CHAPTER III. CHAPTER III. 
"What will they then
But force tbe spirit of grace itself, and bind
His consort Liberty? what but unbuild
His living temples, built by faith to stand,
Their own faith, not another's?"
Milton.
"Truth shall spring out of tbe earth;
And righteousness shall look down from heaven."
85th Psalm.
The inquiry concerning the working of the voluntary system inAmerica,--the only country where it operates without anestablishment by its side,-- takes two directions. It is asked,first, whether religion is administered sufficiently to thepeople: and, secondly, what is the character of the clergy.
The first question is easily answered. The eagerness forreligious instruction and the means of social worship are sogreat that funds and buildings are provided wherever societyexists. Though the clergy bear a larger proportion to men ofother occupations, I believe, than is the case anywhere, exceptperhaps in the Peninsula, they are too few for the religiouswants of the people. Men are wanting; but churches and funds aresufficient. According to a general summary of religiousdenominations,* made in 1835, the number of churches orcongregations was 15,477; the population being, exclusive of theslaves, between fifteen and sixteen millions; and a notinconsiderable number being settlers scattered in places tooremote for the formation of regular societies, with settledministers. To these 15,477 churches there were only 12,130ministers. If to these settled clergy, there are added thelicentiates and candidates of the Presbyterian church, the localpreachers of the Methodists, the theological students, and quakeradministrators, it will be acknowledged that the number ofreligious teachers bears an unusually large proportion to thepopulation. Yet the Baptist sect alone proclaims a want of abovethree thousand ministers to supply the existing churches. Everyexertion is made to meet the religious wants of the people. TheAmerican Education Society has assisted largely in sending forthyoung ministers: the Mission and Bible Societies exhibit largeresults. In short, society in the United States offers everyconceivable testimony that the religious instincts of the peoplemay be trusted to supply their religious wants. It is only withinfour or five years that this has been fully admitted even in theState of Massachusetts. Up to 1834, every citizen of that Statewas obliged to contribute something to the support of some sector church. The inconsistency of this obligation with truedemocratic principle was then fully perceived, and religion leftwholly to voluntary support. It is needless to say that the eventhas fully justified the confidence of those who have faith enoughin Christianity to see that it needs no protection from theState, but will commend itself to human hearts better without.
As to the other particular of the inquiry,--the character ofthe clergy,--more is to be said.
It is clear that there is no room under the voluntary systemfor some of the worst characteristics which have disgraced allchristian priesthoods. In America, there can be no grasping afterpolitial power; no gambling in a lottery of church livings; noworldly pomp and state. These sins are plecluded under avoluntary system, in the midst of a republic. Instead of thesethings, we find the protestant clergy generally belonging to thefederal party, when they open their lips upon politics at all.They belong to the apprehensive party; according to allprecedent. It would be called strange if it did not almostuniversally happen, that (with the exception of the politicalchurchmen of the Old World) they who uphold a faith which shallremove mountains, who teach that men are not to fear "themthat kill the body, and afterwarcls have no more that they cando," are the most timid class of society; the most backwardin all great conflicts of principles. They have ever restedinvisible in their tents, when any wrestling was going on betweenmorals and abuses. They have ever, as a body, belonged to thearistocrat and fearing party. So it is in Amcrica, where thefearing party is depressed; as it has ever been where thearistocratic party is uppermost.
The clergy in America are not, as a body, seekers of wealth.It is so generally out of their reach, that the adoptionof the clerical profession is usually an unequivocal testimony totheir disinterestedness about money. I say "usually,"because there are exceptions. The profession has been one of suchhigh honour that it rises to an equality with wealth. It iscommon, not to say usual, that young clergymen, who are almostinvariably from poor families, marry ladies of fortune. Wherethere are several sisters in a rich family, it seems to beregarded as a matter of course that one will marry a clergyman.Amidst some good which arises out of this practice, there is theenormous evil, not peculiar to America, that adventurers aretempted into the profession. Not a few planters in the southbegan life as poor clergymen, and obtained by marriage the meansof becoming planters. Not a few pastors in the north grow moresleek than they ever were saintly, and go through two safe andquiet preachments on Sundays, as the price of theirweek-day ease. But, as long as the salaries of ministers are somoderate as they now are, it cannot be otherwise than that thegreater number of clergy enter upon their profession in full viewof the life of labour, with small pecuniary recompense. Therecan, I think, be no question that the vocation is adopted frommotives as pure as often actuate men; and that the dangers towhich the clergy succumb arise afterwards out of theirdisadvantageous position.
