Produced by David Starner, Christopher Lund, Charles Franks
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
UNITARIANISM IN AMERICA
A History of its Origin and Development
BY
GEORGE WILLIS COOKE
MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, ETC.
PREFACE.
The aim I have had in view in writing this book has been to give a history
of the origin of Unitarianism in the United States, how it has organized
itself, and what it has accomplished. It seemed desirable to deal more
fully than has been done hitherto with the obscure beginnings of the
Unitarian movement in New England; but limits of space have made it
impossible to treat this phase of the subject in other than a cursory
manner. It deserves an exhaustive treatment, which will amply repay the
necessary labor to this end. The theological controversies that led to the
separation of the Unitarians from the older Congregational body have been
only briefly alluded to, the design of my work not requiring an ampler
treatment. It was not thought best to cover the ground so ably traversed by
Rev. George E. Ellis, in his Half-century of the Unitarian Controversy;
Rev. Joseph Henry Allen, in his Our Liberal Movement in Theology; Rev.
William Channing Gannett, in his Memoir of Dr. Ezra Stiles Gannett; and by
Rev. John White Chadwick, in his Old and New Unitarian Beliefs. The attempt
here made has been to supplement these works, and to treat of the practical
side of Unitarianism,--its organizations, charities, philanthropies, and
reforms.
With the theological problems involved in the history of Unitarianism this
volume deals only so far as they have affected its general development. I
have endeavored to treat of them fairly and without prejudice, to state the
position of each side to the various controversies in the words of those
who have accepted its point of view, and to judge of them as phases of a
larger religious growth. I have not thought it wise to attempt anything
approaching an exhaustive treatment of the controversies produced by the
transcendental movement and by "the Western issue." If they are to be dealt
with in the true spirit of the historical method, it must be at a period
more remote from these discussions than that of one who participated in
them, however slightly. I have endeavored to treat of all phases of
Unitarianism without reference to local interests and without sectional
preferences. If my book does not indicate such regard to what is national
rather than to what is provincial, as some of my readers may desire, it is
due to inability to secure information that would have given a broader
character to my treatment of the subject.
The present work may appear to some of its readers to have been written in
a sectarian spirit, with a purpose to magnify the excellences of
Unitarianism, and to ignore its limitations. Such has not been the purpose
I have kept before me; but, rather, my aim has been to present the facts
candidly and justly, and to treat of them from the standpoint of a student
of the religious evolution of mankind. Unitarianism in this country
presents an attempt to bring religion into harmony with philosophy and
science, and to reconcile Christianity with the modern spirit. Its effort
in this direction is one that deserves careful consideration, especially in
view of the unity and harmony it has developed in the body of believers who
accept its teachings. The Unitarian body is a small one, but it has a
history of great significance with reference to the future development of
Christianity.
The names of those who accept Unitarianism have not been given in this book
in any boastful spirit. A faith that is often spoken against may justify
itself by what it has accomplished, and its best fruits are the men and
women who have lived in the spirit of its teachings. In presenting the
names of those who are not in any way identified with Unitarian churches,
the purpose has been to suggest the wide and inclusive character of the
Unitarian movement, and to indicate that it is not represented merely by a
body of churches, but that it is an individual way of looking at the facts
of life and its problems.
In writing the following pages, I have had constantly in mind those who
have not been educated as Unitarians, and who have come into this
inheritance through struggle and search. Not having been to the manner born
myself, I have sought to provide such persons with the kind of information
that would have been helpful to me in my endeavors to know the Unitarian
life and temper. Something of what appears in these pages is due to this
desire to help those who wish to know concretely what Unitarianism is, and
what it has said and done to justify its existence. This will account for
the manner of treatment and for some of the topics selected.
When this work was begun, the design was that it should form a part of the
exhibit of Unitarianism in this country presented at the seventy-fifth
anniversary of the formation of the American Unitarian Association. The
time required for a careful verification of facts made it impossible to
have the book ready at that date. The delay in its publication has not
freed the work from all errors and defects, but it has given the
opportunity for a more adequate treatment of many phases of the subject.
Much of the work required in its preparation does not show itself in the
following pages; but it has involved an extended examination of manuscript
journals and records, as well as printed reports of societies, newspapers,
magazines, pamphlets, and books. Many of the subjects dealt with, not
having been touched upon in any previous historical work, have demanded a
first-hand study of records, often difficult to find access to, and even
more difficult to summarize in an interesting and adequate manner.
I wish here to warmly thank all those persons, many in number and too
numerous to give all their names, who have generously aided me with their
letters and manuscripts, and by the loan of books, magazines, pamphlets,
and newspapers. Without their aid the book would have been much less
adequate in its treatment of many subjects than it is at present. Though I
am responsible for the book as it presents itself to the reader, much of
its value is due to those who have thus labored with me in its preparation.
