beliefs, he became one of the most devoted of Unitarians. His rejection of
Calvinism is marked by his intense aversion to it, shown upon many a page
of his prose and poetry. No other prominent Unitarian was so aggressive
against the doctrines of the older time. He was a regular attendant at
King's Chapel upon the preaching of Dr. F.W.P. Greenwood, Dr. Ephraim
Peabody, and Rev. H.W. Foote; but, when he was in Pittsfield, for a number
of years he went to the Episcopal church, and at Beverly Farms in his later
years, during the summer, he attended a Baptist church. He was, therefore,
a conservative Unitarian, but with a generous recognition of the good in
other religious bodies. At the Unitarian Festival of 1859 Dr. Holmes was
the presiding officer, and in his address he gave a statement of the
Unitarian faith that clearly defines his own religious position:--
We believe in vital religion, or the religion of life, as contrasted
with that of trust in hierarchies, establishments, and traditional
formulae, settled by the votes of wavering majorities in old councils
and convocations. We believe in evangelical religion, or the religion
of glad tidings, in distinction from the schemes that make our planet
the ante-chamber of the mansions of eternal woe to the vast majority of
all the men, women, and children that have lived and suffered upon its
surface. We believe that every age must judge the Scriptures by its own
light; and we mean, by God's grace, to exercise that privilege, without
asking permission of pope or bishop, or any other human tribunal. We
believe that sin is the much-abused step-daughter of ignorance, and
this not only from our own observation, but on the authority of him
whose last prayer on earth was that the perpetrators of the greatest
crime on record might be forgiven, for they knew not what they were
doing. We believe, beyond all other beliefs, in the fatherly relation
of the Deity to all his creatures; and, wherever there is a conflict of
Scriptural or theological doctrines, we hold this to be the article of
faith that stands supreme above all others. And, lastly, we know that,
whether we agree precisely in these or any other articles of belief, we
can meet in Christian charity and fellowship, in that we all agree in
the love of our race, and the worship of a common Father, as taught us
by the Master whom we profess to follow.[10]
Educated as a Unitarian, James Russell Lowell felt none of the animosity
toward Calvinism that was characteristic of Holmes; but his poetry
everywhere indicates the liberality and nobleness of his religious
convictions. That he was not sectarian, that he felt no active interest in
dogmatic theology as such, is only saying that he was a genuine Unitarian.
Writing in 1838, Lowell said, "I am an infidel to the Christianity of
to-day."[11] In a letter to Longfellow written in 1845, he made a more
explicit statement of his attitude: "Christ has declared war against the
Christianity of the world, and it must down. There is no help for it. The
church, that great bulwark of our practical paganism, must be reformed from
foundation to weathercock."[12] These passages indicate his
dissatisfaction with an external religion and with dogmatic theology. On
the other hand, his letters and his poems prove that he was strongly
grounded in the faith of the spirit. In that faith he lived and died; and,
if in later years he gave recognition to some of the higher claims of the
older types of Christianity, it was a generous concession to their rational
qualities and their practical results, and in no degree an acceptance of
their teachings. The definite form of Lowell's faith he expressed when he
wrote, "I will never enter a church from which a prayer goes up for the
prosperous only, or for the unfortunate among the oppressors, and not for
the oppressed and fallen; as if God had ordained our pride of caste and our
distinctions of color, and as if Christ had forgotten those that are in
bonds."[13]
Emerson left the pulpit, and he withdrew from outward conformity to the
church; but that there came a time when he no longer felt an interest in
religion or that he even ceased to be a Christian, after his own manner of
interpretation, there is no reason to assume. His radicalism was in the
direction of a deeper and truer religion, a religion of the spirit. He
rejected the faith that is founded on the letter, on historical evidences,
that is a body without a soul. He was not the less a Unitarian because he
ceased to be one outwardly, for he carried forward the Unitarian principles
to their legitimate conclusion. The newer Unitarianism owes to him more
than to any other man, and of him more than of any other man the older
Unitarianism can boast that he was its product.