It is to be wished that some alteration could be made in themode of remunerating the clergy. At present, they have usuallysmall salaries and large presents. Nothing is more natural thanthat grateful individuals or flocks should like to testify theirrespect for their pastor by adding to his comforts and luxuries:but, if all the consequences were considered, I think thepractice would be forborne, and the salary increased instead. Inthe present state of morals, it happens that instances are rarewhere one person can give pecuniary benefit to another withoutinjury to one or both. Sympathy, help, may be given, with greatmutual profit; but rarely money or money's worth.** This arisesfrom the false associations which have been gathered roundwealth, and have implicated it too extensively with mental andmoral independence. Any one may answer for himself the questionwhether it is often possible to regard a person to whom he isunder pecuniary obligation with precisely the same freedom, fromfirst to last, which would otherwise exist. If among people ofsimilar views, objects, and interests, this is felt as adifficulty, it is aggravated into a great moral danger whenspiritual influences are to be dispensed by the aided and obligedparty. I see no safety in anything short of a strict rule on thepart of an honourable pastor to accept of no gift whatever. Thiswould require some self-denial on the part of his friends; butthey ought to be aware that giving gifts is the coarsest andlowest method of testifying respect and affection. Many ways areopen to them: first by taking care that their pastor has such afixed annual provision made for him as will secure him from thetoo heavy pressure of family cares; and then by yielding him thathonest friendship, and plain-spoken sympathy, (without anyreligious peculiarity,) which may animate him in his studies andin his ministrations.
The American clergy being absolved from the common clericalvices of ambition and cupidity, it remains to be seen whetherthey are free also from that of the idolatry of opinion. Theyenter upon their office generally with pious and benevolentviews. Do they retain their moral independence in it?--I cannotanswer favourably.
The vices of any class are never to be imputed with the fullforce of disgraces to individuals. The vices of a class mustevidently, from their extent, arise from some overpoweringinfluences, under whose operation individuals should berespectfully cormpassionated, while the morbid influences arecondemned. The American clergy are the most backward and timidclass in the society in which they live; self-exiled from thegreat moral questions of the time; the least informed with trueknowledge; the least efficient in virtuous action; the leastconscious of that christian and republican freedom which,as the native atmosphere of piety and holiness, it is their primeduty to cherish and diffuse. The proximate causes of theirdegeneracy in this respect are easily recognised.
It is not merely that the living of the clergy depends on theopinion of those whom they serve. To all but the far andclear-sighted it appears that the usefulness of their functiondoes so. Ordinary men may be excused for a willingness to seizeon the precept about following after the things that make forpeace, without too close an inquiry into the nature of thatpeace. Such a tendency may be excused, but not praised, inordinary men. It must be blamed in all pastors who believe thatthey have grasped purer than ordinary principles of gospelfreedom.
