we may emulate those ancient Greeks to some
extent, — emulate the spirit of those ages which we caU dark because
we are so much in the dark about them, that spirit which raised
those great miracles of architectural beauty, the cathedrals of Eu
rope, and that we, too, in our age should do something to beautify

*5
worship and beautify the temples where we gather together to hear
the word of the Lord.
I am very grateful to our friends at Fairhaven for inviting us
out here and letting us have a picture, a vision, of this beautiful
temple. We shall go back and tell our friends these things, and I
hope we shall do something in our little way to enable them to em
ulate our friends in America. Then, indeed, we may carry with us
the word of Browning, and, looking on our simpler and poorer houses,
we may say, — " I bid these walls be consecrate,
This wretched cell to be
A shrine; for here I speak, — for here
God speaks to men through me. ' ' [Applause.]
The President. — Now we want a brief word — if Irish elo
quence can cease — from our friend, Mr. John A. KeUey, of Belfast.

REV. JOHN A. KELLEY.
I rise with great pleasure to show myself to you as an Irishman. I
have very great pleasure in obeying your command given me this
morning after we came into the church, that I should say a few words
to you, because it seems to me that in all the great and inspiring
meetings that we have had Ireland has not been spoken for, al
though represented in person by my good friend and fellow-pres
byter, the Rev. Thomas Dunkerley, of Cumber, by Rev. Alex
ander Ashworth and Mrs. Ashworth, of Belfast, and by myself. But
the representatives who were catted upon were called upon as Brit
ish representatives. Now let me inform you who do not know that
Britain does not include Ireland. [Laughter.] Ireland likes to
speak for itself. ["Hear, hear!"] It may be presumption, but
somehow or other it is the sort of thing that the Almighty has planted
in us, and that which the Almighty has planted in us must have its
expression. And here you give us the opportunity to-day, which op
portunity I embrace at once and for many reasons. In the first place
I am glad to have an opportunity of telling you how we, the represen
tatives of the Association of Irish Non-subscribing Presbyterians

6i6
and Other Free Christians in the north of Ireland, feel at the recep
tion that you have given to us. We are thoroughly satisfied, — in
fact, Mr. President, we are overwhelmed at the kindness that we
have received since we came to this country. [Applause.]
But there is a second reason, and that is that the opportunity
that I now enjoy has been given to me in this beautiful church, which,
as I look upon it, seems to me to be fittingly represented by the
words of the poet, "A thing of beauty is a joy forever."
We have enjoyed our visit to your great country, and when I go
around your various great cities and find that my fellow-countrymen
are there in great numbers, exercising their great influence, I re
joice that it was the good providence of God that a day of evil, as
it seemed to us, came upon our little island, and that millions of our
countrymen came out into this great land where they have had
room to grow and to prosper. On their behalf I would speak this
day, and I feel very deeply that that which we find around us so
congenial, so spiritual, so uplifting, is in some sense — and I say it
without bragging — due to that little island of 32,000 square miles
and a population less than our great London. In the dark ages of
Christianity, when the Ught of truth and of spiritual growth seemed
to have gone out, it was in Ireland that it was kept safe, and the
apostles and confessors were sent out from my httle island att over
England and into Europe, and the Ught was kindled once more.
I asked myself yesterday, What would have been the fate of Plym
outh and of New England, had Ireland not existed under God's
providence in those Middle Ages ?
I aim glad to be here. I thank you, brethren and sisters of this
part of God's kingdom, for all you have done for us, for all you have
done for true spiritual religion, and now I just say fareweU.
"Farewell, a word that has been and must be;
A sound that bids us linger — yet fareweU." [Applause.]
The President. — Even in this beautiful house of worship we must
be humbled in the presence of one who comes from the land of im
mortal beauty. You wiU want to have a parting word from our
friend, Rev. Mr. Andre", of Florence.

617

REV. L. E. TONY ANDRE, OF FLORENCE, ITALY.
Let me Umit myself to few words. In EngUsh I must be very
short; but without many words, with aU my heart, I thank our
American friends.
We have enjoyed during all this week the most generous hos-
pitaUty, and we shadl remember it adl our life. You have given us
the opportunity of meeting here friends from aU parts of the world,
and of exchanging with you and with them in perfect communion of
spirit helpful reUgious impressions.
We have admired your strong organization and the power of
free reUgious thought in a free country. What a comfort this is
for those who feel lonely, as I do in Italy!
In Italy Uberal Protestantism has not many adherents, and the
few we have are not in favor. But souls and hearts can meet across
the seas, aind, when alone in my far-away country, I shall remember
the Boston Congress, and it wttl strengthen me.
I thank the President of the committee, Dr. EUot; the Secretary,
Mr. Wendte; and aU the members of the committee; the ladies and
the ministers of Boston and other cities where we have been so
heartily received. Not to forget anybody, I thank all those who have
in any way contributed to the magnificent success of these meet
ings. And to aU friends I say good-bye until the next Congress.
[Applause.] The President. — WhUe Mr. Kelley was speaking, I looked about
for a Scottish representative. I found an English one. May we
have a word from Mr. Pope, of London? [Applause.]

REMARKS OF REV. W. W. C. POPE, OF LONDON.
In recent travels out in the Western States I overheard two
American ladies talking in the train, and one was advising the other
as to the places of interest to be visited. The speaker said: "What
ever you do, be sure you go to Victoria in British Columbia, for that
place is finished, that place is perfect, restful and quiet. It is just
the place that all we people are looking for." As to this church, it
is perfect, finished. I have been looking about for ideas to take home

6i8
with me about church building which I will have the audacity to
offer to an architect. I am afraid I shall not take away the ideas
that are embodied here, but the impression on my mind that it is
perfect. Some months ago, at a meeting of the Council of the British and
Foreign Unitarian Association in London, I was asked to speak to a
resolution having reference to our coming to America. I ventured to
say then that, if the whole of our English ministers could be picked
up and sent to America, it would be the very best investment that the
British and Foreign Unitarian Association had ever made. In aU
my going out West, — and I have been as far as San Francisco, — I
have dropped off on every possible occasion, whenever I could find
there was a Unitarian congregation or any other congregation of
Uke mind, — I have dropped off dozens of times and stayed over, in
order that I might have the great privilege of caUing on the minister
and being introduced to any of his friends, and seeing their building,
and, whenever I could possibly do so, I have attended their service.
Two or three times I have taken some humble part in it. Wherever
I have been, you have good commodious buUdings, and the menl have
seen are whole-souled men who preach their message. You have
good congregations. I have had the pleasure of being introduced to
several. But there is one thing I would like to offer as a suggestion.
I wish, Mr. President, somebody would put it into your heart to
appoint a smaU committee on this subject, which then could be dupli
cated in London, a small committee of laymen, — there is no need of
putting ministers on a committee like this, — laymen who will see
that ministers on this side and on the other side of the Atlantic get an
opportunity to exchange for three to six months every year. I cannot
conceive anything that would do our cause and our churches and
our ministers in England more good than a visit to America such
as this. It has been inspiriting from beginning to end. I am
going back twenty years younger, aU due, Mr. President, to your
energy and to the extreme kindness, the unbounded, lavish kind
ness that we have received at the hands of our friends in America.
I thank you. [Applause.]
The President. — Our last speaker will be our constant friend and
inspirer, Professor Jean ReviUe. [Applause.]

