proposed a new theory of the nature of religious truth, and insisted that
the spiritual message of Christianity is inward, and not outward, directly
to the soul of man, and not through the mediation of a person or a book.
Almost from the first Channing had been moving towards this newer
conception of the nature and method of religion. He did not wholly abandon
the miraculous, but it grew to have less significance for him with each
year. The Unitarian conception of religion as natural to man, which was
maintained strenuously from the time of Jonathan Mayhew, made it probable,
if not certain, that a merely external system of religion would be
ultimately outgrown. In his lecture on self-denial Channing stated this
position in the clearest terms. "If," he said, "after a deliberate and
impartial use of our best faculties, a professed revelation seems to us
plainly to disagree with itself or to clash with great principles which we
cannot question, we ought not to hesitate to withhold from it our belief. I
am surer that my rational nature is from God, than that any book is an
expression of his will. This light in my own breast is his primary
revelation, and all subsequent ones must accord with it, and are in fact
intended to blend with and brighten it."[6]
Channing was not alone in accepting Christianity as a spiritual principle
that is natural and universal. As early as 1826 Alvan Lamson had defended
the proposition that miracles are merely local in their nature, and that
attention should be chiefly given to the tendency, spirit, and object of
Christianity. He claimed that it bore on the face of it the marks of its
heavenly origin, and that, when these are fully accepted, no other form of
evidence is required.[7] In 1834 James Walker, in writing on The
Philosophy of Man's Spiritual Nature in regard to the Foundations of Faith,
had taken what was essentially the transcendentalist view of the origin and
nature of religion. He contended for the "religion in the soul" that is
authenticated "by the revelations of consciousness."[8] In 1836 Convers
Francis, in, describing the religion of Christ as a purely internal
principle, maintained the "quiet, spirit-searching character of
Christianity," as "a kingdom wholly within the soul of man."[9]
When Convers Francis became a professor in the Harvard Divinity School, in
1842, the spiritual philosophy had recognition there; and he had a
considerable influence upon the young men who came under his guidance.
Though of the older way of thinking, George R. Noyes, who became a
professor in the school in 1840, was always on the side of liberty of
interpretation and expression. For the next two decades the Divinity School
sent out a succession of such men as John Weiss, Octavius B. Frothingham,
Samuel Longfellow, William J. Potter, and Francis E. Abbot, who were joined
by William Henry Channing, Samuel Johnson, David A. Wasson, and others, who
did not study there. These men gave a new meaning to Unitarianism, took it
away from miracles to nature, discarded its evidences to rely on intuition,
rejected its supernatural deity for an immanent God who speaks through all
life his divine word.
During the interval between the New York convention and the first session
of the National Conference, which was held in Syracuse, October 10-11,
1866, the questions which separated the conservatives and radicals were
freely debated in the periodicals of the denomination, and also in sermons
and pamphlets. The radicals organized for securing a revision of the
constitution; and on the morning of the first day Francis E. Abbot, then
the minister at Dover, N.H., offered a new preamble and first article as
substitutes for those adopted in New York, in which he stated that "the
object of Christianity is the universal diffusion of love, righteousness,
and truth," that "perfect freedom of thought, which is at once the right
and duty of every human being, always leads to diversity of opinion, and is
therefore hindered by common creeds or statements of faith," and that
therefore the churches assembled in the conference, "disregarding all
sectarian or theological differences, and offering a cordial fellowship to
all who will join them in Christian work, unite themselves in a common
body, to be known as The National Conference of Unitarian and Independent
Churches."
At the afternoon session Mr. Abbot's amendment was rejected; but on the
motion of James Freeman Clarke the name was changed to The National
Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches. A resolution stating
that the expression "Other Christian Churches was not meant to exclude
religious societies which have no distinctive church organization, and are
not nominally Christian, if they desire to co-operate with the Conference
in what it regards as Christian work," was laid on the table.
[Sidenote: Organization of the Free Religious Association.]