The first great mischief which arises from the disinclinationof the clergy to bring what may be disturbing questions beforetheir people, is that they themselves inevitably undergo aperversion of views about the nature of their pastoral office. Totake the most striking instance now presented in the UnitedStates. The clergy have not yet begun to stir upon theAnti-Slavery question. A very few Presbyterian clergymen havenobly risked everything for it; some being members of Abolitionsocieties; and some professors in the Oberlin Institute and itsbranches, where all prejudice of colour is discountenanced. Butthe bulk of the Presbyterian clergy are as fierce as theslave-holders against the abolitionists. I believe they would notobject to have Mr. Breckinridge considered a sample of theirbody. The episcopalian clergy are generally silent on the subjectof Human Rights, or give their influence against theAbolitionists. Not to go over the whole list of denominations, itis sufficient to mention that the ministers generally areunderstood to be opposed to abolition, from the circumstances oftheir silence in the pulpit, their conversation in society, andthe conduct of those who are most under their influence. I passon to the Unitarians, the religious body with which I am bestacquainted, from my being a Unitarian myself. The Unitariansbelieve that they are not liable to many superstitions whichcramp the minds and actions of other religionists. They profess areligion of greater freedom; and declare that Christianity, asthey see it, has an affinity with all that is free, genial,intrepid, and true in the human mind; and that it is meant to becarried out into every social arrangement, every speculation ofthought, every act of the life. Clergymen who preach this live ina crisis when a tremendous conflict of principles is takingplace. On one side is the oppressor, struggling to keep his powerfor the sake of his gold; and with him the mercenary, thefaithlessly timid, the ambitious, and the weak. On the other sideare the friends of the slave; and with them those who, withoutpossibility of recompense, are sacrificing their reputations,their fortunes, their quiet, and risking their lives, for theprinciple of freedom. What are the Unitarian clergy doing amidstthis war which admits of neither peace nor truce, but which mustend in the subjugation of the principle of freedom, or ofoppression?
I believe Mr. May had the honour of being the first Unitarianpastor who sided with the right. Whether he has sacrificed to hisintrepidity one christian grace; whether he has lost one charm ofhis piety, gentleness, and charity, amidst the trials of insultwhich he has had to undergo, I dare appeal to his worst enemy.Instead of this, his devotion to a most difficult duty has calledforth in him a force of character, a strength of reason, of whichhis best friends were before unaware. It filled me with shame forthe weakness of men, in their noblest offices, to hear theinsolent compassion with which some of his priestly brethrenspoke of a man whom they have not light and courage enough tofollow through the thickets and deserts of duty, and upon whomthey therefore bestow their scornful pity from out of their shadybowers of complacency.--Dr. Follen came next: and there isnothing in his power that he has not done and sacrificed inidentifying himself with the cause of emancipation. I heard him,in a perilous time, pray in church for the "miserable,degraded, insulted slave; in chains of iron, and chains ofgold." This is not the place in which to exhibit what hissacrifices have really been.--Dr. Channing's later services arewell known. I know of two more of the Unitarian clergy who havemade an open and dangerous avowal of the right: and of one or twowho have in private resisted wrong in the cause. But this is all.As a body they must, though disapproving slavery, be ranked asthe enemies of the abolitionists. Some have pleaded to me that itis a distasteful subject. Some think it sufficient that they cansee faults in individual abolitionists. Some say that theirpulpits are the property of their people, who are not thereforeto have their minds disturbed by what they hear thence. Some saythat the question is no business of theirs. Some urge that theyshould be turned out of their pulpits before the next Sunday, ifthey touched upon Human Rights. Some think the subject notspiritual enough. The greater number excuse themselves on theground of a doctrine which, I cannot but think, has grown out ofthe circumstances; that the duty of the clergy is to decide onhow much truth the people can bear; and to administer itaccordingly.--So, while society is going through the greatest ofmoral revolutions, casting out its most vicious anomaly, andbringing its Christianity into its politics and its socialconduct, the clergy, even the Unitarian clergy, are some pityingand some ridiculing the apostles of the revolution; preachingspiritualism, learning, speculation; advocating third andfourth-rate objects of human exertion and amelioration, andleaving it to the laity to carry out the first and pressing moralreform of the age. They are blind to their noble mission ofenlightening and guiding the moral sentiment of society in itsgreatest crisis. They not only decline aiding tbe cause inweekdays by creed or pen, or spoken words; but they agree inprivate to avoid the subject of Human Rights in the pulpit tillthe crisis be past. No one asks them to harrow the feelings oftheir hearers by sermons on slavery: but they avoidoffering those christian principles of faith and liberty withwhich slavery cannot co-exist.
