are satisfied, but because they can do no better. Not only the elders among the clergy, but the elders among the laity even more, complain of the evident degeneracy of learning in the liberal body.

There is some justice in these fears of the elders, though, doubtless, they are too great, and the evil is not so serious as it seems. While we admit that the proportion of educated men in the ministry is much smaller than it was in the last generation, and that skill in some branches of theological study has ceased to be a praise of the Unitarian body, we cannot allow that it has been seized, or that it is as yet ruled by unlettered men. In proportion to its numbers, the Unitarian body probably still stands as well in scholarship as any religious sect. In some branches it fails, especially in the critical study of the Biblical text; but in other branches it has gained, rather than lost. Some of the ablest works of theological science have been produced in the last years, works which apply reason and logic to theology with admirable acuteness, and make the best part of what we call "our literature."

It must be admitted, however, that these come from men who have passed the prime of their days, and were trained by the former methods. Shall we expect any works of this kind from the new generation? Allowing, nevertheless, that much of this complaint is well-founded, it may suggest an inquiry into the claim of the liberal religion to be peculiarly a religion of culture and refinement, — a religion which has vested rights in the arts of scholarship. Perhaps we err in supposing learning to be necessary to this faith, or favorable to this faith. Perhaps it is true that a rational religion is properly the religion of unlettered men, while the faith of the schools is naturally of another kind. Possibly we mistake an accident of our history for an essential condition of our faith. Possibly we have misread our history, in finding that the growth of liberal opinion is due to the superior scholarship of its teachers. At any rate, we are now forward to claim, that the liberal faith is just as fit for unlearned as for learned men, just as congenial to their

temper, just as adequate to their needs, just as good for their use.

Let us consider first, for a moment, this question of the history of liberal opinion in this country. Where did it come from? Not specially from theological studies or inquiries; not specially from diligent search in the Scripture. It is just as true of liberal as of orthodox arguments from Scripture, that they were resorts to sustain a foregone conclusion. It is easy for us now to see how intelligent knowledge of the Divine word justifies a liberal scheme of opinion; but it is not safe to infer, that such knowledge brought, in the beginning, that scheme of opinion. The fact is, that the free-thinking outside of the Church, the spirit of the age in the last century, the teachings of French philosophers, the influence of revolutions and of democratic ideas, did a great deal more to bring defections from the ancient faith than any zeal of Biblical studies. Our rational theology began in abstract ideas, in theories more secular than religious; and its Biblical support was an after-thought. Indeed, we may as well confess, however shapely the buttresses which Biblical study builds around the rational faith, that this study, in the letter at least, is not the corner-stone and foundation of the rational faith. A liberal Christian will not give up his ideas, even if the word of Scripture shall seem to deny them. The word may go, but the truth must stay.

The most learned Biblical scholars of New England found no reason to waver in their orthodoxy in studying the text, even when it was illustrated by all sorts of heathen learning. They knew much more than their successors, yet they were stern in their defence of the ancient formulas. The masters of Biblical divinity, both in this land and in the Old World, have been usually eminent for their orthodoxy. It is free study, more than Biblical study, which makes men liberal; and the liberal theology comes from the influence of secular science upon religious ideas. The Bible may seem to a Unitarian or a Universalist a very clear witness for his own articles of faith; but he cannot show that these were first suggested by the teaching of that book, or that the witness of

--

the book is all on their side. Historically, neither in the Old World nor in the New, has liberal opinion been the product of theological training, but of other influences. The Trivium of the schoolmen—logic, rhetoric, and grammar-was a friend to orthodox dogmas, rather than a foe. The danger came from other sciences, less hallowed. While it is true that there has been much good theological writing on the liberal side in this country, it is equally true that the preponderance of special theological scholarship has always been on the side of orthodoxy. In special theological studies, pursued, as these generally are, to the exclusion of physical science, of political and social questions, following the ancient method of dogma, hermeneutics, and pastoral care, with some account of the affairs of religious sects and parties, carefully distinguished from the general course and meaning of human history, there is really no liberalizing tendency. We sometimes wonder, that, in the use of all this critical apparatus of reviews and commentaries and dogmatic summaries, students of theology should be able to keep the faith of the fathers, and almost doubt the honesty of those who so sin against their light. But in reality the wonder is, that any should come out with a broad theology where there is so much pains taken to make faith narrow and technical. The Princeton graduate learns his liberalism, not from the ancient books of divinity, to which the modern are only helps, but from the world into which he goes. And, if the Cambridge graduate is not as orthodox as the Princeton, it is because he has a better faith to start with, which disposes him to another style of proof. There is nothing in special theological studies that compels one to the opinions of Channing or Parker; though when the field is widened, and secular and religious studies are identified, that issue may seem inevitable.