619

REMARKS OF PROFESSOR JEAN REVILLE, OF PARIS.
Mr. President, you have bestowed upon me the honor of saying
some words in the name of the non-EngUsh-speaking delegates.
But you asked me at the same time if I could not say some words in
EngUsh, and so, as I am fairly obedient to the authority of the Presi
dent, I cannot do otherwise than to speak in English. And now I
must beg for your indulgence.
I have been at all the Congresses of the International Council.
I am proud to have been one of the founders of this Council. The
idea was born here in the United States amongst the Unitarians of
America, and the first meeting, the first CouncU, was elaborated by
the EngUsh Unitarians in London. I was pleased to have been caUed
to take part in this first meeting in London. But, when it was
finished, I was somewhat anxious, and I said to myself, " That is a
very good thing, but it will be impossible to repeat such a meeting in
another place and to do as well as it has been done in London."
Two years later we came to Amsterdam, and I was still anxious.
But after some days all my anxiety had vanished away. The meet
ings in Amsterdam were ais interesting and as spirited as those in
London. It was of another kind, there were other surroundings,
but the spirit was the same.
Two years afterwards we went to Geneva, and it also was another
kind of meeting, but we had the same satisfaction. And now we
are here in New England, on the other side of the ocean, and I
cannot express sufficiently all that we have experienced in these
few days, and how thankful we are to all those who have prepared
for us these interesting meetings, these reunions where we have been
so much instructed and so much inspired, and which have made
our time here not only helpful for our spirits, but also agreeable
for our eyes and hearts.
I speak, sir, in the name of the non-English-speaking delegates who
are here, — if all those who would have liked to come were here, this
church would be crowded, but the Atlantic Ocean is large and we
are not so accustomed to go across it as you are in America. We are
not accustomed to come to America as you are accustomed to come
to Europe. So, if all those who wishedto be here were here, we would

620
be very numerous. And when I go back and tell what we have seen
and done here, and what we have experienced, I am sure that many
more stiU will regret that they could not come. And I thank not only
the committee who organized the meetings in Boston, our dear
President, our dear Secretary, Mr. Wendte, who has worked with so
much zeal, and all those who took part in these organizations: I
thank also — and it is a duty for me, because they have not so promi
nent a place — those ladies and gentlemen who in Concord and Plym
outh and Hingham, and now here, have received us with so much
cordiality and given us opportunity to see so much of this beautiful
country of New England, and to see not only the large cities, but to
see the country, the country life, to see these beautiful houses with
pretty gardens, to see this green country, these beautiful hills,
and this sea which is surrounded by aU kinds of summer resorts.
All this is reaUy interesting and charming for us. And now we underr
stand much better your American life. It is not the Ufe of the busy
streets of New York and Philadelphia: it is also the Ufe of famfly
homes in these pleasant resorts of New England. [Applause.]
And now, artisticaUy, you have kept for last what is the most
beautiful, this church, — this church where we find all the poetry of
our own cathedrals of the Middle Ages, this church where the whole
past seems to revive in a new manifestation of beauty and spirituaUty.
We are here, as it was said, in a CathoUc church, in a church
which reproduces the beauty of the CathoUc Christian inspiration
of the Middle Ages. But who are those who meet in this church?
They are Liberals of aU countries, men who are not at all of the
Roman Cathohc spirit. Now, I think, we can see here the promise
of a new catholicity, a future church which will be cathoUc by its
universality and which wttl be free and modem by its inspiration.
We are here, delegates of nearly all countries of the world, and
we are united by the same spirit of faith and of hberty, and I say that
we manifest here our cathoUcity, our spiritual catholicity, the catho
licity of a free faith, which is the same in aU countries, the same in att
times, the expressions of which are aUke. The real Christian free
faith is the same in aU times. We must accustom ourselves to com
municate with all those who have this free spirit and this free faith
in all countries and in all languages. We must accustom ourselves
to appreciate this faith in times past, as it was here when you buUt

621
a church reproducing the most beautiful, the most magnificent aspect
of the faith of the Middle Ages. We must be able to recognize what
is the value of a free faith in all ages. Now let us make a pledge
that, when we aU go home, we shall all in our different countries work
for this larger cathoUcity of the future, in which aU shall be one in the
same spirit of faith and of Uberty. [Applause.]
After an anthem by the choir amd the hymn by the congregation,
"Nearer, my God, to Thee," the benediction was pronounced by
Rev. Dr. EUot.
At the close of the services, luncheon was served in the Parish
House. The invocation was pronounced by the Rev. Alexander
Webster, of Aberdeen, Scotland.
After the luncheon the delegates were taken in groups by the young
men and women of the parish, acting as guides, to visit the librairy,
the town hall, and the Fairhaven High School, after which a troUey
trip was taken through the town, returning to the station in time to
take the return train for Boston.

622

MINISTERIAL UNION MEETING.
Monday, September 30.
The monthly meeting of the Ministerial Union in Channing Hall
held on Monday, September 30, was an occasion of unusual inter
est because of the presence of a large number of delegates to the
International meetings, and the reception of a special committee
and an address from the Ministerial Fellowship of Great Britain
and Ireland. President Rev. Seth C. Beach, D.D., of the Min
isterial Union, presided. Rev. Harry Lutz wais secretary of the
meeting. The Rev. Charles Roper, of London, being introduced
as the president of the British society, made extended and fra
ternal remarks introductory to the following address and greeting: —
ADDRESS AND GREETING.
The members of the Ministerial FeUowship (of Great Britain and
Ireland) send sincere and brotherly greetings to their ministerial
brethren of the Unitarian Churches of the United States and Can
ada on the occasion of the International Congress at Boston, Sep
tember, 1907.
We recognize the interest and importance of this Fourth Meeting
organized by the International Council of Unitarian and Other Lib
eral Religious Thinkers and Workers. A number of our feUow-
members are crossing the Atlantic, personally to grip your hands and
to feel the thrill and inspiration of your strenuous Ufe, whUe those
who are left behind will be with you in spirit as fraternal coworkers
in the same field of labor.
We gratefully acknowledge our indebtedness to the leaders of
thought among you for the freshness and vigor of their presentations
of religious tmth. So strong and so many are the ties that bind us
together that, notwithstanding the stretch of ocean between, we
feel we are indeed One Household of Faith, with a common
gospel and a common literature. Your prophets are our prophets,
and we rejoice to think that our prophets are also yours.

623
We want you to feel that you have our strong and hearty sympathy
in the noble work in which you and your churches are engaged.
In many ways your greater achievements inspire and encourage us.
We proudly feel that our sympathy with you is reciprocated, and
that we together recognize that we are serving in the same holy
cause, searching for the same tmth in the same fearless way, and
looking up to the same God for light and strength and guidance in
our common endeavors.
The Ministerial Fellowship is an elective body, which was founded
in 1899, and now numbers 152 members, every year adding consid
erably to its roll. By their subscriptions its members are insured
for benefit between pastorates, — a system which we have found most
serviceable in many cases and which we cordially commend to your
consideration. You may perhaps profit from our experience in
this direction, as we in our Settlements Bureau and projected
Supply Bureau are trying to learn from yours. We are convinced
that in the close co-operation of brother ministers much good
may be done for themselves and for the churches which they re
present. Brethren, all hail! The contingent that invade your shores come
in the glad spirit of peace and brotherly love. We know how heart-
Uy you will welcome them as our representatives.
We earnestly pray that in the future, as in the past, we may on
both sides of the Atlantic work for the realization of universal peace
and acknowledged brotherhood the wide world over, until men
everywhere have beaten their swords into ploughshares and their
spears into pruning-hooks. God speed the time when men's energies
are wholly devoted to discovering his newer and wider truth, and
bringing nearer that glorious kingdom of God, for which so many
generations of faithful men and women have labored with unflagging
zeal and undaunted hope.
We are, in aU sincerity and on behalf of our whole feUowship,
Yours fraternally,
Charles Roper, President.
Dendy Agate, Treasurer.
J. Crowther Hirst, Settlements Secretary.
Christopher J. Street, Secretary of the Fellowship.

624
Rev. Frederick Summers, C. J. Street, and others made addresses.
Rev. V. D. Davis, B.A., of London, editor of the Inquirer, gave a
delightful address, without notes, in which he pleaded for a pro-
founder religiousness as the fountain and source of aU ministerial
activity and effectiveness. His words were not taken down at the
time, but found their way into the hearts of his Usteners, whose en
tire attention showed how universal and deep was their response to
his appeal.

62s

THE CONGREGATIONAL MINISTERS ' MEETING.
Among the courtesies extended the foreign delegates to the Con
gress, their welcome by the Congregational Ministers' Meeting at
the Congregational House wttl always be cherished. On three
successive Monday mornings this association of clergymen invited
and hstened to addresses by Professors G. Bonet-Maury and Jean
ReviUe of Paris, Rev. Dr. John Hunter of Glasgow, Rev. Miss Ger
trude von Petzold, Rev. WiUiam G. Tarrant and C. J. Street of
England, and others.
The discussions which foUowed the addresses, WhUe disclosing
differences of opinion, were marked by the spirit of Christian cour
tesy and Uberality.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY CLUB.
By invitation, on September 28, Hon. F. Maddison, M.P., of Eng
land, Rev. W. C. Bowie of London, Rev. F. C. Fleischer of
HoUand, Miss Mary E. Richmond of New Zealand, Rev. W. G.
Tarrant of London, S. C. K. Rutnam of Ceylon, delegates to the
International Congress, addressed the Twentieth Century Club of
Boston at their monthly luncheon, and received a warm welcome.