Such a survey as this indicates how great has been the influence of
Unitarianism upon American literature. There can be no question that it has
been one of the greatest formative forces in its development. "Almost
everybody," says Professor Barrett Wendell, "who attained literary
distinction in New England during the nineteenth century was either a
Unitarian or closely associated with Unitarian influences,"[14] More even
than that may be said, for it is the Unitarian writers who have most truly
interpreted American institutions and American ideals.
[1] Boston Unitarianism, 168.
[2] George Ticknor, Life of William Hickling Prescott, 91, 164.
[3] George S. Hillard, Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor,
327.
[4] Phoebe Mitchell Kendall, Life, Letters, and Journals of Maria
Mitchell, 239.
[5] Jules Marcou, Life of Agassiz, II. 220.
[6] Memoirs, I. 194.
[7] Memoirs, II. 91.
[8] John Bigelow, Life of Bryant, 274, 285.
[9] Samuel Longfellow, Life of H.W. Longfellow, I. 14
[10] Quarterly Journal, VI. 359, July, 1859.
[11] Biography of James Russell Lowell, by H.E. Scudder, I. 63.
[12] Ibid., 169.
[13] Biography of James Russell Lowell, by H.E. Scudder, I. 144, quoted
from Conversations on Some of the Old Poets.
[14] A Literary History of America, 289.
XX.
THE FUTURE OF UNITARIANISM.
The early Unitarians in this country did not desire to form a new sect.
They wished to remain Congregationalists, and to continue unbroken the
fellowship that had existed from the beginning of New England. When they
were compelled to separate from the older churches, they refrained from
organizing a strictly defined religious body, and have called theirs a
"movement." The words "denomination" and "sect" have been repellent to
them; and they have attempted, not only to avoid their use, but to escape
from that which they represent. They have wished to establish a broad, free
fellowship, that would draw together all liberal thinkers and movements
into one wide and inclusive religious body.
The Unitarian body accepted in theory from the first the principles of
liberty, reason, and free inquiry. These were fully established, however,
only as the result of discussion, agitation, and much friction. Theodore
Parker was subjected to severe criticism, Emerson was regarded with
distrust, and the Free Religious Association was organized as a protest and
for the sake of a freer fellowship. In fact, however, Parker was never
disfellowshipped; and from the first many Unitarians regarded Emerson as
the teacher of a higher type of spiritual religion. Through this period of
controversy, when there was much of bitter feeling engendered, no one was
expelled from the Unitarian body for opinion's sake. All stayed in who did
not choose to go out, there being no trials for, heresy. The result of this
method has been that the Unitarian body is now one of the most united and
harmonious in Christendom. The free spirit has abundantly justified itself.
When it was found that every one could think for himself, express freely
his own beliefs, and live in accordance with his own convictions,
controversy came to an end. When heresy was no longer sought for, heresy
ceased to have an existence. The result has not been discord and distrust,
but peace, harmony, and a more perfect fellowship.
In the Unitarian body from the first there has been a free spirit of
inquiry. Criticism has had a free course. The Bible has been subjected to
the most searching investigation, as have all the foundations of religion.
As a result, no religious body shows, a more rational interest in the Bible
or a more confident trust in its great spiritual teachings.
The early Unitarians anticipated that Unitarianism would soon become the
popular form of religion accepted in this country. Thomas Jefferson thought
that all young men of his time would die Unitarians. Others were afraid
that Unitarianism would become sectarian in its methods as soon as it
became popular, which they anticipated would occur in a brief period.[1]
The cause of the slow growth of Unitarianism is to be found in the fact
that it has been too modern in its spirit, too removed from the currents of
popular belief, to find ready acceptance on the part of those who are
largely influenced by traditional beliefs. The religion of the great
majority of persons is determined by tradition or social heredity, by what
they are taught in childhood or hear commonly repeated around them. Only
persons who are naturally independent and self-reliant can overcome the
difficulties in the way of embracing a form of religion which carries them
outside of the established tradition. For these reasons it is not
surprising that as yet there has not been a rapid growth of organized
Unitarianism. In fact, Unitarianism has made little progress outside of New
England, and those regions to which New England traditions have been
carried by those who migrated westward.