The result of the refusal at Syracuse to revise the constitution of the
National Conference was that the radical men on the railroad train
returning to Boston held a consultation, and resolved to organize an
association that would secure them the liberty they desired. After
correspondence and much planning a meeting was held in Boston, at the house
of Rev. Cyrus A. Bartol, on February 5, 1867, to consider what should be
done. After a thorough discussion of the subject the Free Religious
Association was planned; and the organization was perfected at a meeting
held in Horticultural Hall, Boston, May 30, 1867. Some of those who took
part in this movement thought that all religion had been outgrown, but the
majority believed that it is essential and eternal. What they sought was to
remove its local and national elements, and to get rid of its merely
sectarian and traditional features.
At the first meeting the speakers were O.B. Frothingham, Henry Blanchard,
Lucretia Mott, Robert Dale Owen, John Weiss, Oliver Johnson, Francis E.
Abbot, David A. Wasson, T.W. Higginson, and R.W. Emerson; and discussion
was participated in by A.B. Alcott, E.C. Towne, Frank B. Sanborn, Hannah E.
Stevenson, Ednah D. Cheney, Charles C. Burleigh, and Caroline H. Dall. Of
these persons, one-half had been Unitarian ministers, and about one-third
of them were still settled over Unitarian parishes. Mr. Frothingham was
elected president of the new organization, and Rev. William J. Potter
secretary. The purposes of the Association were "to promote the interests
of pure religion, to encourage the scientific study of theology and to
increase fellowship in the spirit." In 1872 the constitution was revised by
changing the subject of study from theology to man's religious nature and
history, and by the addition of the statement that "nothing in the name or
constitution of the Association shall ever be construed as limiting
membership by any test of speculative opinion or belief,--or as defining
the position of the Association, collectively considered, with reference to
any such opinion or belief,--or as interfering in any other way with that
absolute freedom of thought and expression which is the natural right of
every rational being."
The original purpose of the Free Religious Association, as defined in its
constitution and in the addresses delivered before it, was the recognition
of the universality of religion, and the representation of all phases of
religious opinion in its membership and on its platform. The circumstances
of its organization, however, in some measure took it away from this
broader position, and made it the organ of the radical Unitarian opinion.
Those Unitarians who did not find in the American Unitarian Association and
the National Conference such fellowship as they desired became active in
the Free Religious organization.
The cause of Free Religion was ably presented in the pages of The Radical,
a monthly journal edited by Sidney H. Morse, and published in Boston, and
The Index, edited by Francis E. Abbot, at first in Toledo and then in
Boston. It also found expression at the Sunday afternoon meetings held in
Horticultural Hall, Boston, for several winters, beginning in 1868-69; in
the conventions held in several of the leading cities of the northern
states; at the gatherings of the Chestnut Street Club; and in the annual
meetings of the Free Religious Association held in Boston during
anniversary week. Little effort was made to organize churches, and only two
or three came into existence distinctly on the basis of Free Religion. In
connection with The Index, Francis E. Abbot organized the Liberal League to
promote the interests of Free Religion, with about four hundred local
branches; but this organization proved ineffective, and soon ceased its
existence.
The withdrawal of the radicals into the Free Religious Association did not
quiet the agitation in the Unitarian ranks, partly because some of the most
active workers in that Association continued to occupy Unitarian pulpits,
and partly because a considerable radical element did not withdraw in any
manner. The conferences had an unfailing subject for exciting discussion,
and the Unitarian body was at this time in a chronic condition of
agitation. As in the days of the controversy about the Trinity, the more
conservative ministers would not exchange pulpits with the more radical.
[Sidenote: Unsuccessful Attempts at Reconciliation.]