626

THE AFTER-MEETINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS.
One of the most interesting features of the late Congress was the
series of meetings which were addressed by foreign delegates after
the Boston session.
The Rev. John Hunter, D.D., Rev. V. D. Davis, and Professor
E. Montet attended the Michigan State Conference of Unitarians,
and made addresses. Professor Montet also spoke at the State
University, and Dr. Hunter lectured before the same institution.
The little party proceeded to Chicago, where a series of meetings
had been organized. We quote from an editorial by Rev. Jenkin
Lloyd Jones, the one-time secretary of the Chicago Parliament of
Religions, in his paper, Unity : —
" The postscript to the great Boston meeting held in Chicago was
altogether a delightful affair to att parties concerned. Three dele
gates from over the water were escorted to Chicago by Rev. L. G.
Wilson, secretary of the American Unitarian Association, but he
dropped them soon after his arrival, and went on his way mission-
arying. The entertainment and, still more, the utilizing of these
men was intrusted by the international secretary, Mr. Wendte, to
Mr. Backus, secretary of the Western Unitarian Conference, Mr.
Case, pastor of the St. Paul Universalist Church, and Mr. Osborne,
secretary of the Congress of Religion. The responsibility of execut
ing the program was left largely to Mr. Osborne.
"The delegates arrived Friday afternoon. On Saturday three
automobiles, tendered by friends of the Lincoln Centre, carried a
party of twelve sight-seeing. At the University of Chicago, Dean
Shatter Mathews and Professor Gerald Birney Smith, of the Divin
ity School, received the delegates and showed them around, after
which the party was joined by half a dozen or more merribers of the
faculty, among which were Doctors Henderson, Small, Foster, Vin-

627
cent, Burton, and others, in a sumptuous luncheon. At the close
of the luncheon Dean Mathews, in the name of the president, ex
tended to the foreign delegates the welcome and courtesies of the
university. On Sunday morning Dr. John Hunter, of Glasgow,
preached to a large and deUghted audience at the Lincoln Centre!
Professor Montet, dean of the Protestant Theological School of the
University of Geneva (Switzerland), preached in Dr. White's pulpit,
the People's Liberal Church, in Englewood, and Rev. V. D. Davis]
editor of the London Inquirer, preached at Unity Church on the
North Side in Mr. Hawley's pulpit. In the evening there was a real
feUowship meeting held at the Lincoln Centre, where a large audi
ence was gathered. The opening services were in charge of Mr.
Osborne, and Mr. Jones presided. In addition to addresses by the
foreign delegates, Mr. Hawley, of Unity Church, and the Rev. Mr.
AUais, pastor of the French M. E. Church of Chicago, took part.
"Perhaps the most unique feature in this postscript was the Mon
day noon lunch, as guests of the Outlook Conference, a quiet, schol
arly group of progressive ministers inside the so-caUed orthodox
churches, who on this occasion threw open their doors and received
as their guests not only the foreign delegates, but the resident pastors
of the Unitarian, UniversaUst, Independent, and Jewish churches.
The luncheon was served in one of the rooms of the Y. M. C. A.
buUding, which was crowded to its utmost capacity. Some fifty
ministers broke bread together. Representatives of the Chicago Uni
versity, Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and the unorthodox
churches, sat down together. Professor Foster, of the university,
was caUed upon to preside, and after the luncheon graciously pre
sented the foreign delegates. Guests from Seattle, Kansas City,
and nearer home were called upon. Professor Montet spoke in
French, and Dr. Loba, of the Evanston Congregational Church,
felicitously interpreted his words in English. Dr. Hunter here, as
elsewhere, carefuUy prepared his address beforehand. Of Mr.
Davis's charming address, fuU of kindly feUowship and lofty spirit
ual earnestness, we can give no report; neither can we of the kindly
and felicitous words of the presiding officer, Professor Foster. Al
together the noonday luncheon was but another significant sugges
tion of that feUowship that is almost here, — the feUowship that will
discard the technical differences and the historical traditions, find

628
joy not only in communion of thought, but in a shoulder-to-shoulder
enthusiasm in common tasks, the facing of common obligations.
"After luncheon the delegates were shown the marvels of the
Corn Show, and in the evening the program came to an end in a
reception given at the Abraham Lincoln Centre. Rev. Professor
Montet also addressed on Monday morning a gathering of Method
ist ministers, and was introduced by the Methodist bishop presiding
as 'the successor of John Calvin.'
"The informal leave-taking in the evening at the Lincoln Centre,
addresses which foUowed the handshaking, and inspiriting song
by Miss Jennie Johnson, and preceded the coffee and chocolate, are,
of course, unreportable. Dr. George F. Shears spoke for the laity
of Chicago and the Lincoln Centre. Dr. Montet, released from the
thrall of a foreign tongue, glowed with kindliness and found all hearts
in the Esperanto of the kindly eye, the playful countenance and sug
gestive gesture. Immediately foUowing him, his feUow-country-
man, the Rev. Mr. AUais, pastor of the French Methodist Church,
rendered the speech in graceful English.
" Closing words were spoken by Mr. Davis, of London, and they
were words laden with tenderness, graice, and the holiness of large
views and high purposes.
"This was indeed a tiny postscript to the great Boston Congress,
but it was a real congress which quickened hearts, clarified heads,
and disintegrated barriers.
"Bless them for coming! May aU good graces wait on them
wherever they go ! The peace that belongs to the children of God
is theirs."
To resume our story: —
Professor Montet lectured at the University of Pennsylvania
and preached in the French Protestant Episcopal Church of Phil
adelphia and elsewhere. Professor Bonet-Maury gave a course of
lectures at McGttl University, Montreal, and addressed the Cercle
Francais in Boston. Professor Otto Pfleiderer gave a course of
lectures at the Harvard Divinity School, and at a reception in his
honor by the Deutsche Gesellschaft in Boston spoke on the reUg
ious situation in Germany.
The Worcester and Connecticut VaUey Unitarian Conferences

629
were also favored with addresses by Rev. Miss von Petzold, Rev.
S. Kanda, Rev. T. P. Spedding, and Revs. Charles Peach and Alex
ander Webster.
Of the German delegates, Rev. L. Ragaz, of Basel, gave the prin
cipal address at the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary cele
bration of the Smithfield Street German Evangelical Protestant
Church in Pittsburg, Penn., the longest established German-Amer
ican church in the United States. Rev. G. Schoenholzer preached
in Rev. Hugo Eisenlohr's German-American church in Cincinnati
to a great audience. The sermon is to be printed. Rev. Dr. Fischer,
of Berlin, preached in the German Church of the Holy Spirit in
St. Louis on October 6. All these appointments were made by
the International Congress Committee. Other delegates spoke in
New York, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Montreal, London, Ottawa,
Toronto, Winnipeg, and at other points. Mr. Sim Harris, of Eng
land, even addressed the students of the Pacific Unitarian Theolog
ical School in Berkeley, Cal., on his impressions of the Congress,
and Rev. S. Kanda, on his return journey to Japan, similarly
reported the Congress proceedings to his old-time friends of the
First Unitarian Church in San Francisco.
In these and other similar ways the influence of the Congress has
been extended, and distant communities have been made to feel
something of its glow and upUft.

630

APPENDIX.

LETTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS TO THE INTER
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERALS
AT BOSTON.
Manchester College, Oxford, England.
My friend, the Rev. V. D. Davis, B.A., asks me to send through him a mes
sage to your great meeting from this college. Permit me, then, on its behalf
to offer a few words of respectful and affectionate greeting. Its dedication "to
Truth, to Liberty, to Religion," with no limiting restrictions of name or creed,
points to the broad platform on which you are gathering brethren from so many
churches in fraternal concord. Your Congress will supply a noble example of
that faith which is growing stronger year by year throughout all civilized lands,
in the fundamental unity that underlies the partial expressions of our different
theologies. Great, indeed, are the labors that yet await us in the attempts to
disengage the sentiments that unite from the thoughts that divide, to bring
them into clear expression amid the rivalries of sects, and set them in vital
relation with the social needs and reforming energies of our time. In this task
we are sustained by each other's sympathy. The churches which will assemble
under your earnest and genial presidency may lie far apart from one another
in various lands, under divers forms of ecclesiastical polity. But they will all
feel the quickening of a wider life, as they realize that they are not mere isolated
units. They have a common fellowship, they form a company of their own in the
great army which is vowed to the warfare with ignorance and indifference, with
selfishness and sin.
May the meetings which have been organized with so much devotion fulfil
your warmest hopes! May those who come from the East and the West, from
the North and the South, feel that they do indeed sit down in that kingdom
of God which is not the dream of a distant future, but the constant presence of
the Spirit within us.
Believe me, with the warmest regards, always faithfully yours,
J. Estlin Carpenter.