In manuscript and in proof-sheet it has been read by several persons, who
have kindly aided in securing accuracy to names, dates, and historic facts.
G.W.C.
BOSTON, October 1, 1902.
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.--ENGLISH SOURCES OF AMERICAN UNITARIANISM
Renaissance
Reformation
Toleration
Arminianism
English Rationalists
II. THE LIBERAL SIDE OF PURITANISM
The Church of Authority and the Church of Freedom
Seventeenth-century Liberals
Growth of Liberty in Church Methods
A Puritan Rationalist
Harvard College
III. THE GROWTH OF DEMOCRACY IN THE CHURCHES
Arminianism
The Growth of Arminianism
Robert Breck
Books Read by Liberal Men
The Great Awakening
Cardinal Beliefs of the Liberals
Publications defining the Liberal Beliefs
Phases of Religious Progress
IV. THE SILENT ADVANCE OF LIBERALISM
Subordinate Nature of Christ
Some of the Liberal Leaders
The First Unitarian
A Pronounced Universalist
Other Men of Mark
The Second Period of Revivals
King's Chapel becomes Unitarian
Other Unitarian Movements
Growth of Toleration
V. THE PERIOD OF CONTROVERSY
The Monthly Anthology
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Piety, and Charity
General Repository
The Christian Disciple
Dr. Morse and American Unitarianism
Evangelical Missionary Society
The Berry Street Conference
The Publishing Fund Society
Harvard Divinity School
The Unitarian Miscellany
The Christian Register
Results of the Division in Congregationalism
Final Separation of State and Church
VI. THE AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION
Initial Meetings
Work of the First Year
Work of the First Quarter of a Century
Publication of Tracts and Books
Domestic Missions
VII. THE PERIOD OF RADICALISM
Depression in Denominational Activities
Publications
A Firm of Publishers
The Brooks Fund
Missionary Efforts
The Western Unitarian Conference
The Autumnal Conventions
Influence of the Civil War
The Sanitary Commission
Results of Fifteen years
VIII. THE DENOMINATIONAL AWAKENING
The New York Convention of 1865
New Life in the Unitarian Association
The New Theological Position
Organization of the Free Religious Association
Unsuccessful Attempts at Reconciliation
The Year Book Controversy
Missionary Activities
College Town Missions
Theatre Preaching
Organization of Local Conferences
Fellowship and Fraternity
Results of the Denominational Awakening
IX. GROWTH OF DENOMINATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS
"The Western Issue"
Fellowship with Universalists
Officers of the American Unitarian Association
The American Unitarian Association as a Representative Boy
The Church Building Loan Fund
The Unitarian Building in Boston
Growth of the Devotional Spirit
The Seventy-fifth Anniversary
X. THE MINISTRY AT LARGE
Association of Young Men
Preaching to the Poor
Tuckerman as Minister to the Poor
Tuckerman's Methods
Organization of Charities
Benevolent Fraternity of Churches
Other Ministers at Large
Ministry at Large in Other Cities
XI. ORGANIZED SUNDAY-SCHOOL WORK
Boston Sunday School Society
Unitarian Sunday School Society
Western Unitarian Sunday School Society
Unity Clubs
The Ladies' Commission on Sunday-school Books
XII. THE WOMEN'S ALLIANCE AND ITS PREDECESSORS
Women's Western Unitarian Conference
Women's Auxiliary Conference
The National Alliance
Cheerful Letter and Post-office Missions
Associate Alliances
Alliance Methods
XIII. MISSIONS TO INDIA AND JAPAN
Society respecting the State of Religion in India
Dall's Work in India
Recent Work in India
The Beginnings in Japan
XIV. THE MEADVILLE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL
The Beginnings in Meadville
The Growth of the School
XV. UNITARIAN PHILANTHROPIES
Unitarian Charities
Education of the Blind
Care of the Insane
Child-saving Missions
Care of the Poor
Humane Treatment of Animals
Young Men's Christian Unions
Educational Work in the South
Educational Work for the Indians
XVI. UNITARIANS AND REFORMS
Peace Movement
Temperance Reform
Anti-slavery
The Enfranchisement of Women
Civil Service Reform
XVII. UNITARIAN MEN AND WOMEN
Eminent Statesmen
Some Representative Unitarians
Judges and Legislators
Boston Unitarianism
XVIII. UNITARIANS AND EDUCATION
Pioneers of the Higher Criticism
The Catholic Influence of Harvard University
The Work of Horace Mann
Elizabeth Peabody and the Kindergarten
Work of Unitarian Women for Education
Popular Education and Public Libraries
Mayo's Southern Ministry of Education
XIX. UNITARIANISM AND LITERATURE
Influence of Unitarian Environment
Literary Tendencies
Literary Tastes of Unitarian Ministers
Unitarians as Historians
Scientific Unitarians
Unitarian Essayists
Unitarian Novelists
Unitarian Artists and Poets
XX. THE FUTURE OF UNITARIANISM
APPENDIX.