At the second session of the National Conference, held in New York City,
October 7-9, 1868, another attempt was made to bring about a reconciliation
between the two wings of the denomination. In an attitude of generous good
will and with a noble desire for inclusiveness and peace, James Freeman
Clarke proposed an addition to the constitution of the Conference, in which
it was declared "that we heartily welcome to that fellowship all who desire
to work with us in advancing the kingdom of God." Such a broad invitation
was not acceptable to the majority; and, after an extended debate, this
amendment was withdrawn, and the following, offered by Edward Everett Hale,
and essentially the same as that presented by Mr. Clarke, with the
exception of the phrase just quoted, was adopted:--
To secure the largest unity of the spirit and the widest practical
co-operation, it is hereby understood that all the declarations of this
conference, including the preamble and constitution, are expressions
only of its majority, and dependent wholly for their effect upon the
consent they command on their own merits from the churches here
represented or belonging within the circle of our fellowship.
The annual meeting of the Unitarian Association in 1870 was largely
occupied with the vexing problem of the basis of fellowship; and the
secretary, Charles Lowe, read a conciliatory and explanatory address. He
said that the wide differences of theological opinion existing in the
denomination were "an inevitable consequence of the great principle on
which Unitarianism rests. That principle is that Christian faith and
Christian union can coexist with individual liberty."[10] Rev. George H.
Hepworth, then the minister of the Church of the Messiah in New York, asked
for an authoritative statement of the Unitarian position, urging this
demand with great insistence; and he presented a resolution calling for a
committee of five to prepare "a statement of faith, which shall, as nearly
as may be, represent the religious opinions of the Unitarian denomination."
While Dr. Bellows had been the leader in securing the adoption of the
Christian basis for the National Conference, and the insertion into the
preamble of its constitution of the expression of faith in the Lordship of
Jesus Christ, he was strongly opposed to any attempt to impose a creed upon
the denomination, however attenuated it might be. He has been often charged
with inconsistency, and it is difficult to reconcile his position in 1870
with that held in 1865. What he attempted to secure, however, was the
utmost of liberty possible within the limits of Christianity; and, when he
had committed the Unitarian body to the Christian position, he desired
nothing more, believing that a creed would be inconsistent with the liberty
enjoyed by all Unitarians. Without doubt his address at this meeting, in
opposition to Mr. Hepworth's proposal, made it impossible to secure a vote
in favor of a creed. "We want to represent a body," he said, "that presents
itself to the forming hand of the Almighty Spirit of God in a fluid,
plastic form. We cannot keep our denomination in that state, and yet give
it the character of being cast into a positive mould. You must either
abandon that great work you have done, as the only body in Christendom that
occupies the position of absolute and perfect liberty, with some measure of
Christian faith, or you must continue to occupy that position and thank God
for it without hankering after some immediate victories that are so strong
a temptation to many in our denomination." When the resolution in favor of
a creed was brought to a vote, it was "defeated by a very large majority."
By this act the Unitarian body again asserted its Christian position, but
refused to define or to limit its Christianity.
Notwithstanding the refusal of the Unitarian Association to adopt a creed,
the attempt to secure one was renewed in the National Conference with as
much energy as if this were not already a lost cause. At the session held
in New York, October, 1870, the subject came up for extended consideration,
several amendments to the constitution were proposed, and, after a
prolonged discussion, that offered by George H. Hepworth was adopted:--
Reaffirming our allegiance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and desiring
to secure the largest unity of the spirit and the widest practical
co-operation, we invite to our fellowship all who wish to be followers
of Christ.
[Sidenote: The Year Book Controversy.]
One result of this controversy was that in 1873 it having come to the
attention of Rev. O.B. Frothingham, the president of the Free Religious
Association, that his name was in the list of Unitarian ministers published
in the Year Book of the Unitarian Association, he expressed surprise that
it should have been continued there, and asked for its removal. The same
action was taken by Francis E. Abbot, the editor of The Index, and others
of the radicals. This action was in part the result of the attitude taken
by Rev. Thomas J. Mumford, editor of The Christian Register, who in 1872
insisted that the word "Religious" had no proper place in the name of the
Free Religious Association, and who invited those Unitarians "who have
ceased to accept Jesus as pre-eminently their spiritual leader and teacher"
to withdraw from the Unitarian body.