The early promise for the growth of Unitarianism in the south, from 1825 to
1840, failed because there was no background of tradition for its
encouragement and support. Individuals could think their way into the
Unitarian faith, but their influence proved ineffective when all around
them the old tradition prevailed as stubborn conviction. Even the influence
of a literature pervaded with Unitarianism proved ineffective in securing
any rapid spread of the new faith, except as it has found its way into the
common Christian tradition by a process of spiritual infiltration. The
result has been that Unitarianism has grown slowly, because it has been
obliged to create new traditions, to form a new habit of thought, and to
make free inquiry a common motive and purpose.
In a word, Unitarianism has been a heresy; and therefore there has been no
open door for it. Most heretical sects have been narrow in spirit, bigoted
in temper, and intensely sectarian in method. Their isolation from the
great currents of the world's life acts on them intellectually and
spiritually as the process of in-and-in breeding does upon animals: it
intensifies their peculiarities and defects. A process of atrophy or
degeneration takes place; and they grow from generation to generation more
isolated, sectarian, and peculiar. Unitarianism has escaped this tendency
because it has accepted the modern spirit and because to a large degree its
adherents have been educated and progressive persons. Its principles of
liberty, reason, and free inquiry, have brought its followers into touch
with those forces that are making most rapidly for the development of
mankind. Unitarians have been conspicuously capable of individual
initiative; and yet their culture has been large enough to give them a
conservative loyalty to the past and to the profounder and more spiritual
phases of the Christian tradition. While strongly individualistic and
heretical they have been sturdily faithful to Christianity, seeking to
revive its earlier and more simple life.
A chief value of Unitarianism in the past has been that it has pioneered
the way for the development of the modern spirit within the limits of
Christianity. The churches from which it came out have followed it far on
the way it has travelled. Its most liberal advocates of the first
generation were more conservative than many of the leaders are to-day in
the older churches. Its period of criticism, controversy, and agitation is
being reproduced in many another religious body of the present time. The
debates about miracles, the theory of the supernatural, the authenticity of
Scripture, the nature of Christ, and other problems that are now agitating
most of the progressive Protestant denominations, are almost precisely
those that exercised Unitarians years ago. The only final solution of these
problems, that will give peace and harmony, is that of free inquiry and
rational interpretation, which Unitarians have finally accepted. If other
religious bodies would profit by this experience and by the Unitarian
method for the solution of these problems, it would be greatly to their
advantage.
The Unitarian churches have been few in number, and they have suffered from
isolation and provincialism. These defects of the earlier period have now
in part passed away, new traditions have been created, a cosmopolitan
spirit has been developed, and Unitarianism has become a world movement.
This was conspicuously indicated at the seventy-fifth anniversary of the
organization of the American Unitarian Association, and in the formation of
The International Council of Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious Thinkers
and Workers. It was then shown that Unitarianism has found expression in
many parts of the world, that it answers to an intellectual and spiritual
need of the time, and that it is capable of interpreting the religious
convictions of persons belonging to many phases of human development and
culture. A broader, more philosophical, and humaner tradition is being
formed, that will in time become a wide-reaching influence for the
development of a religious life that will be at once more scientific and
more spiritual in its nature than anything the past has produced.
The promise of Unitarianism for the future does not consist in its becoming
a sect and in its striving for the development of merely denominational
interests, but in its cultivation of the deeper spiritual life and in its
cosmopolitan sympathy with all phases of religious growth. Its mission is
one with philanthropy, charity, and altruism. Its attitude should be that
of free inquiry, loyalty to the spirit of philosophy and science, and
fidelity to the largest results of human progress. It should always
represent justice, righteousness, and personal integrity. That promise is
not to be found in the rapid multiplication of its churches or in its
devotion to propagandist aims, but in its loyalty to the free spirit and in
its exemplification of the worth and beauty of the religion of humanity. As
a sect, it will fail; but as a movement towards a larger faith, a purer
life, and a more inclusive fellowship, the future is on its side.