A. Formation of the Local Conferences
B. Unitarian Newspapers and Magazines
UNITARIANISM IN AMERICA.
A HISTORY OF ITS ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT.
I.
INTRODUCTION.--ENGLISH SOURCES OF AMERICAN UNITARIANISM.
The sources of American Unitarianism are to be found in the spirit of
individualism developed by the Renaissance, the tendency to free inquiry
that manifested itself in the Protestant Reformation, and the general
movement of the English churches of the seventeenth century toward
toleration and rationalism. The individualism of modern thought and life
first found distinct expression in the Renaissance; and it was essentially
a new creation, and not a revival. Hitherto the tribe, the city, the
nation, the guild, or the church, had been the source of authority, the
centre of power, and the giver of life. Although Greece showed a desire for
freedom of thought, and a tendency to recognize the worth of the individual
and his capacity as a discoverer and transmitter of truth, it did not set
the individual mind free from bondage to the social and political power of
the city. Socrates and Plato saw somewhat of the real worth of the
individual, but the great mass of the people were never emancipated from
the old tribal authority as inherited by the city-state; and not one of the
great dramatists had conceived of the significance of a genuine
individualism.[1]
[Sidenote: Renaissance.]
The Renaissance advanced to a new conception of the worth and the capacity
of the individual mind, and for the first time in history recognized the
full social meaning of personality in man. It sanctioned and authenticated
the right of the individual to think for himself, and it developed clearly
the idea that he may become the transmitter of valid revelations of
spiritual truth. That God may speak through individual intuition and
reason, and that this inward revelation may be of the highest authority and
worth, was a conception first brought to distinct acceptance by the
Renaissance.
A marked tendency of the Reformation which it received from the Renaissance
was its acceptance of the free spirit of individualism. The Roman Church
had taught that all valid religious truth comes to mankind through its own
corporate existence, but the Reformers insisted that truth is the result of
individual insight and investigation. The Reformation magnified the worth
of personality, and made it the central force in all human effort.[2] To
gain a positive personal life, one of free initiative power, that may in
itself become creative, and capable of bringing truth and life to larger
issues, was the chief motive of the Protestant leaders in their work of
reformation. The result was that, wherever genuine Protestantism appeared,
it manifested itself by its attitude of free inquiry, its tendency to
emphasize individual life and thought, and its break with the traditions of
the past, whether in literature or in religion. The Reformation did not,
however, bring the principle of individuality to full maturity; and it
retained many of the old institutional methods, as well as a large degree
of their social motive. The Reformed churches were often as autocratic as
the Catholic Church had been, and as little inclined to approve of
individual departures from their creeds and disciplines; but the motive of
individualism they had adopted in theory, and could not wholly depart from
in practice. Their merit was that they had recognized and made a place for
the principle of individuality; and it proved to be a developing social
power, however much they might ignore or try to suppress it.
[Sidenote: Reformation.]
In its earliest phases Protestantism magnified the importance of reason in
religious investigations, although it used an imperfect method in so doing.
All doctrines were subjected more or less faithfully to this test, every
rite was criticised and reinterpreted, and the Bible itself was handled in
the freest manner. The individualism of the movement showed itself in
Luther's doctrine of justification by faith, and his confidence in the
validity of personal insight into spiritual realities. Most of all this
tendency manifested itself in the assertion of the right of every believer
to read the Bible for himself, and to interpret it according to his own
needs. The vigorous assertion of the right to the free interpretation of
the Word of God, and to personal insight into spiritual truth, led their
followers much farther than the first reformers had anticipated.
Individualism showed itself in an endless diversity of personal opinions,
and in the creation of many little groups of believers, who were drawn
together by an interest in individual leaders or by a common acceptance of
hair-splitting interpretations of religious truths.[3]
The Protestant Church inculcated the law of individual fidelity to God, and
declared that the highest obligation is that of personal faith and purity.
What separated the Catholic and the Protestant was not merely a question of
socialism as against individualism,[4] but it was also a problem of outward
or inward law, of environment or intuition as the source of wholesome
teaching, of ritualism or belief as the higher form of religious
expression. The Protestants held that belief is better than ritual, faith
than sacraments, inward authority than external force. They insisted that
the individual has a right to think his own thoughts and to pray his own
prayer, and that the revelation of the Supreme Good Will is to all who
inwardly bear God's image and to every one whose will is a centre of new
creative force in the world of conduct. They affirmed that the individual
is of more worth than the social organism, the soul than the church, the
motive than the conduct, the search for truth than the truth attained.