Seeing what I have seen, I can come to no other conclusionthan that the most guilty class of the community in regard to theslavery question at present is, not the slave-holding, nor eventhe mercantile, but the clerical: the most guilty, because notonly are they not blinded by life-long custom and prejudice, norby pecuniary interest, but they profess to spend their lives inthe study of moral relations, and have pledged themselves todeclare the whole counsel of God.--Whenever the day comes for theright principle to be established, let them not dare to glory inthe glory of their country. Now, in its martyr-age, they shrinkfrom being confessors. It will not be for them to march in to thetriumph with the "glorious army." Yet, if the clergy ofAmeriea follow the example of other rear-guards of society, theywill be the first to glory in the reformation which they havedone their utmost to retard.
The fearful and disgraceful mistake about the true nature ofthe clerical office,--the supposition that it consists inadapting the truth to the minds of the hearers,--is alreadyproducing its effect in thinning the churchs, and impelling thepeople to find an administration of religion better suited totheir need. The want of faith in other men and in principles, andthe superabundant faith in themselves, shown in this notion ofpastoral duty, (which has been actually preached, as well aspleaded in private,) are so conspicuous, as to need no furtherexposure. The history of priesthoods may be referred to as anexhibition of its consequences. I was struck at first with anadvocacy of Ordinances among some of the Unitarian clergy, whichI was confident must go beyond their own belief. I was told thata great point was made of them, (not as observances but asordinances,) because the public mind required them. I saw aminister using vehement and unaccustomed action, (of coursewholly inappropriate,) in a pulpit not his own; and was told thatthat set of people required plenty of action to be assured thepreacher was in earnest. I was told that when prejudices andinterests have gathered round any point of morals, truth ceasesto be truth, and it becomes a ministet's duty to avoid the topicaltogether. The consequences may be anticipated.--"What doyou think, sir, the people will do, as they discover thebackwardness of their clergy?" I heard a minister of onesect say to a minister of another.--"I think, sir, they willsoon require a better clergy," was the reply. The people arerequiring a better clergy. Even in Boston, so far behind thecountry as that city is, a notable change has already takenplace. A strong man, full of enlarged sympathies, has not onlydiscerned the wants of the time, but set himself to do what oneman may to supply them. He invites to worship those who think andfeel with him, as to what their communion with the Father mustbe, to sustain their principles and their cheer in this tryingtime. A multitude flocks round him; the earnest spirits of thecity and the day, whose full hearts and worn spirits can findlittle ease and refreshment amidst the abstract and inappropriateservices of ministers who give them truth as they judge they canreceive it. Nothing but the whole truth will satisfy those whoare living and dying for it. The rising up of this new church inBoston is an eloquent sign of the times.***
An extraordinary revelation of the state of the case betweenthe clergy and the people was made to me, most unconsciously, bya minister who, by the way, acknowledges that he avoids, onprinciple, preaching on the subjects which interest him most: hethinks he serves his people best, by carrying into the pulpitsubjects of secondary interest to himself. This gentleman,shocked with the tidings of some social tyranny on theanti-slavery question, exclaimed, "Such a revelation of thestate of people's minds as this, is enough to make one leaveone's pulpit, and set to work to mend society." What avolume do these few words disclose, as to the relation of theclergy to the people and the time!
What the effect would be of the clergy carrying religion intowhat is most practically important, and therefore mostinteresting, is shown as often as opportunity occurs; which isall too seldom. When Dr. Channing dropped, in a sermon lastwinter, that legislatures as well as individuals were bound to dothe will of God, every head in the church was raised or turned;every eye waited upon him. When another minister preached onbeing 'alone,' and showed how the noblest benefactors of therace, the truest servants of God, must, in striking out into newregions of thought and action, pass beyond the circle of commonhuman sympathies, and suffer accordingly, many a stout heartmelted into tears; many a rigid face crimsoned with emotion; andthe sermon was repeated and referred to, far and near, under thename of "the Garrison sermon;" a name given to it, notby the preacher, but by the consciences of some and thesympathies of others. Contrast with such an effect as this theinfluence of preaching, irrelevant to minds and seasons. If suchsayings are admired or admitted at the moment, they are soonforgotten, or remembered only in the general. "Don't youthink," said a gentleman to me, "that sermons are sadlyuseless things for the most part? admonitions strung like bird'seggs on a string; so that they tell pretty much the same,backwards or forwards, one way or another."