While recognizing the Unitarian as a great pioneer movement in religion, it
should be seen that its strong individualism has been a cause of its slow
growth. Until recently the Unitarian body has been less an organic phase of
the religious life of the time than a group of isolated churches held
together only by the spontaneous bonds of fellowship and good will. Such a
body can have little effective force in any effort at missionary
propagandism or in making its spirit dominant in the religious life of the
country. As heredity and variation are but two phases of organic growth, so
are tradition and individual initiative but two phases of social progress.
In both processes--organic growth and social progress--the primary force is
the conservative one, that maintains what the past has secured. If
individualism is necessary to healthy growth, associative action is
essential to any growth whatever of the social body. In so far as
individual perfection can be attained, it cannot be by seeking it as an end
in itself: it can be reached only by means of that which conduces to
general social progress.
It may be questioned whether there is any large future for Unitarianism
unless all excessive individualism is modified and controlled. Such
individualism is in opposition to the altruistic and associative spirit of
the present time. Liberty is not an end in itself, but its value is to be
found in the opportunity it gives for a natural and fitting association of
individuals with each other. Freedom of religious inquiry is but an
instrument for securing spiritual growth, not merely for the individual,
but for all mankind. So long as liberty of thought and spiritual freedom
remain the means of individual gratification, they are ineffective as
spiritual forces. They must be given a wider heritage in the life of
mankind before they can accomplish their legitimate results in securing for
men freedom from the external bonds of traditionalism. Even reason is but
an instrument for securing truth, and not truth itself.
Rightly understood, authority in the church is but the principle of social
action, respect for what mankind has gained of spiritual power through its
centuries of development. Authority is therefore as necessary as freedom,
and the two must be reconciled in order that progress may take place. When
so understood and so limited, authority becomes essential to all growth in
freedom and individuality. What above all else is needed in religion is
social action on the part of freedom-loving men and women, who, in the
strength of their individuality, co-operate for the attainment, not of
their own personal good, but the advancement of mankind. This is what
Unitarianism has striven for, and what it has gained in some measure. It
has sought to make philanthropy the test of piety, and to make liberty a
means of social fidelity.
Free inquiry cannot mean liberty to think as one pleases, but only to think
the truth, and to recognize with submissive spirit the absolute conditions
and the limitations of the truth. Though religion is life and not a creed,
it none the less compels the individual to loyalty of social action; and
that means nothing more and nothing less than faithfulness to what will
make for the common good, and not primarily what will minister to one's own
personal development, intellectually and spiritually.
The future of Unitarianism will depend on its ability further to reconcile,
individualism with associative action, the spirit of free inquiry with the
larger human tradition. Its advantage cannot be found in the abandonment of
Christianity, which has been the source and sustaining power of its life,
but in the development of the Christian tradition by the processes of
modern thought. The real promise of Unitarianism is in identifying itself
with the altruistic spirit of the age, and in becoming the spiritual
interpreter of the social aspirations of mankind. In order to this result
it must not only withdraw from its extreme individualism, but bring its
liberty into organic relations with its spirit of social fidelity. It will
then welcome the fact that freedom and authority are identical in their
deeper meanings. It will discover that service is more important than
culture, and that culture is of value to the end that service may become
more effective. Then it will cheerfully recognize the truth that the social
obligation is as important as the individual right, and that the two make
the rounded whole of human action.
[1] See pp. 131, 328.
APPENDIX.