These tendencies of Protestantism found expression in the rationalism that
appeared in England at the time of the Commonwealth, and especially at the
Restoration. All the men of broader temper proclaimed the use of reason in
the discussion of theological problems. In their opinion the Bible was to
be interpreted as other books are, while with regard to doctrines there
must be compromise and latitude. We find such a theologian as Chillingworth
recognizing "the free right of the individual reason to interpret the
Bible."[5] To such men as Milton, Jeremy Taylor, and Locke the free spirit
was essential, even though they had not become rationalists in the modern
philosophical sense. They were slow to discard tradition, and they desired
to establish the validity of the Bible; but they would not accept any
authority until it had borne the test of as thorough an investigation as
they could give it. The methods of rationalism were not yet understood, but
the rational spirit had been accepted with a clear apprehension of its
significance.
[Sidenote: Toleration.]
Toleration had two classes of advocates in the seventeenth century,--on the
one hand, the minor and persecuted sects, and, on the other, such of the
great leaders of religious opinion as Milton and Locke. The first clear
assertion of the modern idea of toleration was made by the Anabaptists of
Holland, who in 1611 put into their Confession of Faith this declaration of
the freedom of religion from all state regulation: "The magistrate is not
to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, nor compel men to this
or that form of religion, because Christ is King, and Lawgiver of the
church and conscience." When the Baptists appeared in England, they
advocated this principle as the one which ought to control in the relations
of church and state. In 1614 there was published in London a little tract,
written by one Leonard Busher, a poor laborer, and a member of the Baptist
church that had recently been organized there. The writer addressed the
King and Parliament with a statement of his conviction "that by fire and
sword to constrain princes and peoples to receive that one true religion of
the Gospel is wholly against the mind and merciful law of Christ."[6] He
went on to say that no king or bishop is able to command faith, that it is
monstrous for Christians to vex and destroy each other on account of
religious differences. The leading Protestant bodies, especially the
established churches, still held to the corporate idea of the nature of
religious institutions; and, although they had rejected the domination of
the Roman Church, they accepted the control of the state as essential to
the purity of the church. This half-way retention of the corporate spirit
made it impossible for any of the leading churches to give recognition to
the full meaning of the Protestant idea of the worth of the individual
soul, and its right to communicate directly with God. It remained for the
persecuted Baptists and Independents, too feeble and despised to aspire to
state influence, to work out the Protestant principle to its full
expression in the spirit of toleration, to declare for liberty of
conscience, the voluntary maintenance of worship, and the separation of
church and state.
After the Restoration, and again after the enthronement of William and
Mary, it became a serious practical problem to establish satisfactory
relations between the various sects. All who were not sectarian fanatics
saw that some kind of compromise was desirable, and the more liberal wished
to include all but the most extreme phases of belief within the national
church. When that national church was finally established on the lines
which it has since retained, and numerous bodies of dissenters found
themselves compelled to remain outside, toleration became more and more
essential, in order that the nation might live at peace with itself. From
generation to generation the dissenters were able to secure for themselves
a larger recognition, disabilities were removed as men of all sects saw
that restrictions were useless, and toleration became the established law
in the relations of the various religious bodies to each other.
[Sidenote: Arminianism.]
The conditions which led to toleration also developed a liberal
interpretation of the relations of the church to the people, a broader
explanation of doctrines, and a rational insight into the problems of the
religious life. One phase of this more comprehensive religious spirit was
shown in Arminianism, which was nothing more than an assertion of
individualism in the sphere of man's relations to God. Calvinism maintained
that man cannot act freely for himself, that he is strictly under the
sovereignty of the Divine Will. The democratic tendency in Holland, where
Arminianism had its origin, expressed itself in the declaration that every
man is free to accept or to reject religious truth, that the will is
individual and self-assertive, and that the conscience is not bound.
Arminius and his coworkers accepted what the early Protestant movement had
regarded as essential, that religion should be always obedient to the
rational spirit, that nature should be the test in regard to all which
affects human conduct, and that the critical spirit ought to be applied to
dogma and Bible. Arminius reasserted this freedom of the human spirit, and
vindicated the right of the individual mind to seek God and his truth
wherever they may be found.
As Protestantism became firmly established in England, and the nation
accepted its mental and moral attitude without reserve, what is known as
Arminianism came to be more and more prevalent. This was not a body of
doctrines, and it was in no sense a sectarian movement: it was rather a
mental temper of openness and freedom. In a word, Arminianism became a
method of religious inquiry that appealed to reason, nature, and the needs
of man. It put new emphasis on the intellectual side of religion, and it
developed as a moral protest against the harsher features of Calvinism. It
gave to human feelings the right to express themselves as elements in the
problem of man's relations to God, and vindicated for God the right to be
deemed as sympathetic and loving as the men who worship him.