London, England.
I wish with all my heart that I could say "Yes" to your very kind and tempting
invitation to me to speak at your international gathering in September. But,

631
alas! I am afraid it is quite impossible. I have just begun a piece of work
which will take me the whole of the coming year, and probably a little more.
Till it is finished, I must not think of a journey to America,— which, however,'
we hope to accomplish as soon as the book is fairly out of my hands.
It would have been a great pleasure and stimulus to join your meetings.
Now it is not so much a day of pulling down as a day of building up. Nor
shall we advance much further, I believe, in the work of sweeping away the old
misconceptions till the body of new thought is more firmly outlined. "On ne
d&ruit que ce qu'on remplace," as Amiel said long ago. It is here your inter
national gathering may be fruitful. All success to the Boston meeting I I shall
read the record of it with the greatest interest, and much, much regret that I
cannot be there.
Wth kind regards, believe me, Yours very sincerely,
Mary (Humphry) Ward.

London.
... I wish I could join in a deeply interesting conference of this kind. It
would give me the sincerest pleasure, but it seems almost impossible. Moreover,
I have never been in the United States, and it seems unjust to leave the Old
World without seeing the New. I will keep your kind invitation in my mind,
and, when the time comes, will try to join the Congress. But, to my regret, you
cannot put me in your programme. I wish this could be so, and I am grateful
for your purpose. Yours very sincerely, Stopford A. Brooke.

London.
Telegram. — Friends in the old country send greetings [and] good wishes to
Internationals assembled. Ion Pritchard.

Senat de Belgique, Brussels, Belgium.
Nothing could have flattered and pleased me more than your kind invitation
to attend the Fourth International Congress of Religious Liberals to be held in
Boston from September 22-27 next, as all my personal sympathies are with this
movement. Unfortunately, I shall not be able to leave Belgium at that time,
and therefore must decline the hospitalities I should have been so glad to accept
from the committee in charge of the Congress. I remain
Faithfully yours, Goblet d'Alviella.

632 Independent Congregation,
Brussels, Belgium.
I have received the kind communication of the committee inviting me to the
Fourth International Congress at Boston. I feel extremely grateful to the
committee for the great honor and kindness shown to me.
I would most willingly show my thankfulness by contributing as best I could
to the success of the Congress. But, unfortunately, the decline of my health
makes it impossible for me to attempt the journey and to be of any real service
to the Congress.
With renewed thanks and best wishes for a great success,
Yours very truly, James Hocart.

Paris, France.
I had hoped up to the present moment to be able to come to the International
Congress of Religious Liberals in Boston, in accordance with the gracious
invitation extended to me some months since. But the relatively short time at
my disposal, and other considerations, prevent me from carrying out my desire,
and to my great regret I shall not be able to take part in the meetings of the
Fourth Congress.
All my sympathies are enlisted in the spirit which has actuated these religious
reunions, and my friends Jean Reville and fidouard Montet will know how to
express to you, and to the members of the Council, my deep regret, as well as
my warm remembrance of the precious days we spent at the Congress in Geneva
some two years since.
I wish to enroll myself among the subscribers to the volume which will con
tain the papers and proceedings of the Congress.
Believe me, dear and honored colleague, to be sincerely, in the spirit of our
Master, Your devoted J. £mile Roberty,
Pastor and President of the Presbyterpl
Council of the Church of I'Oraloire
[Translated.] de Louvre, Paris.

Paris, France.
I thank you very sincerely for your invitation for myself and my wife to attend
the Congress in Boston next year. Certainly, it is as tempting as it is generous,
and nothing could prevent us from accepting it, even at this early date, were it
not for the eighty years which look me squarely in the face the roth of next
March (this I must say, with benignity and courage to go forward) and the all-
engrossing duties which now call us to this centre of the great and long-irnpend,-
ing religious crisis in our dear and much-tried country. In any case we shall
be with you, and all the brethren, of whatever faith they may be, in your efforts

633
for peace and good fellowship among the followers of Christ and the worshippers
of the only true God and our most loving Father.
This is written with our joint love and prayers. Hyacinthe Loyson.

Paris, France.
Having the last month, by absolute order of my doctor, taken a cure of com
plete silence, I can again speak and do my work. But any supplementary
effort is forbidden. So I am afraid to get so very tired the coming year. You
know that a new and larger meeting-place is just in building for us. It will be,
we hope, finished about Christmas. Next summer another part of the new
building is to be finished. My holidays of 1907 will, I am sorry to foresee, be
given to a complete rest. So I cannot give any promise in advance.
Thank you for your kind letter, to which, if my heart could make the law of
life, I would have given an enthusiastic "Yes" for an answer.
Truly yours, Charles Wagner.

Castres (Tarn), France.
Disciple convaincu du Christianisme primitif, spirituel et moral, tel qu'il
nous est re'vele' dans la personne, la vie et l'enseignement de J&us-Christ, —
mais adversaire non moins convaincu de tout espece de Dithe'isme, de Tri-
thfisme, de Quatrithiisme, tel que l'ont fabrique' les traditions successives de
l'histoire, —
J'ai l'honneur d'adherer a un unitarianisme Chretien, positif et vivant, tel
qu'il s'affirmera dans le prochain Congrfes unitaire de Boston.
Camille Rabaud,
Pasteur en Retraite, Pres. hon. du Consistoire
de Castres.
Je joins mon adhesion a celle de M. le pasteur Rabaud.
Bruniquel, pasteur honoraire.

Eglise Reformer de Luneray,
conseil presbtteral.
Cher Monsieur,— J'6Uds membre du Congres de Geneve et j'eprouve une
vraie peine de ne pouvoir aller a Boston, mais je serai de cceur et de pensee avec
vous. Ancien pretre liberal dans l'figlise Romaine, j'ai l'honneur comme Pasteur
de Luneray d'etre le successeur de Reville, et tous mes efforts n'ont d'autre
bout que de travailler a I'extension de la liberie' et de 1'independance de pensee

634
religieuse en laquelle seule se trouvent la vie et le progres. Ci-joint ma coti-
sation avec mes meilleurs souhaits pour le succes du Congrfes, auquel j'aurais
tant desird assister.
Veuillez, cher Monsieur, agreer 1'expression de mes sentiments tres-distingues. J. Joye.

Chantegrillet, fres Crest,
(Drome), France.
J'aurais voulu vous ecrire il y a deja longtemps pour vous dire mon amer
regret de n'avoir pu me rendre au Congres. Le temps m'a manque1, absorb^
que je suis par la crise catholique que de jour en jour s'intensifie, s'elargit, se
dramatise. M. Andre" et M. Houtin se seront acquittes, j'espere, du message
que je leur avais donne" de vous dire, a vous et a toute l'assemblee ma profonde
sympathie et mes vifs regrets.
Au revoir, cher Monsieur, croyez moi votre tres cordialement devoufi
Paul Sabatier.

N*mes, France.
J'ai l'honneur de vous remettre sous ce pli un mandat-poste international
pour gtre admis au Congrfes international des Unitaires, etc.
Heureux de temoigner ainsi ma sympathie pour "ceux qui dans tous les pays
aspirent a unir religion pure et liberie- complet,"je vous prie de vouloir bien
agreer 1'expression de mes sentiments de confraternity chre'tienne.
G. Benoit-Germain,Secretaire du Conseil Presbyteral
de I'Uglise Chretienne Reformee
de Nimes {France — Gard).

Deutscher Peotestantenverein,
Berlin, September 7, 1907.
The German Protestant Society has commissioned the Rev. Max Fischer,
doctor of theology, member of the council, to represent them at the Liberal
Religious Congress, meeting in Boston, U.S.A., and to express their hearty
wishes for the success of the meeting.
The Protestant Society takes this opportunity of assuring the Congress that
it gives them great pleasure to be able to take part in their deliberations.
The Congress is working towards establishing views of human life and the
universe in harmony with the progress of science, and aims at developing a
liberal Christianity.
The German Protestant Society considers its foremost object to be to work
for the realization of Christian liberty in the Protestant Church of Germany
and in religion as proclaimed by Luther. In the name of the gospel they deny

635
the right of any party in the Church to enforce binding creeds after the manner
of the infallible Church of Rome and of Protestant Orthodoxy.
Thus the Congress at Boston and our German Protestant Society have the
same aims, and the work of the one will help forward the work of the other.
We therefore heartily wish success to the Congress meeting at Boston.
K. Schrader, President.
^Translated.]

Berlin, Germany, September ao, 1907.
Cable Message. — The German Protestantenverein, Friends of Evangelical
Freedom in the Rhine Lands, and Union for Evangelical Freedom in Hanover
invite the International Congress of Religious Liberals to hold its next session
in Berlin. Karl Schrader,
President German Protestantenverein.

