Chapter 17

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.

A few facts may be mentioned to illustrate the never-failing generosity of Unitarian givers when specific needs are presented. In October, 1871, occurred the great fire in Chicago and the burning of Unity Church in that city, which was aided with $60,000 in rebuilding; while the Third Church and All Souls' were helped liberally in passing through this crisis. The following year the Boston fire crippled sadly the resources of the Association, and instead of the $150,000 asked for only $42,000 were received. Yet in 1876 the church in Washington was built, and $30,000 were contributed to that purpose by the denomination. In 1879; the denomination gave $56,000 to free the Church of the Messiah in New York from debt. During this period $100,000 were contributed to the Young Men's Christian Union in Boston, $90,000 to the Harvard Divinity School, $20,000 to the Prospect Hill School at Greenfield, and $30,000 towards the Channing Memorial Church in Newport.

During these trying times the administration of Unitarian affairs in the west was in judicious hands, In 1865 Rev. Charles G. Ames began those missionary efforts on the Pacific coast that have led on to the establishment of a considerable number of churches in that section of the country. In central Illinois the devoted labors of Jasper L. Douthit from 1868 to the present time have produced wide-reaching results in behalf of a genuine religion, temperance, good government, and education. In 1868 Rev. Carlton A. Staples was made the missionary agent of the Association in the west, with headquarters in Chicago, where a book-room was established. He was succeeded in 1872 by Rev. Sylvan S. Hunting, who was a tireless worker in the western field for many years. In 1874 Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones became the missionary of the Wisconsin Conference, and the next year of the Western Conference. For ten years Mr. Jones labored in this position with enthusiasm for the Unitarian cause in the west.

[Sidenote: College Town Missions.]

In the spring of 1865 the attention of the Unitarian Association was directed to the growing University of Michigan; and Rev. Charles H. Brigham, then the minister of the church in Taunton, was invited to proceed to Ann Arbor, and see what might be accomplished there. Meetings were held in the court-house, but in 1866 an old Methodist church was purchased by the Association and adapted to the uses of the new society. The congregation numbered at first about eighty persons, but gradually increased, especially from the attendance of university students. Mr. Brigham was asked by the students who listened to him to form a Bible class for their instruction, and this increased in numbers until it included from two hundred to three hundred persons. On Sunday evenings he delivered lectures wherein his wide and varied learning was made subservient to high ideals and to a noble interpretation of Christianity. He led many young men and women into the liberal faith, and he exercised through them a wide influence throughout the west. His gifts as a lecturer were also made available at the Meadville Theological School, with which institution he was connected for ten years.[19]

The success of Mr. Brigham led to the founding of other college town churches, that at Ithaca, the seat of Cornell University, being established in 1866. In 1878 such a mission was begun at Madison for the students of the University of Wisconsin, and another at Iowa City for the University of Iowa. In more recent years college missions have been started at Lawrence, Kan.; Lincoln, Neb.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Berkeley, Cal.; Colorado Springs; and Amherst, Mass. This has proved to be one of the most effective ways of extending Unitarianism as a modern interpretation of Christianity.

[Sidenote: Theatre Preaching.]

Another interest developed by the awakening of 1865 was the popularization of Unitarianism by the use of theatres. In January, 1866, was begun in the Cooper Institute, New York, a Sunday evening course of lectures by Clarke, Bellows, Osgood, Frothingham, Putnam, Chadwick, and Joseph May, which was largely attended. Some of the most important doctrinal subjects were discussed. A few weeks later a similar course was undertaken in Washington with like success. In March, 1867, the Suffolk Conference undertook such a series of lectures in the Boston Theatre, which was crowded to its utmost capacity. Then followed courses of sermons or lectures in Lawrence, New Bedford, Salem, Springfield, Providence, Chicago, and San Francisco, as well as in other places. The council of the National Conference, in 1868, commended this as an important work that should be encouraged. Rev. Adams Ayer was made an agent of the Association to organize such meetings, and their success was remarkable for several years. In 1869 Rev. Charles Lowe spoke of "that wonderful feature of our recent experience," and urged that these meetings should be so organized as to lead to definite results.