While the Arminians accepted the Bible as an authoritative standard as
fully as did the Calvinists, they were more critical in its study: they
applied literary and historical standards in its interpretation, and they
submitted it to the vindication of reason. They sought to escape from the
tyranny of the Bible, and yet to make it a living force in the world of
conduct and character. They not only declared anew the right of private
judgment, but they wished to make the Bible the source of inward spiritual
illumination,--not a standard and a test, but an awakener of the divine
life in the soul. They sought for what is really essential in religious
truth, limited the number of dogmas that may be regarded as requisite to
the Christian life, and took the position that only what is of prime
importance is to be required of the believer. The result was that
Arminianism became a positive aid to the growth of toleration in England;
for it became what was called latitudinarian,--that is, broad in temper,
inclusive in spirit, and desirous of bringing all the nation within the
limits of one harmonizing and noble-minded church.
[Sidenote: English Rationalists.]
It was in such tendencies as these, as they were developed in Holland and
England, that American Unitarianism had its origin. To show how true this
is, it may be desirable to speak of a few of the men whose books were most
frequently read in New England during the eighteenth century. The prose
writings of Milton exerted great influence in favor of toleration and in
vindication of reason. Without doubt he became in his later years a
believer in free will and the subordinate nature of Christ, and he was true
to the Protestant ideal of an open Bible and a free spirit in man. Known as
a Puritan, his pleas for toleration must have been read with confidence by
his coreligionists of New England; while his rational temper could not have
failed to have its effect.
His vindication of the Bible as the religion of Protestants must have
commended Chillingworth to the liberal minds in New England; and there is
evidence that he was read with acceptance, although he was of the
established church. Chillingworth was of the noblest type of the
latitudinarians in the Church of England during the first half of the
seventeenth century; for he was generously tolerant, his mind was broad and
liberal, and he knew the true value of a really comprehensive and inclusive
church, which he earnestly desired should be established in England. He
wished to have the creed reduced to the most limited proportions by giving
emphasis to what is fundamental, and by the extrusion of all else. It was
his desire to maintain what is essential that caused him to say: "I am
fully assured that God does not, and therefore that man ought not, to
require any more of any man than this--to believe the Scripture to be God's
word, to endeavor to find the true sense of it, and to live according to
it."[7]
He would therefore leave every man free to interpret the Bible for himself,
and he would make no dogmatic test to deprive any man of this right. The
chief fact in the Bible being Christ, he insisted that Christianity is
loyalty to his spirit. "To believe only in Christ" is his definition of
Christianity, and he would add nothing to this standard. He would put no
church or creed or council between the individual soul and God; and he
would direct every believer to the Bible as the free and open way of the
soul's access to divine truth. He found that the religion of Protestants
consisted in the rational use of that book, and not in the teachings of the
Reformers or in the confessions they devised. It is the great merit of
Chillingworth that he vindicated the spirit of toleration in a broad and
noble manner, that he was without sectarian prejudice or narrowness in his
desire for an inclusive church, and that he spoke and wrote in a truly
rational temper. He applied reason to all religious problems, and he
regarded it as the final judge and arbiter. Religious freedom received from
him the fullest recognition, and no one has more clearly indicated the
scope and purpose of toleration.
Another English religious leader, much read in New England, was Archbishop
Tillotson. It has been said of him that "for the first time since the
Reformation the voice of reason was now clearly heard in the high places of
the church."[8] He was an Arminian in his sympathies, and held that the way
of salvation is open to all who choose to accept its opportunities. He
expressed himself as being as certain that the doctrine of eternal decrees
is not of God as he was sure that God is good and just. His ground for this
opinion was that it is repugnant to the convictions of justice and goodness
natural to men. He maintained that we shall be justified before God by
means of the reformation that is wrought in our own lives. We have an
intuition of what is right, and a natural capacity for living justly and
righteously. Experience and reason he made concomitant spiritual forces
with the Bible, and he held that revelation is but a republication of the
truths of natural religion. Tillotson was truly a broad churchman, who was
desirous of making the national church as comprehensive as possible; and he
was one who practised as well as preached toleration.
Not less liberal was Jeremy Taylor, who was numbered among the dissenters.
In the introduction to his Liberty of Prophesying he said, "So long as men
have such variety of principles, such several constitutions, educations,
tempers, and distempers, hopes, interests, and weaknesses, degrees of light
and degrees of understanding, it was impossible all should be of one mind."