Philosophical Faculty,
University of Jena, Germany.
There is very much to induce me to come to the Congress in Boston, but also
much seems to make it impossible. It would give me great pleasure to make
the personal acquaintance of so many friends and comrades of the spirit who
are to gather there, and at the same time gain, in the most agreeable manner
that can be imagined, an insight into American life, with whose great signifi
cance for the culture of our day and the future I am profoundly impressed.
How gladly would I, on my part, contribute a little, that in this land of mighty
striving and uplift a freer conception of religion might more and more control
the spirits of men! All these things unite in making very attractive the invitation
which you extend and which has given me such sincere gratification. But
many considerations dissuade me from its acceptance, chief of which is the
excessive burden of my literary work. New books come into being through
inward compulsion, the old ones urgently call for new editions, my relations
with many countries and schools of thought, especially of late with liberal
Catholicism, make increasing demands upon my time. All these things to
gether occupy and absorb me so completely that for years I have not even been
able to take a real vacation. How can time be found for a journey to America ?
The year to come is already crowded with literary engagements.
It will, however, be a sincere pleasure for me to take part in your meetings
by sending you a little treatise, written especially for your Congress. Its title
may be "What does a Free Christianity require in order to win the Victory?"
Cherish, I beg of you, despite my declination, a friendly regard for me, and
accept my sincere thanks for all the good will expressed in your invitation.
Yours faithfully,
[Translated.] Rtjd. Eucken, Ph.D.

636 University of Jena, Germany.
Accept my heartfelt thanks for the kind invitation to participate in the Fourth
International Congress of Religious Liberals. Your added invitation to me
to contribute a paper to this Congress I feel to be a great courtesy and honor
on the part of your committee. Be assured that it would interest and rejoice
me very much if I could accede to this call, and through the medium of this
Congress learn to know so many able theologians as will gather there. I have
delayed until now my reply to your letter, since it is not easy for me to write a
declination. But this I am unfortunately compelled to do. Other obstacles
to such a journey I might perhaps overcome, but not the main one, which is
that in the last half of September the theological examinations of the Thuringian
State Church take place, in which, as Dean, I am compelled to take part.
Hence I must forego anything which at that season will prevent my participa
tion in this function.
With regret and assurances of esteem, Your obedient
[Translated.] H. H. Wendt, D.D.

University of Jena, Germany.
Permit me to express my sincere and hearty thanks for your kind invitation
to your International Congress of this year in Boston. If my acknowledgment
reaches you only now, I beg you to believe that this was not due to any lack of
appreciation for the honor you have done me or any want of sympathy with
your important cause, which is our common cause. Quite the contrary. It
was my ardent desire and my constant hope to clear away all the obstacles to
my journey which presented themselves that induced me to defer from day to
day my reply to your amiable invitation.
In opposition to my desire and hope, it has not been possible for me to over
come the hindrances to my journey, the chief of which is that a book, whose
completion by a certain date I have contracted for, is not so advanced as I had
hoped. Sorry as I am, I must forego attendance on this Congress, and can
only hope that at some subsequent session I may be able to participate in its
proceedings, and besides the acquaintance of my valued friend, its Secretary,
make the acquaintance of the other leaders in this movement.
With best wishes for an uplifting session this autumn, I am
Yours,
H. Weinel, D.D.
[Translated.] University of Goettincen, Germany.
Accept my hearty thanks for your kind invitation to the Fourth International
Congress of Unitarian and Other Liberal Theologians. I do not need to tell you
how much honored I feel by the kind confidence which is expressed in this
invitation. Be assured that I would gladly come and take part in your gather-

637
ing, and that I cherish the positive expectation that I should feel at home among
you and should enjoy the spiritual communion.
Notwithstanding this I shall have to ask you to excuse me if I do not come.
I am at present too much weighed down with labors outside my vocation to
enable me to devote my autumn vacation to a journey to Boston. Journeys
for lecturing purposes in February, March, and April, have taken up almost my
entire vacation this year, and for the autumn I have made other engagements.
The founding of the association Freunde Evangelischer Freiheit (Friends of
Evangelical Freedom) in Hanover, of which you know, and its promotion, also
absorb much of my time and strength, to which must be added scientific inves
tigations. With all my heart, however, I wish your undertaking a great success.
With best esteem, Yours, W. Bousset, D.D.
[Translated.]

University of Heidelberg, Germany.
Your kind invitation to take part in the Congress of religious free thinkers in
Boston I esteem a great honor and pleasure, for which I heartily thank you. I
have from the first had an active sympathy with your endeavors, and I do not
question that in the essential things I should be in good understanding with the
gentlemen of your committee. I have already once enjoyed the kind hospitality
of America, and recall with the greatest respect that world of work and activity.
Under these circumstances I have fully considered the matter, and experienced
a lively wish to accept your invitation. But the hindrances prove too great,
and I can only ask to be excused. I would gladly again visit your beautiful
city of Boston and particularly Harvard University. But I must forego this
pleasure. With sincere thanks, E. Troeltsch, D.D.
[Translated.] Charlottenburg, near Berlin, Germany.
To my great regret I must forego the pleasure and honor of appearing at your
Congress. My work will not this year permit such an interruption. I have
made various literary engagements for which the university vacation is indis
pensable. Express my thanks to the committee, and believe me
Your devoted
[Translated.] Professor Dr. Simons.

Bremen, Germany.
It has not been possible for me to come to the Boston Congress. I can only
inform you by letter that I greet with my whole heart this International
Council of Unitarian and Other Religious Liberals, and wish it all success.
That these free-thinking men should meet in the New World, in your cele-

638
brated city, look into each other's eyes, and form a union of friendship and
community of purpose, is to me a happy reflection and beautiful augury. Truth
is our common aim, and the love of truth unites us all, wherever may be our
field of labor. We know ourselves to be servants of God, and the Christians
among us as disciples of Jesus, who owe it to impart all they have received to
their brethren. We believe that God needs us for His divine purpose, and
counts on us and is well pleased with our endeavors in His cause. So our great
reformer Luther relied entirely on the Word, and through the Word accom
plished so much, and so Tolstoi tells us: "The mightiest of free forces, a force
which cannot be imprisoned, is that which appears in the soul of man when he
in solitariness reflects upon the events of the world, and then in the simplest,
most natural way communicates his thoughts to his wife, his brother, his friend,
and to all with whom he comes in contact, and from whom to withhold the truth
he would deem it to be a sin. Neither milliards of roubles nor millions of
troops, cannon, wars, or revolutions, can bring about that which a free man can
bring to pass if he simply utters that which he knows to be true, entirely inde
pendently of that which is established or which is taught him."
So also I see, prophetically, that the word of the religious free thinkers in
Boston will send its effluent waves hither and thither, will quicken men's souls
and inspire them.
May all the addresses to be held at your Congress fulfil this vision, and all,
on their return home, bear with them this religious and moral momentum, and
impart it from their pulpits or their professional chairs to their brothers, friends,
and the younger generation! It is my hope that your Congress may yet meet
in Germany, and that we may meet face to face with the men with whom we
have long felt ourselves to be united in spirit. Give to all our brothers the
hearty greeting of a liberal pastor of the ancient and free Hanse town, Bremen.
Your devoted,
[Translated.] O. Veeck, D.D.

Wiesbaden, Germany.
I am unfortunately unable to come to the Boston Congress. I send you here
with a modest contribution towards it in the form of a pamphlet, on page 42 of
which you will find it recorded that at the time of the union of Protestant churches
of Nassau the basis was simply the recognition of God, Duty, and Immortality.
This remains to-day the foundation of the common belief of our churches, which
in all essentials is at one with the Unitarian confession of Love to God and Love
to Man as the only necessary bond of the future church of true catholicity and
humanity. This confession needs, however, to be supplemented by the ac
knowledgment of Jesus Christ as the Saviour and Redeemer of men. But in
the religious education of the people by the State the principles of Love to God
and Man are sufficient. The Jesus Cult and the Sacraments may be left to the
administration of the churches.

639
I send greeting to your Fourth International Congress of Progressive and
Liberal Christians, and wish it all success. Th. Schneider, Professor.
[Translated.] Cologne, Germany.
It would be a great pleasure to journey across the ocean and take part in a
gathering in which the representatives of Unitarian faith from all the enlight
ened countries of the earth are assembled. I should return from it strengthened
and inspired. But this may not be, if only because my acquaintance with Eng
lish is defective.
I was eight years and more a German pastor in Bucharest, Roumania, then
in Belgrade, and since 1891 have been a Protestant pastor in Cologne, the only
Unitarian among my colleagues. May the Congress have a brilliant success!
Yours faithfully,
[Translated ] Jatho.