In November, 1873, Mr. George W. Fox, the assistant secretary of the
Unitarian Association and the editor of its Year Book, wrote to several of
the radicals, calling their attention to the action of Mr. Frothingham in
requesting the removal of his name, and asked if their names remained in
that publication "with their knowledge and consent." In a subsequent letter
to William J. Potter, the minister of the Unitarian church in New Bedford
and the secretary of the Free Religious Association, he explained that "the
Year Book lists of societies and ministers are simply a directory, prepared
by the Association for the accommodation of the denomination, and that the
Association does not undertake to decide the question as to what are or are
not Unitarian societies or ministers, but merely puts into print facts, in
the making of which it assumes no responsibility and has no agency."
Mr. Potter expressed his purpose not to ask for the removal of his name,
but wrote that he did not call himself a Unitarian Christian or by any
denominational name. The officers of the Association thereupon instructed
the editor of the Year Book to remove Mr. Potter's name from the list of
Unitarian ministers published therein. The reason for this action was
stated in a letter from the editor to Mr. Potter, announcing that his name
had been removed. The letter said, "While there might be no desire to
define Christianity in the case of those who claim that they are in any
sense of the term entitled to be called Christians, for those persons who,
like yourself, disavow the name, there seems to be no need of raising any
question as to how broad a range of opinion the name may properly be
stretched to cover."[11]
There followed a vigorous discussion of the action of the Association in
dropping Mr. Potter's name, it being recognized that no more thoroughly
religious man was to be found in the denomination, and that none more truly
exemplified the Christian spirit, whatever might be his wish as to the use
of the Christian name. At the sixth session of the National Conference,
held at Saratoga in September, 1874, the Essex Conference protested against
the erasure of the name of a church in long and regular fellowship with the
Unitarian Association from its Year Book; and a resolution offered by Dr.
Bellows, indorsing the action of the officers of the National Conference in
inviting the New Bedford church to send delegates, was passed without
dissent. At the session of the Western Conference held in Chicago during
1875, resolutions were passed protesting against the removing of the name
of any person from the accredited list of Unitarian ministers until he
requested it, had left the denomination, joined some other sect, or been
adjudged guilty of immorality. As a result of this discussion and of the
broad sympathies and inclusive spirit of the conference, the following
platform, in the shape of a resolution, was adopted:--
That the Western Unitarian Conference conditions its fellowship on no
dogmatic tests, but welcomes all thereto who desire to work with it in
advancing the kingdom of God.
The attitude of the Unitarian Association and the National Conference--that
is, of a large majority of Unitarians at this time--may be accurately
defined in the words of Charles Lowe, who said: "I admit that we make a
belief in Christianity a test of fellowship. No stretch of liberality will
make me wish to deny that a belief in Jesus Christ is the absolutely
essential qualification. But I will oppose, as a test, any definition of
Christianity, any words about Christ, for Christ himself, as the principles
of our fellowship and union."[12] These words exactly define what was
sought for, which was liberty within the limits of Christianity. The
primary insistence was upon discipleship to Jesus Christ, but it was
maintained that loyalty to Christ is compatible with the largest degree of
personal liberty.
Fundamentally, this controversy was a continuation of that which had
agitated New England from the beginning, that had divided those opposed to
"the great awakening" of the middle of the eighteenth century from those
who favored it, that led the Unitarians away from the Orthodox, and that
now divided radical and conservative Unitarians. The advance was always
towards a more pronounced assertion of individualism, and a more positive
rejection of tradition, organization, and external authority. Indeed, it
was towards this end that Unitarianism had directed its energies from the
beginning; and the force of this tendency could not be overcome because
some called for a creed, and more had come to see the need of an efficient
organization for practical purposes.