Taylor justly said that in heaven there is room for all faiths. His Liberty
of Prophesying, Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, and Milton's
Liberty of Unlicensed Printing are the great expressions of the spirit of
toleration in the seventeenth century. Each was broad, comprehensive, and
noble in its plea for religious freedom. It has been said of Taylor that
"he sets a higher value on a good life than on an orthodox creed. He
estimates every doctrine by its capacity to do men good."[9]
Another advocate of toleration was John Locke, whose chief influence was as
a rationalist in philosophy and religion. While accepting Christianity with
simple confidence, he subjected it to the careful scrutiny of reason. His
philosophy awakened the rationalistic spirit in all who accepted it, so
that many of his disciples went much farther than he did himself. While
accepting revelation, he maintained that natural knowledge is more certain
in its character. He taught that the conclusions of reason are more
important than anything given men in the name of revelation. He did not
himself widely depart from the orthodoxy of his day, though he did not
accept the doctrine of the Trinity in the most approved form.
One of the rationalistic followers of Locke was Samuel Clarke, who
attempted to apply the scientific methods of Newton to the interpretation
of Christianity. He tried to establish faith in God on a purely scientific
basis. He declared that goodness does not exist because God commands it,
but that he commands it because it is good. He interpreted the doctrine of
the Trinity in a rationalistic manner, holding to its form, but rejecting
its substance.
These men were widely read in New England during the eighteenth century. In
England they were accounted orthodox, and they held high positions either
in the national church or in the leading dissenting bodies. They were not
sectarian or bigoted, they wished to give religion a basis in common sense
and ethical integrity, and they approved of a Christianity that is
practical and leads to noble living.
When we consider what were the relations of the colonies to England during
the first half of the eighteenth century, and that the New England churches
were constantly influenced by the religious attitude of the
mother-country,[10] it is plain enough that toleration and rationalism were
in large measure received from England. In the same school was learned the
lesson of a return to the simplicity of Christ, of making him and his life
the standard of Christian fellowship. The great leaders in England taught
positively that loyalty to Christ is the only essential test of Christian
duty; and it is not in the least surprising the same idea should have found
noble advocacy in New England. That a good life and character are the true
indications of the possession of a saving faith was a thought too often
uttered in England not to find advocacy in the colonies.
In this way Unitarianism had its origin, in the teachings of men who were
counted orthodox in England, but who favored submitting all theological
problems to the test of reason. It was not a sectarian movement in its
origin or at any time during the eighteenth century; but it was an effort
to make religion practical, to give it a basis in reality, and to establish
it as acceptable to the sound judgment and common sense of all men. It was
an application to the interpretation of theological problems of that
individualistic spirit which was at the very source of Protestantism. If
the individual ought to interpret the Bible for himself, so ought he to
accept his own explanation of the dogmas of the church. In so doing, he
necessarily becomes a rationalist, which may lead him far from the
traditions of the past. If he thinks for himself, there is an end to
uniformity of faith--a conclusion which such men as Chillingworth and
Jeremy Taylor were willing to accept; and, therefore, they desired an
all-inclusive church, in order that freedom and unity of faith might be
both maintained.
In its beginning the liberal movement in New England was not concerned with
the Trinity. It was a demand for simplicity, rationality, and toleration.
When it had proceeded far on its way, it was led to a consideration of the
problem of the Trinity, because it did not find that doctrine distinctly
taught in the New Testament. Accepting implicitly the words of Christ, it
found him declaring positively his own subordination to the Father, and
preferred his teaching to that of the creeds. To the early liberals this
was simply a question of the nature of Christ, and did not lessen for them
their implicit faith in his revelation or their recognition of the beauty
and glory of his divine character.
[1] Paul Lafargue, The Evolution of Property from Savagery to
Civilization, 18, 19. "If the savage is incapable of conceiving the
idea of individual possession of objects not incorporated with his
person, it is because he has no conception of his individuality as
distinct from the consanguine group in which he lives.... Savages, even
though individually completer beings, seeing that they are
self-sufficing, than are civilized persons, are so thoroughly
identified with their hordes and clans that their individuality does
not make itself felt either in the family or in property. The clan was
all in all: the clan was the family; it was the clan that was the owner
of property." Also W.M. Sloan, The French Revolution and Religious
Reform, 38. "In the Greek and Roman world the individual, body, mind,
and soul, had no place in reference to the state. It was only as a
member of family, gens, curia, phratry, or deme, and tribe, that the
ancient city-state knew the men and women which composed it. The same
was true of knowledge: every sensation, perception, and judgment fell
into the category of some abstraction, and, instead of concrete things,
men knew nothing but generalized ideals."
[2] Francesco S. Nitti, Catholic Socialism, 74, 85, 86. "If we consider
the teachings of the Gospel, the communistic origins of the church, the
socialistic tendencies of the early fathers, the traditions of the
Canon Law, we cannot wonder that at the present day Socialism should
count no small number of its adherents among Catholic writers.... The
Reformation was the triumph of Individualism. Catholicism, instead, is
communistic by its origin and traditions.... The Catholic Church, with
her powerful organization, dating back over many centuries, has
accustomed Catholic peoples to passive obedience, to a passive
renunciation of the greater part of individualistic tendencies."