It appears to me that the one thing in which the clergy ofevery kind are fatally deficient is faith: that faith which wouldlead them, first, to appropriate all truth, fearlessly andunconditionally; and then to give it as freely as they havereceived it. They are fond of apostolic authority. What wouldPaul's ministry have been if he had preached on everything butidolatry at Ephesus, and licentiousness at Corinth? There werepeople whose silver shrines, whose prejudices, whose false moralprinciples were in danger. There were people who were asunconscious of the depth of their sin as the oppressors of thenegro at the present day. How would Paul have then finished hiscourse? If he had stopped short from the expediency of notdividing a honsehold against itself, in case such should be theconsequence of giving true principles to the air; if, dreading tobreak up the false peace of successful lucre and overbearingprofligacy, he had confined himself to speculations like thosewith which he won the ear of the Athenians, carefully avoidingall allusions to Diana at Ephesus, and to temperance and judgmentto come at Corinth, what kind of an apostle would he have been?Very like the American christian clergy of the nineteenthcentury.
The next great mischief that arises from the fear of opinionwhich makes the clergy keep aloof from the stirring questions ofthe time, is that they are deprived of that influence, (thehighest kind of all,) that men exert by their individualcharacters and convictions. Their character is comparativelyuninfluential from its being supposed professional; and theirconvictions, because they are concluded to be formed fromimperfect materials. A clergyman's opinions on politics, and onother affairs of active life in which morals are most implicated,are attended to precisely in proportion as he is secular in hishabits and pursuits. A minister preached, a few years ago,against discount, and high prices in times of scarcity. Themerchants of his flock went away laughing: and the pastor hasnever got over it. The merchants speak of him as a very holy man,and esteem his services highly for keeping their wives, children,and domestics in strict religious order: but in preaching tothemselves he has been preaching to the winds ever since thatday. A liberal-minded, religious father of a family said to me,"Take care how you receive the uncorroborated statements ofclergymen about that;" (a matter of social fact;) "theyknow nothing about it. They are not likely to know anything aboutit." "Why?" "Because there is nobody to tellthem. You know the clergy are looked upon by all grown men as asort of people between men and women." In a republic, wherepolitics afford the discipline and means of expression of everyman's morals, the clergy withdraw from, not only all partymovements, but all political interests. Some barely vote: othersdo not even do this. Their plea is, as usual, that public opinionwill not bear that the clergy should be upon the same footing asto worldly affairs as others. If this be true, public opinionshould not be allowed to dictate their private duty to the moralteachers of society. A clergyman should discharge the duties of acitizen all the more faithfully for the need which the publicthus show themselves to be in of his example. But, if it be true,whence arises the objection of the public to the clergydischarging the responsibilities of citizens, but from thepopular belief that they are unfitted for it? If the democracysee that the clergy are almost all federalists, and thefederalist merchants and lawyers consider the clergy so littlefit for common affairs as to call them a set of people betweenmen and women, it is easy to see whence arises the dislike totheir taking part in politics; if indeed the dislike reallyexists. The statement should not, however, be taken on the wordof the clergy alone; for they are very apt to think that thepeople cannot yet bear many things in which the flocks havealready outstripped their pastors.