Free Evangelical Congregation,
Koenigsberg, Prussia.
If this year we are unfortunately prevented from sending a delegate to the
Congress of Religious Liberals in Boston, we shall yet, even at this distance,
take part in its proceedings with lively interest and sympathy.
The number of independent, self-sustaining congregations which endeavor to
unite "pure religion and perfect liberty" is, unfortunately, very small as yet in
Germany. All the more do we look for encouragement and the strengthening
of our aims by the International Council of Unitarian and Other Liberal Relig
ious Thinkers and Workers, which justly claims our entire sympathy. In the
year 1884 we were brought into closer relations with the Unitarian fellowship
through our now deceased minister, Dr. Julius Rupp.
We send a hearty greeting to the participants in the Congress, and hope that
the proceedings may take a happy course. Die Freie Evangelische Gemeinde zu
[Translated.] Koenigsberg in Preussen.

Danzig, Prussia.
Accept my warm acknowledgments for the invitation to take part in the
International Congress in Boston.
You are aware with what joy and enthusiasm I participated as a delegate in
the first two Congresses at London and Amsterdam. With the same disposi
tion of the heart I greet the Boston Congress. My love for the great and timely
undertakings of this Association for religious freedom and respect for each
other's religious convictions has since then only increased. I have followed
all their proceedings with the deepest interest, and, if I did not keep in closer

640
touch with you through correspondence, the cause was solely my own occupa
tions and duties, which first had to be attended to.
I particularly welcome the clause in your program which declares that you
do not require of your membership "the acceptance of any formal dogma or
particular church or association," and that you also invite to your Congress the
unchurched and non-church elements in Germany. Personally, I am much
drawn to America, the land of freedom in which I first cast off the fetters
of Rome. Whether I can come to your Congress as a delegate I do not yet
know. Perhaps a representative of the Bund der Freien Religiosen Gemeinden
in Deutschland (Union of Free Religious Congregations in Germany) may yet
be sent to your Boston gathering. The matter is now under consideration by
the committee.
I remain, with respect, Yours, G. Schieler, D.D.,
Minister of the Free Religious Societies of
Danzig and Tilsit, and Member of the Com
mittee of the Union of Free Religious Con-
translated.] gregations in Germany.

Free Religious Congregation,
Mannheim, Baden, Germany.
I ask of you the great favor to convey to the International Congress of Relig
ious Liberals in Boston my sincere sympathies. Gladly would I have come in
person to hear and to see what the active participation of so many prominent and
scholarly men in your land of freedom has been able to accomplish for religious
freedom, and to rejoice and renew my spirit by the spectacle of an inclusive
religious tolerance, which, to judge by your publications, has found a permanent
home among you.
As various circumstances, however, prevent such a journey on my part, I will
at least communicate to you that I have for years past pursued the aims and
activities of the Unitarian body, especially, with the deepest interest, and that I
trust the Boston meeting may help to triumphant results the cause of religious
freedom. I beg to announce my adhesion to your Congress and to enclose the
subscription fee.
With high esteem, Yours,
Georg Schneider,
[Translated.] Minister Frei-retigiose Gemeinde, Mannheim.

Theological Faculty of the University,
Christiania, Norway.
I thank you heartily for the invitation to attend your International Congress
for Liberal Christianity, in which I ought to take part with lively interest and
sympathy. Because of my university duties, it is, however, unfortunately not

641
possible for me to attend it, since only recently I received a leave of absence for
a whole semester in order to prosecute my studies abroad.
I am, with esteem, Yours
Johannes Ordinc, D.D.
[Translated.] Unitarian Society, Christiania, Norway.
We are well organized and very aggressive in our propaganda of liberal
thought. We have a monthly magazine, Unitaren, which I edit, and which
circulates in various parts of the country. We often make use of the daily press.
Norway ought to be represented at the Boston meetings. There are a million
and a half of my countrymen in America: not a few of them are Unitarians.
The prospects for our faith in Norway are brighter. The whole nation is
permeated with religious liberalism, and besides myself there are other men,
more able and prominent than I, fighting our battles and working for our cause.
With best wishes, Yours,
Herman Haugerud,
Minister.

Rotterdam, 1907.
The Remonstrant Society, at its general meeting of the 4th of June, 1907,
appointed Professor H. Y. Groenewegen, D.D., of Leyden, as a delegate and
representative of the Fourth Congress of the International Council of Unitarian
and Other Liberal Thinkers and Workers at Boston, and charged him with the
expression of its heartiest sympathy and best wishes for all the congenial spirits
and fellow-workers who vindicate the principles of freedom and toleration in
religious thought and life. For the Remonstrant Society,
The Board of Delegates.
Leemans, President.
B. Van Stolker, Treasurer.
W. H. Stenfert Kroese, Secretary.

Nederlandsche Hervormde Gemeente,
te St. Petersburg, Russia.
Dear Sirs,— I received the invitation to attend the fourth meeting of the Inter
national Congress of Religious Liberals, and I need hardly tell you that all my
sympathies go with it, and that I should like very much indeed to be present at it.
The enormous distance, however, which separates me from America makes
it impossible for me to undertake this journey.
Wishing you the greatest possible success, I remain
Sincerely yours,
F. C. A. Pantekoek.

642 Budapest, Hungary.
I am duly authorized to ask you to enlist among the members of the Inter
national Council of Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious Thinkers and
Workers the "Budapesti reformatus theologiai tanari kar"; i.e., The Body of
the Professors of the Budapest Reformed Theological Academy, represented
by Professor Tarkas Szots (Budapest, IX., Calvin-ter F.), also editor of the chief
Hungarian religious periodical of both Reformed and Evangelical Protestants,
the Protestans Szemle (Protestant Review), and secretary of the Hungarian
Protestant Literary Society.
I am also authorized to convey to the Boston International Congress of
Religious Liberals the heartfelt greetings and earnest esteem of the said body
of theological professors and the expression of their enthusiastic sympathies
for the work of this Congress in promoting and maintaining religious freedom
and the free cultivation of theological science.
I am very glad to be entitled to make you these communications, and to enjoy
the honor of sending you by post-office order the Congress fee for the said dis
tinguished body of professors.
With best wishes Faithfully your friend, Geza Schulek.

Kolozsvar, Hungary.
Greeting you with the most sympathetic feelings, we pray God's blessing upon
your work.
We intrusted our representative, the Rev. Nicolas Jozan, of Budapest, to
express our heartiest greetings to you by the living word also.
In the name of the Hungarian Unitarian churches, Joseph Ferencz,
Bishop of the Unitarian Churches in Hungary.

Basel, Switzerland.
Honored and dear Fellow-believers, — Accept on the part of our Swiss associa
tion the assurance of our hearty sympathy with your undertaking. May your
World-congress sooner arrive at the goal of "a betterment of the Church in its
head and members" than did the Councils of the Middle Ages, one of which
once held its sessions within the walls of this city of Basel, the present seat
of the Swiss Association for a Free Christianity.
The Rev. G. Schoenholzer, of Zurich, is commissioned to bring you our greet
ings in person.
Conjoined with you in reverence for religious freedom, we subscribe ourselves
[Translated.] General Committee of the Schweizerisches
Verein fuer freies Christentum.
A. Altherr, President.
Hans Baur, Secretary.

643 Geneve, Suisse.
J'ai l'avantage de vous informer que le section de Geneve de I'Union Suisse
du Christianisme liberal, en reponse au d&ir que vous avez exprime\ a design*
pour la repr&enter au Congrfes Unitaire de Boston, Messieurs les Pasteurs Ernest
Rochat et Louis Maystre.
Veuillez dire a nos amis des Etats-Unis combien le sympathique empresse-
ment qu'ils n'avaient mis a traverser l'ocean, pour se rendre a notre appel, au
Congres Unitaire de Geneve, a laisse" une profonde et durable impression dans
les divers milieux du protestantisme genevois.
Veuillez aussi leur transmettre, avec le salut fraternal de la Section de Geneve,
ses voeux pour l'entier succes du Congres Unitaire de Boston dans lequel reside
pour tous l'espoir de realiser nouvelle e"tape du progres de la cause libeYale.
Agreer, Monsieur, mes salutations devouees, pour la Section de Geneve de
I'Union Suisse du Chiistianisme liberal. L. Marechal.

Wellington, New Zealand.
To the International Council of Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious Thinkers
meeting in Boston:
Rev. Dr. Tudor Jones and his congregation (about 400) send hearty greetings
to the Boston Congress.
The Liberal Religious movement is making great progress in New Zealand.
Best wishes, W. Tudor Jones.