[3] See David Masson, Life of John Milton, III. 136; John Tulloch, Rational
Theology and Christian Philosophy in England, II. 9; John Hunt,
Religious Thought in England, I. 234.
[4] The word socialism is not used here with any understanding that the
Catholic Church accepts the social theories implied by that name. It is
used to indicate that the Roman Church maintains that revelation is to
the church itself, and that it is now the visible representative of
Christ. The Protestant maintains that revelation is made through an
individual, and not to a church. See Otto Gierke, Political Theories of
the Middle Age, translated by F.W. Maitland, 10, 22. "In all centuries
of the Middle Age Christendom is set before us a single, universal
community, founded and governed by God himself. Mankind is one mystical
body; it is one single and internally connected people or fold; it is
an all-embracing corporation, which constitutes that Universal Realm,
spiritual, and temporal, which may be called the Universal Church, or,
with equal propriety, the Commonwealth of the Human Race.... Mediaeval
thought proceeded from the idea of a single whole. Therefore an organic
construction of human society was as familiar to it as a mechanical and
atomistic construction was originally alien. Under the influence of
biblical allegories and the models set by Greek and Roman writers, the
comparison of mankind at large and every smaller group to an animate
body was universally adopted and pressed. Mankind in its totality was
conceived as an Organism."
[5] Tulloch, Rational Theology in England, I. 339.
[6] David Masson, Life of Milton, III. 102.
[7] The Religion of Protestants, II. 411.
[8] John Hunt, Religious Thought in England, II. 99.
[9] John Hunt, Religious Thought in England, I. 340.
[10] John Hunt, Religious Thought in England, I. 340.
II.
THE LIBERAL SIDE OF PURITANISM.
Unitarianism was brought to America with the Pilgrims and the Puritans. Its
origins are not to be found in the religious indifference and torpidity of
the eighteenth century, but in the individualism and the rational temper of
the men who settled Plymouth, Salem, and Boston. Its development is
coextensive with the origin and growth of Congregationalism, even with that
of Protestantism itself. So long as New England has been in existence, so
long, at least, Unitarianism, in its motives and in its spirit, has been at
work in the name of toleration, liberty, and free inquiry.
The many and wide divergences of opinion which were an essential result of
the spirit and methods of Protestantism were shown from the first by the
Pilgrims and Puritans. In Massachusetts, stringent laws were adopted in
order to secure uniformity of belief and practice; but it was never
achieved, except in name. Antinomianism early presented itself in Boston,
and it was quickly followed by the incursions of the Baptists and Friends.
Hooker did not find himself in sympathy with the Massachusetts leaders, and
led a considerable company to Connecticut from Cambridge, Watertown, and
Dorchester. Sir Henry Vane could not always agree with those who guided the
religion and the politics of Boston; Roger Williams had another ideal of
church and state than that which had come to the Puritans; and Sir Richard
Saltonstall would not submit himself to the aristocratic methods of the
Boston preachers.
These are but a few of the many indications of the individualistic spirit
that marked the first years of the Puritan colonies. It was a part of the
Protestant inheritance, and was inherent in the very nature of
Protestantism itself. Although the Puritans had only in part, and with
faltering steps, come to the acceptance of the individualistic and rational
spirit in religion, yet they were on the way to it, however long they might
be hindered by an autocratic temper. In fact, the Puritans throughout the
seventeenth century in New England were trying at one and the same time to
use reason and yet to cling to authority, to accept the Protestant ideal
and yet to employ the Catholic methods in state and church. In being
Protestants, they were committed to the central motive of individualism;
but they never consistently turned away from that conception of the church
which is autocratic and authoritative.
[Sidenote: The Church of Authority and the Church of Freedom.]
Looked at from the modern sociological point of view, there are two types
of church, the one socialistic or institutional and the other
individualistic, the one making the corporate power of the church the
source of spiritual life, the other making the personal insight of the
individual man the fountain of religious truth. Such a church as that of
Rome may be properly called socialistic because of its corporate nature,
because it maintains that revelation is to, and by means of, an
institution, an organic religious body.[1]
Catholicism, whether of Rome, Greece, or England, makes the church as a
great religious corporation the organ of religious expression. Such a
corporation is the source of authority, the test of truth, the creator of
spiritual ideals. On the other hand, such a church as the Protestant may be
called individualistic because it makes the individual the channel of
revelation. It emphasizes personality as of supreme worth, and it makes
religious institutions of little value in comparison.