Another fancy of the former time was, that the liberal faith is especially the religion of cultured men, reserved for the educated and refined, and not acceptable to the poor and ignorant. The experiment of Unitarian ministries to the humbler classes seemed quixotic to many, and doomed

-

to failure at the start. How could these unlettered men be brought to take the proper faith of the enlightened? Liberal Christianity, it was maintained, was and must ever be an aristocratic religion, a religion for the chosen few prepared by birth or training for its large and dignified ideas. But somehow that fancy is vanishing, and we are coming to see that it never had any good foundation. Not only does it seem natural, that a simple faith, which is nearest to natural religion, should be most acceptable to simple and untutored minds; but it has been proved, by experiment and by history, that these minds prefer a faith which has few rudiments. Our ministries to the poor are not a failure in this direction any more than was the ministry of Jesus a failure among those ignorant Jews. The class which preferred the gospel when it was of the simplest type, - the worship of a good Father by works of humble obedience and brotherly love,was the poorer class, the ignorant class. The Pharisees and Scribes would not take so simple a faith; and, when the gospel addressed itself to the higher orders, and invited the pupils of the schools and the rulers in the halls, then it took on the Greek metaphysics, and disguised itself in subtilties and mysteries. The rude Goths preferred the Arian to the Athanasian faith; and, if we may believe Colenso, those Zulus of the Cape receive more willingly the simple teaching which he gives them, than any orthodox refinements. Ignorance goes with superstition, is ready to believe signs and wonders, and to tremble before mysteries; but, in the matter of mere dogma and formula, it takes most readily the simplest style,—the statements of the Sermon on the Mount, or the parables, rather than the refinements about faith in the Epistle to the Romans, or about sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is not the metaphysics of orthodoxy which wins the unlearned, but the fear of its pretensions; its threat and its promise, not its ingenious scheme. The ignorant Catholic knows nothing of the theology of St. Thomas or St. Anselm, but only remembers that the priest at the altar keeps the keys of the kingdom of God. Apart from this force of anathema, the system of the creeds would

have far less charm for the humbler classes than the system of a rational religion, which any hearer can understand. At any rate, there is nothing in a rational faith which makes it unsuitable for the masses of men; and it is well that we are now vehemently asserting this, asserting that Unitarians are just as much in their place when calling in the outcasts of the greater cities, or the pioneers of the frontiers, or the dusky, wondering freedmen of the South, as in repeating their graceful ethics of the gospel to the comfortable owners of cushioned pews; that all the opportunity of our faith is not limited in the charmed circle of Harvard College, or of the habitual readers of the "Christian Register" and the "Boston Advertiser." It is well that we insist that some will come in from the highways and the hedges, to hear the word which we bring; certainly in this Western land, where the wedding guests seem to be better provided for.

If these things are so, if the liberal faith is good for unlettered men, and if knowledge is not essential to its growth and strength, where is the use, it may be asked, of any education for the ministry? Why should we spend so much time and zeal and money, in preparing men for a duty which is so simple, and so little dependent upon the aid of culture? Why should it be needful to force a college training upon the religious guides whose work is only to repeat the command of goodness, and to show the easy and plain way of obedience to the Divine law? Why should it be asked of the demonstrators of this practical saving word, that they should be expert in classic tongues, and should have read in heathen mythologies? What need of any special theological training to make known the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man; to convince of sin, or persuade to holiness? Why ask more than the average intelligence for a work so free from all technical refinements? If a man has a clear conscience, an earnest soul, and a good voice, why cannot he go at once from the common school or the work-bench, and ask men, in the liberal fashion, to be reconciled to God? Why must we set between his desire and his labor this season of preparation, which may chill the zeal