What the radicals desired was freedom, and the broadest assertion of
individuality. It was maintained by Francis E. Abbot that "the spiritual
ideal of Free Religion is to develop the individuality of the soul in the
highest, fullest, and most independent manner possible."[13] The other
distinctive principle of the radicals was that religion is universal, that
all religions are essentially, the same, and that Christianity is simply
one of the phases of universal religion. David A. Wasson defined religion
as "the consciousness of universal relation,"[14] and as "the sense of
unity with the infinite whole," adding that "morals, reason, freedom, are
bound up with it."[15] This means, in simple statement, that religion is
natural to man, and that it needs no authentication by miracle or
supernatural manifestation. It means that all religions are essentially the
same in their origin, and that none can claim the special favor of God in
their manner of presentation to the world. According to this conception of
religion, as was stated by. William J. Potter, Christianity is
"provisional, preparatory, educational, containing, alongside of the most
valuable truth, much that is only human error and bigotry and superstitious
imagination."[16] "The spiritual ideal of Christianity," said Francis E.
Abbot, "is the suppression of self and perfect imitation of Jesus the
Christ. The spiritual ideal of Free Religion is the development of self,
and the harmonious education of all its powers to the highest possible
degree."[17]
Through all this controversy what was sought for was a method of
reconciling fellowship with individuality of opinion, of establishing a
church in which freedom of faith for the individual shall have full
recognition. In a word, the Unitarian body had a conviction that tradition
is compatible with intuition, institutions with personal freedom, and
co-operation with individual initiative. The problems involved were too
large for an immediate solution; and what Unitarians accepted was an ideal,
and not a fact fully realized in their denominational life. The doctrinal
phases of the controversy have always been subsidiary to this larger
search, this desire to give to the individual all the liberty that is
compatible with his co-operation with others. The result of it has been to
teach the Unitarian body, in the words of Francis E. Abbot at Syracuse, in
1866, that "the only reconciliation of the duties of collective Christian
activity and individual freedom of thought lies in an efficient
organization for practical Christian work, based rather on unity of spirit
than on uniformity of belief."[18]
[Sidenote: Missionary Activities.]
During this period of controversy, from 1865 to 1880, the Unitarian
Association had at its head several able men, who were actively interested
in its work. The president for 1865-66 was Rev. John G. Palfrey; and he was
succeeded, in 1867, by Hon. Thomas D. Eliot, of New Bedford, who was in
both houses of the Massachusetts legislature, and then for a number of
years in the lower house of Congress. From 1870 to 1872 the president was
Mr. Henry Chapin, of Worcester, an able lawyer and judge, loyally devoted
to the Sunday-school work of his city and county. He was succeeded by Hon.
John Wells, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, who was
deeply interested in the church with which he was connected. In 1876 Mr.
Henry P. Kidder was elected to this office,--a position he held for ten
years. He was prominent in the banking interests of Boston, gave much
attention to the charities of the city, and was an efficient worker in the
South Congregational Church.
Rev. Charles Lowe, the secretary from 1865 to 1871, wisely directed the
activities of the Association through the early period of the great
awakening of the denomination, and kept it from going to pieces on the
Scylla and Charybdis of creed and radicalism. He was followed at a most
critical and difficult time by Rev. Rush R. Shippen, who continued to hold
the office until 1881. The reaction succeeding the great prosperity that
followed the close of the civil war brought great burdens of debt to many
individuals, and to cities, states, and the nation. These troubles
distracted attention from spiritual interests, and joined with various
other calamities in making this a trying time for churches and religious
organizations.
The discussions as to the theological position of the denomination
naturally resulted in more or less of disorganization, and made it
impossible to secure the unity of effort which is essential to any positive
missionary growth. In spite of these drawbacks, however, denominational
interests slowly advanced. During this period the Unitarian Association
began to receive a considerable increase of its funds from legacies,--a
result of its enlarged activities, and of the new interest awakened by the
formation of the National Conference.