An earnest effort was made to organize the theatre congregations into unsectarian societies. It was proposed to form Christian unions that should work for Christian improvement and usefulness. The first result of this effort was the reorganization of the Boston Young Men's Christian Union in the spring of 1868. A similar institution was formed in Providence, to promote worship, education, hospitality and benevolence. Unions were also formed in, Salem, Lowell, Cambridge, New Bedford, New York, and elsewhere.

[Sidenote: Organization of Local Conferences.]

In the autumn of 1865, in order to facilitate the collection of money for the Unitarian Association, a number of local conferences were held in Massachusetts. The first of these met at Somerville, November 14, and was primarily a meeting of the Cambridge Association of Ministers, including all the lay delegates to the New York convention from the churches which that association represented. The result of this meeting was an increase of contributions to the Unitarian Association, and the determination to organize permanently to facilitate that work. Dr. E.E. Hale has stated that the initial suggestion of these meetings came from a conversation between Dr. Bellows and Dr. E.H. Sears, in which the latter said "that a very important element in any effort which should reveal the Unitarian church to itself would be some plan by which neighboring churches would be brought together more familiarly."[20]

The local conferences had distinct antecedents, however, by which their character was doubtless in some degree determined. The early county and other local auxiliaries to the Unitarian Association begun in 1826 and continued for at least twenty years, which were general throughout New England, afforded a precedent; but a more immediate initiative had been taken in New Hampshire, where the New Hampshire Unitarian Association had been organized at Manchester, February 25, 1863. It does not appear that this organization was in any way a revival of the former society of the same name in that state, which was organized at Concord in 1832, and which was very active for a brief period. A Unitarian Church Association of Maine was organized at Portland, September 21, 1852, largely under the influence of Rev. Sylvester Judd, of Augusta; but it had only a brief existence. The Maine Conference of Unitarian Churches was organized at Farmington, July 8, 1863.[21] These organizations antedated the movement for the formation of local conferences on the part of the National Conference; and they doubtless gave motive and impetus to that effort.

On November 30, 1865, a meeting similar to that at Somerville was held by the Franklin Evangelical Association[22] at Springfield, and with similar results. Other meetings were held at Lowell, Dedham, Quincy, Salem, Taunton, Worcester, and Boston. The attendance at all these meetings was large, they developed an enthusiastic interest, and pledges were promptly made looking to larger contributions to the Unitarian Association.

At the Syracuse meeting of the National Conference, in 1866, Dr. Bellows reported for the council in favor of local organizations, auxiliary to the national body. "No great national convention of any kind succeeds," it was declared, "which is not the concurrence of many local conventions, each of which has duties of detail and special spheres of influence upon whose co-operation the final and grand success of the whole depends." A series of resolutions, calling for the formation of local conferences, "to meet at fixed periods, at convenient points, for the organization of missionary work," was presented by Dr. E.E. Hale. In order to carry into effect the intent of these resolutions, Charles Lowe devised a plan of organization, which declared that the object of the local conference "shall be to promote the religious life and mutual sympathy of the churches which unite in it, and to enable them to co-operate in missionary work, and in raising funds for various Christian purposes." The work of organizing such local missionary bodies was taken up at once, and proceeded rapidly. The first one was organized at Sheboygan, Wis., October 24, 1866; and nearly all the churches were brought within the limits of such conferences during the next two years.[23]

In the local conferences, as in the National Conference, two purposes contended for expression that were not compatible with each other as practical incentives to action. The one looked to the uniting of all liberal individuals and denominations in a general organization, and the other aimed at the promotion of distinctly Unitarian interests. In the National Conference the denominational purpose controlled in shaping its permanent policy; but the other intent found expression in the addition of "Other Christian Churches" to the name, though in only the most limited way did such churches connect themselves with the Conference.[24] The local conferences made like provision for those not wishing to call themselves distinctly Unitarian. Such desire for co-operation, however, was in a large degree ineffective because of the fact that the primary aim in the calling into existence of such conferences was an increase in the funds of the Unitarian Association.

[Sidenote: Fellowship and Fraternity.]