A third great mischief from the isolation of the clergy isthat, while it deprives them of the highest kind of influencewhich is the prerogative of manhood, it gives them a lowerkind:--an influence as strong as it is pernicious to others, anddangerous to themselves;--an influence confined to the weakmembers of society; women and superstitious men. By such they arecalled "faithful guardians." Guardians of what? Ahealthy person may guard a sick one: a sane man may guard alunatic: a grown person may guard a child: and, for socialpurposes, an appointed watch may guard a criminal. But how canany man guard his equal in spiritual matters, the most absolutelyindividual of all? How can any man come between another's souland the infinite to which it tends? If it is said that they areguardians of truth, and not of conscience, they may be asked fortheir warrant. God has given his truth for all. Each is to layhold of what he can receive of it; and he sins if he devolvesupon another the guardianship of what is given him for himself.As to the fitness of the clergy to be guardians, it is enough tomention what I know: that there is infidelity within the walls oftheir churches of which they do not dream; and profligacy amongtheir flocks of which they will be the last to hear. Even inmatters which are esteemed their peculiar business, the state offaith and morals, they are more in the dark than any otherpersons in society. Some of the most religious and moral personsin the community are among those who never enter their churches;while among the company who sit at the feet of the pastor whilehe refines upon abstractions, and builds a moral structure uponimperfect principles, or upon metaphysical impossibilities, thereare some in whom the very capacity of stedfast belief has beencruelly destroyed; some who hide loose morals under a strictprofession of religion; and some if possible more lost still, whohave arrived at making their religion co-exist with theirprofligacy. Is there not here something like the blind leadingthe blind?
Over those who consider the clergy "faithfulguardians," their influence, as far as it is professional,is bad; as far as it is that of friendship or acquaintanceship,it is according to the characters of the men. I am disposed tothink ill of the effects of the practice of parochial visiting,except in cases of poor and afflicted persons, who have littleother resource of human sympathy. I cannot enlarge upon thedisagreeable subject of the devotion of the ladies to the clergy.I believe there is no liberal-minded minister who does not see,and too sensibly feel, the evil of women being driven back uponreligion as a resource against vacuity; and of there being aprofessional class to administer it. Some of the most sensibleand religious elderly women I know in America speak, with astrength which evinces strong conviction, of the mischief totheir sex of ministers entering the profession young and poor,and with a great enthusiasm for parochial visiting. There is novery wide difference between the auricular confession of thecatholic church, and the spiritual confidence reposed inministers the most devoted to visiting their flocks. Enough maybe seen in the religious periodicals of America about the helpwomen give to young ministers by the needle, by raisingsubscriptions, and by more toilsome labours than they should beallowed to undergo in such a cause. If young men cannot earn withtheir own hands the means of finishing their education, andproviding themselves with food and clothing, without the help ofwomen, they may safely conclude that their vocation is to gettheir bread first; whether or not it may be to preachafterwards.**** But this kind of dependence is whollyunnecessary. There is more provision made for the clergy thanthere are clergy to use it.
A young clergyman came home, one day, and complained to methat some of his parochial visiting afflicted him much. He hadbeen visiting and exhorting a mother who had lost her infant; asorrow which he always found he could not reach. The mourner hadsat still, and heard all he had to say: but his impression wasthat he had not met any of her feelings; that he had done nothingbut harm. How should it be otherwise? What should he know of thegrief of a mother for her infant? He was sent for, as a kind ofcharmer, to charm away the heart's pain. Such pain is not sent tobe charmed away. It could be made more endurable only bysympathy, of all outward aids: and sympathy, of necessity, he hadnone; but only a timid pain with which to aggravate her's. It wasnatural that he should do nothing but harm.
My final impression is, that religion is best administered inAmerica by the personal character of the most virtuous members ofsociety, out of the theological profession: and next, by the actsand preachings of the members of that profession who are the mostsecular in their habits of mind and life. The exclusivelyclerical are the worst enemies of Christianity, except thevicious.
The fault is not in the Voluntary System; for the case isequally bad on both sides the Atlantic: and an Establishment likethe English does little more than superadd the danger of acareless, ambitious, worldly clergy,***** in the richerpriests of the church, and an overworked and ill-recompensed setof working clergy. The evil lies in a superstition which noestablishment can ever obviate; in the superstition, to use thewords of an American clergyman, "of believing that religionis something else than goodness." From this it arises thatan ecclesiastical profession still exists; not for the study oftheological science, (which is quite reasonable,) but for thedispensing of goodness. From this it arises that ecclesiasticalgoodness is practically separated from active personal and socialgoodness. From this it arises that the yeomanry of America, thosewho are ever in the presence of God's high priest, Nature, andout of the worldly competitions of a society sophisticated withsuperstition, are perpetually in advance of the rest of thecommunity on the great moral questions of the time, while theclergy are in the rear.