Calcutta, India.
In response to your kind invitation received by the last mail, we, on behalf of
the Brahmo-Somaj in India, send to the Fourth International Congress of Relig
ious Liberals our cordial greetings. The blessing of God rest upon the Congress
and its work. May it prosper from year to year!
We regret it will not be possible to send any delegates, this session, to the
Congress from India. The Brahmo-Somaj Committee, however, has just sent
a second scholar, Mr. Binay mohon Sehanavis, B.A., to the Meadville Theolog
ical School, and it is hoped he will arrive in Boston just in time to attend the
meetings of the Congress before proceeding to Meadville.
I remain Fraternally yours, B. Nath Sen,
Secretary Brahmo-Somaj Committee.

Calcutta, India.
I remember to have read in one of your communications to the Brahmo-Somaj
Committee an expression of your earnest hope to hold the conference once in

644
India. We are anxious that the conference of 1909 may be held in this ancient
home of many historic religions. One of the subjects to be settled at the coming
Theistic Conference of India is a proposal of inviting the International Council
to hold its biennial conference of 1909 in India. I shall be very much obliged if
you will kindly let me know if there is a fair possibility of the Council's accepting
the invitation. The principal meetings will no doubt have to be held in Cal
cutta during the winter; but many of the visitors may profitably visit some of
the important towns as well, and we shall be able to organize well-attended
meetings in such towns as Bombay, Madras, Lahore, Delhi, Benares. Of
course the details might be settled later on,
Yours sincerely,
Hem Chandra Sarkar,
Secretary Theistic Conference.

Ballygung, Calcutta, India.
. . . Feeling myself honored by your invitation, and especially thankful for
your kind offer, I am sorry to inform you that, amongst other causes, the growing
infirmities of my parents, and especially of my dear mother, will not permit me
to be far away from them. I am their only son, and they are broken-hearted
over my apostasy from old Hinduism. So I am keeping as close to them as pos
sible during their last days, which cannot be prolonged too long. I need hardly
remark that it would have given me the sincerest pleasure to be associated with
all of you in a noble work. Very truly yours, Siva N. Sastri.

Prarthana Samaj Mandir,
Girgaon. Bombay, India.
I have the pleasure of acknowledging receipt of your letter inviting the Bom
bay Prarthana Samaj to participate in the proceedings of the Biennial Inter
national Congress to be held in Boston September next.
In reply, I am directed by the Managing Committee of the Samaj to request
you to be good enough to convey to your Council the best thanks of the Samaj
for the honor so done to them, and to inform you that the Samaj fully sym
pathizes with the aims and objects of the Council, and wishes every success to
the proposed Congress. The committee has requested Mr. V. A. Sukthanker,
a member of this Samaj who is at present in Germany, to attend the Congress
on behalf of this Samaj, and give the Council all the information regarding this
movement personally. In case he is not able to do so, I am sending you under
separate cover a copy of the last printed report of this institution, which is
identical in its creed and purpose with that known as the Brahmo-Samaj in
other parts of the country. I trust this will furnish you with all the necessary
information desired. Yours fraternally, Secretary Prarthana Samaj.

645
Banda, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, India.
I very heartily respond to the Bulletin of the Fourth International Congress
of Religious Liberals to be held in Boston, "the home of Dr. William Ellery
Channing," one of whose "spiritual descendants" I claim to be, having from
him received the first inspiration of the ideal cosmopolitan Christianity.
Proud though I am to count myself among the "Religious Liberals," as a
matter of fact, I am conservative, never having advanced further than the truly
representative Christian, the nineteenth-century exponent of the religion of
Christ, Channing, whom I love to call "Saint," uncanonized though he remain.
Christianity I own, the religion of Christ, the religion which for its founda
tion stone has "glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will towards
men," and whose fellowship is as open and as all-embracing as the sympathies
of the typical Christian, the " Good Samaritan," who has, I fear, not yet a church
dedicated to him in the length and breadth of Christendom. Unitarian to the
backbone, avowing monotheism with the Jew, the Christian, and the Moham
medan, I have ceased to designate myself by that name, because I find the
epithet not broad enough and I realize Dr. Martineau's objection to be so
labelled. For similar reasons I am disinclined to describe myself a Unitarian
without ceasing to be one in reality, and I prefer to assume the name "Christian"
without any adjective, and do not feel tired of explaining my position when the
question arises as to what I am and what not, though the process is not simple.
The great matter for wonder is that the most liberal definition of Christianity
was given by the most conservative of the apostles, Saint Peter, who by pro
claiming "God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth
Him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him," voiced the sentiments
of the truly International Congress of Religious Liberals of all ages and all
countries, — the truth of which, when fully realized, establishes a creed of universal
brotherhood, which has not yet been understood and I am afraid was not
grasped in its entirety even by him who gave utterance to those words.
A Christian from India, I send my hearty greetings to you, dear brethren, who
have come together from various lands to attend the Fourth International Con
gress of Religious Liberals, now holding its sessions most appropriately on the
soil of the United States, typical of the World Republic wherein every child of
God is destined to be "a law unto himself.'' Aebar Masih.

Ram Mohun Ashram, Girgaon, Bombay.
Allow me to offer through you my personal greetings as well as those on behalf
of my Samaj to the Council which is doing the noblest service to humanity in
the name of the Father of all. While writing this, most unspeakably sweet
memories are reviving in me of the gathering at Amsterdam, in which I had the
privilege of being present. I do not know if any one will be able to go from here
to America, and I shall be very sorry if there be no delegate from us in the

646
meetings of this year. However my friend, Mr. G. Subba Rau is there, and,
I hope he will represent our cause.
Wishing every success to your cause, I remain Yours sincerely, V. R. Shinde.

Midnapur, Bengal, India.
To the Members of the International Congress of Liberal Thinkers and
Workers assembled in Boston, Greeting. Brethren, may blessings of the good
Father rest upon you and your Congress, is the prayer of J. C. Ganguli.
Shillong, Khasi Hills, India.
I have much pleasure in communicating to you the following resolution of the
Khasi Hills Unitarian Union passed at its twentieth annual meetmg on the ist
of April, 1907: —
That this meeting respectfully sends its greetings and sense of gratitude to
the forthcoming meetings of the International Council of Unitarian and Other
Liberal Religious Thinkers and Workers at Boston, U.S.A.
Yours respectfully, Kynjro Singh,
Secretary Khasi Hills Unitarian Union.
Valparaiso, Chile.
It is only natural that one of Puritan extraction, living in a South American
Republic, should, by virtue of circumstances, be compelled to ask for generous
treatment at the hands of the people among whom he resides, so that he may be
free to follow the dictates of his own conscience and to worship God according
to the teaching and custom of godly parents or the promptings of the divine
indwelling spirit. And what we desire for ourselves we should certainly be
willing and anxious to see granted to all men. Naturally, therefore, anything
which you can do to scatter the seed of liberal thought or quicken the growth
of liberal ideals has my hearty sympathy and approval.
I received your kind invitation to attend the International Congress of
Religious Liberals, but am, of course, too far away to attend, but enclose my
membership fee, and by way of greeting enclose some lines which I had written
the very morning of the day which brought your letter. If you feel that the
lines have in them a real uplift and that they in any way voice the spirit of what
you purpose, you are free to make such use of them as you choose. Love of
nature, joy in life, a striving to voice the appeal of the beautiful and earnest
yearning after the Divine One, our Father, are the same the world over.
With cordial greetings, Sincerely yours,
John Trumbull.

647 National Library, Lima.
I am more than grateful to the Senorita Carolina Huidobro for the oppor
tunity which she has given me to present to you the homage of my sincere appre
ciation and consideration.
The high-minded, noble, and precious aspirations which sensitize a liberal
creed have always been the ones which have dominated my own spirit, and
believe me, were it not for my failing health, together with my advanced age,
nothing would have stood in the way of having the great honor of attending the
coming Congress to meet in Boston.
With sentiments of personal consideration, I am at your service as your faith
ful co-religionist and affectionate helper,
[Translated.] Ricardo Palma.

Pittsburg, Penn.
As a Protestant Congregation whose articles are based on the conviction that
the truth, unhampered by human prepossessions, wishes, or hopes, can alone
yield to the individual, and to society as a whole, inward and outward freedom,
and lead to the development of life in an ideal direction, we rejoice in the coming
together of the International Council of Unitarian and Other Religious Thinkers
and Workers, with whose objects and aims we feel ourselves at one.
We therefore beg to communicate to you our best wishes, and to ask you to
receive our minister, Rev. Dr. J. H. Asbeck, as our representative at the Con
gress. With esteem, The Standing Committee of the First
German United Evangelical Con
gregation of Duquesne Heights,
Pittsburg, Penn.
[Translated.] By Redjhold Gramm, Secretary.