A. FORMATION OF THE LOCAL CONFERENCES.
The local conferences came into existence in the following order: Wisconsin
and Minnesota Quarterly Conference, organized at Sheboygan, Wis., October
24, 1866; New York Central Conference of Liberal Christians, Rochester,
November 21, 1866; Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches of
the Middle and Southern States, Wilmington, Del., November 22, 1866;
Norfolk Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches, Dedham,
Mass., November 28, 1866; New York and Hudson River Local Conference, New
York, December 6, 1866; Essex Conference of Liberal Christian Churches,
Salem, Mass., December 11, 1866; Lake Erie Conference of Unitarian and
Other Christian Societies, Meadville, Penn., December 11, 1866; Worcester
County Conference of Congregational (Unitarian) and Other Christian
Societies, Worcester, Mass., December 12, 1866; South Middlesex Conference
of Congregational Unitarian and Other Christian Societies, Cambridgeport,
Mass., December 12, 1866; Suffolk Conference of Unitarian and Other
Christian Churches, Boston, December 17, 1866; North Middlesex Conference
of Unitarian Congregational and Other Christian Churches, Littleton, Mass.,
December 18, 1866.
The Champlain Liberal Christian Conference, Montpelier, Vt., January 9,
1867; the Connecticut Valley Conference of Congregational Unitarian and
Other Christian Churches, Greenfield, Mass., January 16, 1867; the Plymouth
and Bay Conference, Hingham, Mass., February 5, 1867; the Ohio Valley
Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches, Louisville, Ky.,
February 22, 1867; the Channing Conference, Providence, R.I., April 17,
1867; Liberal Christian Conference of Western Maine, Brunswick, Me.,
October 22, 1867.
The Local Conference of Liberal Christians of the Missouri Valley, Weston,
Mo., March 18, 1868; the Chicago Conference of Unitarian Churches, Chicago,
December 2, 1868; Western Illinois and Iowa Conference of Unitarian and
Other Christian Churches, Sheffield, Ill., January 28, 1869; Cape Cod
Conference of Unitarian Congregational and Other Liberal Christian
Churches, Barnstable, Mass., November 30, 1870; Conference of Liberal
Christians of the Missouri Valley, Kansas City, Mo., May 3, 1871; Michigan
Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches, Jackson, October 21,
1875; the Fraternity of Illinois Liberal Christian Societies, Bloomington,
November 11, 1875; Iowa Association of Unitarian and Other Independent
Churches, Burlington, June 1, 1877; Indiana Conference of Unitarian and
Independent Religious Societies, Hobart, October 1, 1878; Ohio State
Conference of Unitarian and Other Liberal Societies, Cincinnati, May, 1879.
Kansas Unitarian Conference, December 2, 1880; Nebraska Unitarian
Association, Omaha, November 9, 1882; the Southern Conference of Unitarian
and Other Christian Churches, Atlanta, Ga., April 24, 1884; the New York
Conference of Unitarian Churches superseded the New York and Hudson River
Conference at a session held in New York, April 29, 1885; Pacific Unitarian
Conference, San Francisco, November 2, 1885; the Illinois Conference of
Unitarian and Other Independent Societies superseded the Illinois
Fraternity in 1885; Minnesota Unitarian Conference, St. Paul, November 17,
1887; Hancock Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches, Bar
Harbor, Me., August 8, 1889; Missouri Valley Unitarian Conference
superseded the Kansas Unitarian Conference, December 2, 1889.
Rocky Mountain Conference of Unitarian and Other Liberal Christian
Churches, Denver, Col., May 17, 1890; the Unitarian Conference of the
Middle States and Canada, Brooklyn, N.Y., November 19, 1890, superseded New
York State Conference; Central States Conference of Unitarian Churches,
Cincinnati, December 9, 1891, superseded the Ohio State Conference; Pacific
Northwest Conference of Unitarian, Liberal Christian, and Independent
Churches, Puyallup, Wash., August 1, 1892; Southern California Conference
of Unitarian and Other Liberal Christian Churches, Santa Ana, October 1892.
Four of the early conferences, the New York Central, Champlain, Western
Maine, and Missouri Valley, were not distinctly Unitarian. These were union
organizations, in which Universalists, and perhaps other denominations,
were associated with Unitarians. The New York Central Conference refused to
send delegates to the National Conference on account of its union
character. In other conferences, such as the Connecticut Valley and the
Norfolk, Universalists took part in their organization, and were for a
number of years connected with them.