Practically, the difference between the socialistic and the individualistic
church is as wide as it is theoretically. In all Catholic churches the
child is born into the church, with the right to full acceptance into it by
methods of tuition and ritual, whatever his individual qualities or
capacities. In all distinctly Protestant churches, membership must be
sought by individual preference or supernatural process.[2] The way to it
is through individual profession of its creed or inward miraculous
transformation of character by the profoundest of personal experiences. In
all socialistic or Catholic churches--whether heathen, ethnic, or
Christian--young people are admitted to membership after a definite period
of training and an initiation by means of an impressive ritual. In all
Protestant churches, initiation takes place as the result of personal
experiences and mature convictions, and is therefore usually deferred until
adult life has been reached.
When we bring out thus distinctly the ideals and methods of the two
churches, we are able to understand that the Puritans were theoretically
Protestants, but that they practically used the methods of the Catholics.
This will be seen more clearly when we take the individualistic tendencies
of the Puritans into distinct recognition, and place them in contrast with
their socialistic practices. The Puritan churches were thoroughly
individualistic in their admission of members, none being accepted into
full membership but those who had been converted by means of a personal
experience. In theory every male church member was a priest and king,
authorized to interpret spiritual truth and to exercise political
authority. Therefore, in 1631 the General Court of Massachusetts (being the
legislative body) established the rule that only church members should
exercise the right of suffrage. This law was continued on the statute books
until 1664, and was accepted in practice until 1691.
Because the individual Christian was accounted a priest, however humble in
learning or social position, he had the right to join with others in
ordaining and setting apart to the ministry of God the man who was to lead
the church as its teacher or pastor, though this practice was abandoned as
the state-church idea developed, as it did in New England by a process of
reaction. Every man could read the Bible for himself, and give it such
meaning as his own conscience and reason dictated. By virtue of his
Christian experience he had the personal right to find in it his own creed
and the law of his own conduct. It was not only his right to do this, but
it was also his duty. Revivalism was therefore the distinct outgrowth of
Puritanism, the expression of its individualistic spirit. It was the human
means of bringing the individual soul within reach of the supernatural
power of God, and of facilitating that choice of the Holy Spirit by which
one was selected for this change rather than another. The means were
social, it is true; but the end reached was absolutely individual, as an
experience and as a result attained. What confirmation was to the Catholic,
that was conversion to the Puritan.
The Puritans in New England, however, inherited the older socialism to so
large an extent that they proceeded to establish what was a state church in
method, if not in theory. Though they began with the idea that the churches
were to be supported by voluntary contributions (and always continued that
method in Boston), yet in a few years they resorted to taxation for their
maintenance, and enacted stringent laws compelling attendance upon them by
every resident of a town, whatever his beliefs or his personal interests.
They forbade the utterance of opinions not approved by the authorities, and
made use of fines, imprisonment, and death in support of arbitrary laws
enacted for this purpose. These methods were the same as those used by the
older socialistic and state churches to compel acceptance of their
teachings and practices. They were based on the idea of the corporate
nature of the church, and its right to control the individual in the name
of the social whole.
The harshness of the Puritan methods was the result of this attempt to
maintain a new idea in harmony with an old practice. The Baptists were
consistently individualists in rejecting infant baptism, accepting
conversion as essential to church membership, maintaining freedom of
conscience, and practising toleration as a fundamental social law. The
Puritans inconsistently combined conversion and infant baptism,--the
Protestant right of private judgment with the Catholic methods of the state
church,--a democratic theory of popular suffrage with a most aristocratic
limitation of that suffrage to church members. As late as 1674 only 2,527
men in all had been admitted to the exercise of the franchise in
Massachusetts. One-sixth or one-eighth of the men were voters, the rest
were disfranchised. The church and the state were controlled by this small
minority in a community that was theoretically democratic, both in religion
and politics.
It is not surprising that there began to be mutterings against such
restrictions. It shows the strength of character in the Puritan communities
of Massachusetts and New Haven that a large majority of the men submitted
as long as they did to conditions thoroughly undemocratic. As a political
measure, when the grumblings became so loud as to be no longer ignored,
what is called the half-way covenant was adopted, by means of which a
semi-membership in the churches could be secured, that gave the right of
suffrage, but permitted no action within the church itself.[3] Many
writers on this period fail to understand the significance of the half-way
covenant; for they attribute to that legislation the disintegrating results
that followed. They forget that these half-members were not admitted to any
part in church affairs; and they refuse to see that the methods employed by
the Puritans were, because of their exclusiveness, of necessity
demoralizing. In fact, the half-way covenant was a result of the
disintegration that had already taken place as the issue of an attempted
compromise between the institutional and the individualistic theories of
church government.
[Sidenote: Seventeenth-century Liberals.]