Cincinnati, Ohio, August i, 1907.
Dear Sir, — I have your communication addressed to me as president of the
Central Conference of American Rabbis, and requesting me to appoint delegates
to represent the conference at the forthcoming Congress of Religious Liberals
to be held in Boston in September. I regret extremely that your communica
tion did not reach me several weeks sooner, in time for the meeting of the Exec
utive Committee of the Conference, which took place on July 10. I do not feel
empowered to take so important a step as appointing delegates to represent the
Congress officially without the authorization of the Executive Committee. As
this committee will not meet again till the middle of October, no action can be
taken upon your communication in time for the Boston meeting. Personally,
I am in hearty sympathy with the aims of the Congress, and I would take the
greatest pleasure in attending, were it at all possible for me to do so.

648
In answer to your second communication requesting a statement of the doc
trines of Reform Judaism, I am sending you under separate cover a copy of my
recently published book, "The Reform Movement in Judaism." On pages
488-489 you will find the Declaration of Principles of the Philadelphia Rabinnical
Conference of 1885 and on pages 492-510 the resolutions and activities of the
Central Conference of American Rabbis.
Wishing you and your co-laborers much success in this latest co-operative
effort for the liberation of the world's religious thought, I am
Very truly yours, David Philipson,
President of the Central Conference of
American Rabbis.

649

INDEX OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

American Unitarian Association
Building  20
Andre", Rev. L. E. T  469

Berg, Theo 
Bisbee, Rev. Frederick A. . .
Bonet-Maury, Prof. G. . .
Bowie, Rev. W. Copeland
Bowring, Sir William B., Bart.
Carpenter, Prof. J. Estlin
Crothers, Rev. Samuel M.
Davis, Rev. Valentine D.

Eliot, Pres. Charles W.
Eliot, Rev. Samuel A.
Eucken, Prof. Rudolf

Fischer, Rev. Max
Fleischer, Rev. F. C.
Frothingham, Rev. Paul R.
Gordon, Rev. George A. .
Groenewegen, Prof. H. Y.
Gi;oup of Foreign Delegates
Guild, Hon. Curtis . .. .

Hale, Rev. Edward E. .
Hamilton, Pres. F. W. .
Houtin, Abbe A. ...
Howe, Mrs. Julia Ward
Hugenholtz, Rev. P. H.
Hunter, Rev. John . .

Jones, Rev. Jenkin Lloyd
Jozan, Rev. Nicolas

4°5 148
469 277 277277117
308 117 53
372 372
500 181
148
500
Title 117 84
212
469 84
500 308 181
405

Kanda, Rev. Saichiro
Lindberg, Prof. O. E.
Long, Hon. John D. .

OPPOSITE PAGE
• 341
4°5 117

Maddison, Hon. Frederick, M.P., 277
Masaryk, Prof. Thomas G. . . 405
Mead, Edwin D  148
Meyboom, Prof. H. U  500
Montet, Prof, fidouard . . . 436

Pfleiderer, Prof. Otto
Rade, Prof. Martin .
Ragaz, Rev. Leonhard
Rau, Prof. G. Subba
ReviUe, Prof. Jean
Rochat, Rev. Ernest .

372
372436
34i 469436

Schoenholzer, Rev. Gottfried . 436
Sehanavis, B. M  341
Slicer, Rev. Thomas R. . . . 84
Southworth, Rev. Franklin G., 181
Street, Rev. Christopher J. . 308
Strong, Rev. Charles .... 341
Tarrant, Rev. William G. . 308
von Petzold, Rev. Miss Gertrude, 181
Washington, Pres. Booker T. 84
Wendte, Rev. Charles W. • • 148
Weston, Rev. J. B  212
Whiton, Dr. J. M  212
Wilbur, Henry W. . . . .212

6so

INDEX OF SPEAKERS.

Ames, Rev. Charles G  486
Andre", Rev. L. E. T. 200, 557, 617
BarakatuUah, M. . . 542
Beach, Rev. Seth C. . . . 47
Berg, Theodore . . . 115
Bisbee, Rev. Frederick A. 464
Bloomfield, Meyer  572
Bonet-Maury, Prof. Gaston . . 218,
625, 628
Bowie, Rev. W. Copeland . 66, 625
Bowring, Sir William B., Bart., 579
Bulkeley; Rev. Benjamin R. 141
Carter, Rev. Charles F. . 484
Christie, Prof. F. A  291
Cornish, Rev. Louis C  606
Cope, Henry T  445
Crooker, Rev. Joseph H. . . . 494
Crothers, Rev. Samuel M., 575, 593

Davis, Rev. J. Tyssul .
Davis, Mrs. R. H. . . .
Davis, Rev. Valentine D.

Dole, Rev. Charles F.

Eliot, Pres. Charles W. .
Eliot, Rev. Samuel A. .
64
Eucken, Prof. Rudolf

S7S

Fenn, Prof. William W.
Fischer, Rev. Max . . .
Fleischer, Rabbi Charles
Fleischer, Rev. F. C. .
Frothingham, Rev. Paul R

613 55 1
242,
624, 626
• ¦ 5«

240, 281
• • 48,
, 601, 611
• • 378 3°9
. 76, 629
523
398, 625
• ¦ 32S

PAGE
Gordon, Rev. George A. . . . 199,
3°i. 358
Groenewegen, Prof. Henry Y. . 165,
39°. 6°3
Guild, Hon. Curtis  576
Hale, Rev. Edward E. . 39, 553, 573
Hamilton, Pres. F. W  98
Harris, S  629
Heron, Rev. Arthur  488
Hinds, Senator  569
Holden, Rev. F. W  561
Hosmer, Rev. Frederick L. . . 31
Houtin, Abbe" A  232
Howe, Mrs. Julia Ward . . . 32, 570
Hunter, Rev. John . 332, 625, 626
Hugenholtz, Rev. P. H. ... 456
Jones, Rev. Jenkin LI  469
474. 493. 593
Joshi, J. L  536
Jozan, Rev. Nicolas . . . 153, 555
Kanda, Rev. Saichiro . . 525, 629
Kelly, Rev. J. A  615
Knowlton, Hon. Marcus P. . . 317
Lawford, H. Bowring .... 593
Lincoln, Hon. F. H  605
Lindberg, Prof. O. E. . . 124, 593
Long, Hon. John D  240
Lord, Hon. Arthur  598
Low, Miss Emma C. . . 546
Maddison, Hon. Frederick, M.P., 495,
593. 625
Masaryk, Prof. Thomas G., 142, 563

65i
PAGK PAGE
Meyboom, Prof. H. U. . . 587 Schoenholzer, Rev. Gottfried, 359, 629
Montet, Prof. Edouard .... 244, Slicer, Rev. Thomas R. . . 33
588, 626, 623 Smith, Prof. Goldwin ... 139
Moore, Prof. George F. . . 378 Southworth, Rev. Franklin C. . 442
Morton, Hon. James M. . 524, 529 Street, Rev. Christopher J. . . 368,
624, 625
Norman, Rev. A. H  566 Strong, Rev. Charles  130
Summers, Rev. Frederick . . . 624
Peabody, Prof. Francis G. . 272,378
Pfleiderer, Prof. Otto, 255, 583, 628 Tarrant, Rev. WiUiam G. . . . 378,
Phalen, Rev. Frank A  609 jIO) 625
Pierce, Rev. Ulysses G. ... 25
Pope, Rev. Charles  617 Van Eyck, Miss Theodora . 547
Puddefoot, Rev. W. G. . . . 491 Van Ness, Rev. Thomas ... 545
Von Petzold, Rev. Miss Gertrude,
Rade, Prof. Martin . . 100, 418 551, 625, 629
Ragaz, Rev. Leonhard . . 502, 629
Rau, Prof. G. Subba  530 Washington, Pres. Booker T. 43
ReviUe, Prof. Jean . 89, 585, 619, 625 Webster, Rev. Alexander . 184, 629
Richmond, Miss Mary E. . 136, Wendte, Rev. Charles W. . . 1, 25,
378, 552. 593. 62S 53. 582, 598
Rihbany, Rev. Abraham M. . 593 Weston, Rev. J. B  481
Rochat, Rev. Ernest . ... 173 Whiton, Dr. J. M. . . . 253, 471
Roper, Rev. Charles  622 Wilbur, Henry W  474
Rutnam, Prof. S. C. K. . 591, 625 Wright, Pres. CarroU D. . . . 274

118 6640