What must be done? The machinery of administration must bechanged. The people have been brought up to suppose that they sawChristianity in their ministers. The first consequence of thismistake was, that Christianity was extensively misunderstood; asit still is. The trying moral conflicts of the time are acting asa test. The people are rapidly discovering that the supposedfaithful mirror is a grossly refracting medium; and the blessedconsequence will be, that they will look at the object forthemselves, declining any medium at all. The clerical professionis too hard and too perilous a one, too little justifiable on theground of principle, too much opposed to the spirit of thegospel, to outlive long the individual research into religion, towhich the faults of the clergy are daily impelling the people.
To what then must we meantime trust for religion?--To theadministration of God, and the heart of man. Has not God his ownways, unlike our ways, of teaching when man misteaches? Itis worth travelling in the wild west, away from churches andpriests, to see how religion springs up in the pleasant woods,and is nourished by the winds and the star-light. The child onthe grass is not alone in listening for God's tramp on the floorof his creation. We are all children, ever so listening. Impulsesof religion arise wherever there is life and society; wheneverhope is rebuked, and fear relieved; wherever there is love to becherished, and age and childhood to be guarded. If it be true, asmy friend and I speculated, that religious sensibility is bestawakened by the spectacle of the beauty of holiness, religion iseverywhere safe; for this beauty is as prevalent, more or lessperceptibly, as the light of human eyes. It is safe as long asthe gospel history is extant. The beauty of holiness is there soresplendent, that, to those who look upon it with their own eyes,it seems inconceivable that, if it were once brought unveiledbefore the minds of men, every one would not adopt it into hisreason and his affections from that hour. It has beenreorganising and vivifying society from the day of its advent. Itis carrying on this very work now in the New World. Theinstitutions of America are, as I have said, planted down deepinto Christianity. Its spirit must make an effectual pilgrimagethrough a society, of which it may be called a native; and nomistrust of its influences can for ever intercept that spirit inits mission of denouncing anomalies, exposing hypocrisy, rebukingfaithlessness, raising and communing with the outcast, anddriving out sordidness from the circuit of this, the mostglorious temple of society that has ever yet been reared. Thecommunity will be christian as sure as democracy is christian.
* This summary does not pretend to be complete, but it is thenearest approximation to fact that can be obtained. According toit the Episcopalian Methodists are the most numerous sect: thenthe Catholics, Calvinistic Baptists, Presbyterians,Congregationalists, Christians, Episcopalians, and Quakers, Theother denominations follow, down to the Tunkers and Shakers,which are the smallest.
** "It is a mortifying trutb, that two men in any rank ofsociety could hardly be found virtuous enough to give money, andto take it, as a necessary gift, without injury to the moralentireness of one or both. But so stands the fact."
Edinburgh Revew. xlviii. p. 303.
*** See Appendix E, for a part of a discourse by Orestes A.Brownson on the Wants of the Times. It is given as it fell fromhis lips, and not as a specimen of his practice of composition.The reader, however, will probably be no more disposed toremember anything about style in the presence of this discourse,than Mr. Brownson's hearers are wont to be.
**** See Appendix F.
***** It is amusing to see how our aristocratic andecclesiastical institutions strike simple republicans. I wasasked whether the English Bishops were not a necessaryintermedite aristocracy between the Lords and the Commons.
From Harriet Martineau, Society in America, VolumeIII, Part IV, Chapter III - "Administration ofReligion." London: Saunders and Otley, 1837, pp. 271-296.
Forward to Society in America, VolumeIII, Part IV, "Conclusion."
Back to Society in America, Volume III,Part IV, Chapter II -"Spirit of Religion."
Back to Society in America - Table ofContents
Back to the Dead Sociologists'Society Index